Video Referee: Should it be implemented?

**JJU** · 12-04-2004 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by statto

I don't think so, and here's why:

In the NFL (american football for all you non-american blokes) they have video replay, and at least three-four minutes are wasted while the referees go to review it. It completely dampens momentum and while it is not a waste of time it really neither helps nor hinders the outcome of the game, though sometimes they do overrule calls. I hate it and I really hope that they don't have to use it in Soccer.

In the 2004 American League Championship Series, in Baseball, the 6-man umpiring crew correctly talked amongst themselves on two separate decisions, both initially ruled incorrect (by TV replays) but the umpires overruled and made correct decisions both times, without the aid of video replay.

Plus, what would it be used for besides goals? Fouls? Jeez, you could turn the game into an 8-hour affair if the ref had to watch tv on each and e'ery foul that comes our way!

Some very valid points in there, but following the example of rugby, where pretty quick decisions seem to be made based around more complex rules than soccer, it would only take 2-3 minutes delay to decide whether a ball was fully over the goal-line.

I think maybe first the FA need to revisit their policy on not reviewing incidents if the referee dealt with them in the game. Maybe in time the technology will become available to make goalline decisions in a matter of seconds but something still needs to be done about decisions that affect the game in a huge way such as diving for penalties etc.

Oh, and when the logos being updated? :o

**Wednesdaylad43** · 12-05-2004 01:01 PM

In the NFL (american football for all you non-american blokes) they have video replay, and at least three-four minutes are wasted while the referees go to review it. It completely dampens momentum and while it is not a waste of time it really neither helps nor hinders the outcome of the game, though sometimes they do overrule calls. I hate it and I really hope that they don't have to use it in Soccer.

For one, this is so american football can be more commericial, as much as to get a decision. You find with most american sports, a large emphasis is placed on breaks and these are filled with adverts, bringing more money into sport due to television rights and television advertising. You will notice that baseball is split into innings, which contain adverts, and baseball, ice hockey and american football, all have quarters or periods, which can contain large amounts of adverts. Its how sport is, and its happening in the UK and Europe more 2 now.

And my other point was

Yeah, it needs to catch up with rugby, where you very rarely ever see the players arguing with the referee.. it should be something simple like a guy in a room able to communicate with the ref via radio or the like.

the only things they use rugby video refs for are either people being in touch for a try, or the grounding of a ball. this is easy, as the ball has been placed behind the line and the game has stopped anyway, for the kick. It is then not a problem to hold the game for an extra 2 minutes the check the validity of whats gone on, so the flow of the game itself isnt stopped, as it stopped naturally.

With an offside in football, the game would still be going on, and the striker would be through on goal as it were, so to stop and consult the video for it would mean stopping the attack itself, unlike rugby. The only way i can see it all working is if offsides are decided by a camera, and the players continue playing until the shot has been taken, and if it is a goal, the video is checked for offside and if it is offside, freekick, if not, the goal stands. But this means there is a natural break in play because of a goal or otherwise, so no need to stop, plus theres no need to hold the game up if the striker bangs it into the stands

Thats my view anyway, cheers for bothering to read

**manyoolova** · 12-05-2004 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Wednesdaylad43

In the NFL (american football for all you non-american blokes) they have video replay, and at least three-four minutes are wasted while the referees go to review it. It completely dampens momentum and while it is not a waste of time it really neither helps nor hinders the outcome of the game, though sometimes they do overrule calls. I hate it and I really hope that they don't have to use it in Soccer.

For one, this is so american football can be more commericial, as much as to get a decision. You find with most american sports, a large emphasis is placed on breaks and these are filled with adverts, bringing more money into sport due to television rights and television advertising. You will notice that baseball is split into innings, which contain adverts, and baseball, ice hockey and american football, all have quarters or periods, which can contain large amounts of adverts. Its how sport is, and its happening in the UK and Europe more 2 now.

And my other point was

Yeah, it needs to catch up with rugby, where you very rarely ever see the players arguing with the referee.. it should be something simple like a guy in a room able to communicate with the ref via radio or the like.

the only things they use rugby video refs for are either people being in touch for a try, or the grounding of a ball. this is easy, as the ball has been placed behind the line and the game has stopped anyway, for the kick. It is then not a problem to hold the game for an extra 2 minutes the check the validity of whats gone on, so the flow of the game itself isnt stopped, as it stopped naturally.

With an offside in football, the game would still be going on, and the striker would be through on goal as it were, so to stop and consult the video for it would mean stopping the attack itself, unlike rugby. The only way i can see it all working is if offsides are decided by a camera, and the players continue playing until the shot has been taken, and if it is a goal, the video is checked for offside and if it is offside, freekick, if not, the goal stands. But this means there is a natural break in play because of a goal or otherwise, so no need to stop, plus theres no need to hold the game up if the striker bangs it into the stands

Thats my view anyway, cheers for bothering to read

I think that the player through on goal should be allowed to play on and score or whatever and then the ref would consult the vidio ref(if he needed to), who should already have a definate decision because he will have so many camera angles and replays available that it would be almost impossible not to

**Wednesdaylad43** · 12-06-2004 04:27 PM

And this will be going along with whatever FIFA says.....

