Someone answer this question. Every week games are decided by either corrupt or horrendously incompetent refs, sometimes it costs teams big time like tonight.

We're in the dark ages here, football hasn't moved on since the 1930s ffs, it's still a corrupt primitive pile of horsehsit.

It is a tough sport to introduce video replays for. What incidents do you use it for and how often do you use it ?

Every penalty incident ?

Every goal ?

The ref just missed this tonight because there is no way he would have let that go otherwise. Maybe this 5 ref nonsense is the easiest solution. It certainly would have worked tonight

Put in polls for the TV watchers,
you press a yes/no button and it will be displayed on the scoreboard, the most votes win

Well...most football programmes are mainly about the fact if it was hands/red card/offside etc. If we use video evidence the pace will go out of the game, but with people like Thierry Handry around its a must to have it. The German FA aka FIFA wont have it though.

COTR #6 wrote:It is a tough sport to introduce video replays for. What incidents do you use it for and how often do you use it ?

Every penalty incident ?

Every goal ?

The ref just missed this tonight because there is no way he would have let that go otherwise. Maybe this 5 ref nonsense is the easiest solution. It certainly would have worked tonight

We get instant replays, a man watching a TV can tell the ref whether a goal he has given isn't one or a penalty he has given isn't one in 10 seconds. Perhaps it might be based on how sure a ref is, if he is less than 90% about a big decision then ask the man in the room. Obviously some will slip through the net, like in rugby, but it will definitely cut down on the bullshit. At the moment the game is a farce.

Of course video evidence is bad for the pace of the game. But instead of 2 extra referees behind the goals you could put them in front of a screen and they would only interfere if some really strange thing happens. Like that goal. Or a decison if a ball crossed the line or not. Otherwise the game would be on as normal.

Half the decisions that go to Video refs are still indeterminable and will still cause controversy which doesn't help converting a bunch of old farts to using it.

They'd probably have to use a challenge system like Tennis rather than put it down to the referees and for game pace reasons you'd probably only be able to change decisions which result in the game pausing, so the Anelka penalty incident would have to be left alone.

No need for it.

Dwarf wrote:Half the decisions that go to Video refs are still indeterminable and will still cause controversy which doesn't help converting a bunch of old farts to using it.

They'd probably have to use a challenge system like Tennis rather than put it down to the referees and for game pace reasons you'd probably only be able to change decisions which result in the game pausing, so the Anelka penalty incident would have to be left alone.

Not to a qualified referee it shouldn't be, they're paid alot of money for this shit. Honestly i don't really give a shit if it slows the games down by about a minute or two overall, as long as the sport gets a bit of integrity back. It's not exactly a fast sport anyway these days.

EM La Liga wrote:No need for it.

So what happened in the France/Ireland game is fine is it? That's football to you?

Kimbo wrote:

EM La Liga wrote:No need for it.

So what happened in the France/Ireland game is fine is it? That's football to you?

Yeah its Football these things happen over and over again so its normal.

Like Fey said, i think FIFA like the controversy.

EM La Liga wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

EM La Liga wrote:No need for it.

So what happened in the France/Ireland game is fine is it? That's football to you?

Yeah its Football these things happen over and over again so its normal.

You see what you've done there don't you, you've accidently successfully argued against your own point.

EM La Liga wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

EM La Liga wrote:No need for it.

So what happened in the France/Ireland game is fine is it? That's football to you?

Yeah its Football these things happen over and over again so its normal.

Thats the traditional way of seeing it.

In the early years you couldnt substitute players. That change is far bigger and its still football now. It made the game more tactical and overall better.

Video evidence would be the next step. It would came in only on the big stages anyway.

Kimbo wrote:
Not to a qualified referee it shouldn't be,

Offside decisions and goal line related incidents can be exceptionally tight even by professional standards and penalty incidents when players are dragging there leg searching for contact can be as well.

I love the controversy

MadVillain™ wrote:I love the controversy

I'm sure you'll love it when it costs Spurs in a big game, when Spurs do eventually play in a big game.

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:Like Fey said, i think FIFA like the controversy.