Anyone got a definate answer to what FIFA says the offside rule is, without research? Is it clear daylight between players?

It wont happen, football isnt meant to have video, it isnt going to work. For me, its perfect as it is

**Chester Guy** · 12-06-2004 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Wednesdaylad43

Anyone got a definate answer to what FIFA says the offside rule is, without research? Is it clear daylight between players?

At the moment it seems to be a case of the linesman lifts his flag everytime the ball goes down the end that we're attacking even when the attacker's behind the defender :x

**Wednesdaylad43** · 12-06-2004 08:23 PM

Thats the sort of biased post i like to see

**JJU** · 01-05-2005 06:18 AM

Says it all really doesn't it...

I reiterate... football NEEDS to catch up and use a video ref for such decisions. If this was in place this season the league table would potentially be looking quite different!

**VirtuaStriker** · 01-08-2005 03:41 PM

Whoa, good to see this old post is still going

Been away for sometime myself.

Good arguments from all sides...intriguing reading.

**VirtuaStriker** · 01-08-2005 03:45 PM

Whats this idea about putting a microchip in the ball? Anyone have info?

**Wednesdaylad43** · 01-08-2005 04:42 PM

Right, fair point, we all know the ball was over the line, and we cant argue with that. So the ball is over, and ref blows his whistle to look at the video for it.

Now for the sake of this debate we say that roy caroll stopped the ball on the line, he didnt, but if he had, then how does the game restart? drop ball in the centre circle? What if there is a goal line scramble and neither team has control of the ball, and the ref has to check the replays, how do u restart then? both teams have an equally strong claim to regain posession of the ball.

Plus, say he stopped the ball on the line still, and the ref has to stop the game to see what has happened, who is to say that because it wasnt over the line, roy caroll got up and kicked a long ball upfield, flick on, and a goal. Man u then get robbed, as the ref will have stopped play to check the video. However, these are hypothetical points, as well all know Roy threw the ball over the line =D>

That is why you cant have video in football, as there is no natural stop in play to implement it like in other sports.

plus the ohter argument of how far you take video evidence. Goal line yeah, offsides maybe, fouls, why bother with a referee at all. The argument is lets not have all decisions on video as it will make the game to long, but who is to say that one of these decisions wont cost someone a goal. Yeah, using video for the goal line will say a goal yes or no, but what if a goal is scored and the ref didnt see a foul in the build up, same thing, no video, but still a goal, so how far does video replaying reach? i dont think anyone knows a cut of point for it

**manyoolova** · 01-10-2005 05:54 PM

On Sky Sports News today, they went behind the scenes of the rugby video referee and what happens is the video ref only makes a decision if the ref asks for it.

**manyoolova** · 01-10-2005 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by VirtuaStriker

Whats this idea about putting a microchip in the ball? Anyone have info?

sorry, VirtuaStriker, this is the only info i could get

Football's Big Brother

BBC Sport Online's Anna Thompson examines the latest football technology - microchips

David Ginola and other so-called "lazy" footballers had better watch out.

Big Brother is watching you.

Technology has been developed so that managers can scientifically study players' performances.

So those who aren't pulling their weight and are hauled off the pitch to be substituted will have no excuse.

Hard evidence will be on hand from wired-up coaches.

Scientists at Liverpool's John Moores University have developed microchip sensors which can be attached to shirts and boots.

Dawdling

Liverpool and Everton footballers have taken part in trials, where information about the position of footballers' limbs, work rate and speed are looked at.

Instantaneous information about how a team is playing can be fed to a team of analysts with laptop computers at the touchline.

"This system is a real breakthrough - its use could change the outcome of a game," said Jim Lawlor, a sports science lecturer who developed the concept.

Lawlor believes the system could be up and running within 18 months.

So footballers dawdling on the wing will soon have no hiding place.

**VirtuaStriker** · 01-10-2005 06:01 PM

Interesting, thanks.

**JJU** · 01-10-2005 07:17 PM

Something maybe a little more relevant can be found at:

http://sg.sports.yahoo.com/050105/3/3pp19.html

And to comment on Wednesdaylad's last comments, I think it is entirely down to the lawmakers of the game to decide where to use video replays. Obviously not for every foul, but it's easy enough to say it is to be used for goal-line decisions and penalties (ie Rooney vs Arsenal). Off-sides should remain the sole responsiblity of the linesman, so there's your 'human' element.

In the event a goal is not given, play can be restared by the defending team, but under the same premises as a free-kick or throw after the ball has been put out deliberately, ie they play it back to the opposing team?