I think they also like the ability to shut off the complaints with "the referee couldn't see it", "he's a human that has to decide in a second", "it was too fast"...
With a more objective camera assisted system in place, the eventual mistakes or 50-50 decisions would end up looking more like deliberate rigging.

Anyway they'll have to make some step towards it sooner or later.
TV imagery is already considered for post-match trials, and sometimes also for in-match decisions (Zidane headbutt...).

Dwarf wrote:Offside decisions and goal line related incidents can be exceptionally tight even by professional standards and penalty incidents when players are dragging there leg searching for contact can be as well.

Well actually offsides and goal line issues should be quite easy to sort, provided there is a well tought dedicated cameras setup on the sidelines and in the goal - the angled and panning tv shots of course are not enough.

I agree many in-game fouls would remain very tricky anyway.

In theory it would be nice if the refs got every decision correct but the truth is Ireland didn't go out because of that. Ireland had several clear chances to score a second and the likes of Keane and Duff didn't finish. That is at least equally influential, to me, in the result as the referee not giving a hand ball. Maybe more. Games are decided over 90 minutes not 1.

Logistically I don't see how replay can be easily introduced. I don't think Kimbo's 10 second estimate is realistic. Maybe referees on the end line would help as others have mentioned. Maybe not.

Anyway, what would we have to talk about if there were no controversial decisions?

we could talk about controversial decisions made from the judging of the video replay.

i love how the do it in rugby, ref does a little tv signal, is on the mic to the guy in the box and within 20 seconds (max, depending on how complicated it is) they have a decision made.

The world cup final between england and south africa was decided because of this! We scored a try that originally everyone thought was a try, but because of video replays the ref was told that the player had touched the line prior to touching the ball over the line, so it was ruled out, eventually meaning that seeth eefrica won the world cup. now, imagine if what henry did happened in the world cup final, exact same situation - the losing country would be COMPLETELY robbed.

tits.

I don't think all the tv rugby decisions are made within 20 seconds, it is more like 20 seconds minimum but the game is already stopped because for example the ball has been touched down for a try or out of play.

I wonder if Wenger would've seen the handball.....

abundance wrote:
Well actually offsides and goal line issues should be quite easy to sort, provided there is a well tought dedicated cameras setup on the sidelines and in the goal - the angled and panning tv shots of course are not enough.

They can still all be of relatively little use leading to a 50/50 decision for the TV judge. They'll also be a different mentality to staying onside when you know there's nothing to gain by excessive cheating which won't help matters either.

I still can't see how you can this for an offside. Let's say one players is call for an offside. The TV ref sees there was not offside. What then? They resume play from that position like in snooker?

Sorry but for me video evidence is the most stupid thing they can do.

I agree, I don't think the use of video will work in football. If video replays are introduced, we should also change the format of the game completely, to 30-minute halves with a stopping clock.

It would work for goals though.

The amount of time players spent running around last night shouting "HAND BALL SO IT WAS!" at the ref could've easily been used to check a video.

Ray Parlour wrote:I wonder if Wenger would've seen the handball.....

Wenger was commentating for TF1 and said France went through thanks to a refereeing error.

To start with why not implement a tennis style objection system for all decisions that stop the game momentarily anyway. Decisions such as Penalty, Red-card, goal etc stop the game for nearly a minute.

If the opposing captain/manager has an issue he can ask for a replay. And to ensure that they dont do it every minute limit it to 3 per game.

Unfortunately as someone suggested it will be detrimental to interests of FIFA as they cannot get away with blatant rigging like one Wednesday.

I'm in favor of a tennis like appeal option. Will hardly affect the game & make it more fair.

1 of the main reasons why the conservative footy authorities do not change the rules, is that they want football rules to be the same at all levels. Video based objection is not doable at all levels. I have no problems with additional rules for the highest levels.

21GunnerSalute wrote:To start with why not implement a tennis style objection system for all decisions that stop the game momentarily anyway. Decisions such as Penalty, Red-card, goal etc stop the game for nearly a minute.

Right so if a decision has been made, there is a stoppage where you could in theory, verify the decision. But it's the missed decisions that are harder, for me, to understand how you would go back after play has carried on while a particular situation is reviewed.