There is literally no valid argument for every goal or close call for a goal to not be video reviewed to check for offside/whether the ball crossed the line at the international level.

The fourth division in England and the dirt leagues in Africa can fuck off and die, the fact that a billion people around the world know what happened and the referee doesn't is a complete joke.

So true

Blame FIFA and the Africans for making football lose the last bit of credibility it had.

Copying from my post in the Mex-Arg thread:

In American football, coaches have 2-3 challenges
per game and can challenge any call made by the referee except
penalties.

In ice hockey, every goal is reviewed by the league
office if there's any question of it's validity, takes 5 minutes max and
they get it right every time.

In baseball, if there's any
question of whether a ball left the park or if it was fair or foul, they
look at the replay, takes 2 minutes, they get it right.

In
basketball, shots taken at the end of a shot clock/quarter are reviewed
to make sure they were released before time expired, and in the playoffs
any possession call is reviewed if it's close in the last 2 minutes of a
game.

In America, a blown call hurts a sporting league's
legitimacy, if a sporting league is perceived to not be legitimate, it
loses customers to the other sports. Football is never going to lose
customers to other sports because there aren't other prominent team
sports to take customers away. FIFA can do whatever the fuck it wants
because it will never matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3Oc-6Brdw

I dont like the instant replay, I dont think if fits football, but I like the idea of the chip in the ball.

I just wacthed an interview on CNN where the reporter explains Seph Blater reasons to not use the ball and you can see its a bit complicated.

Adapting the American concept of timeouts or long delays while plays are reviewed will be an epic fail football. We don't want your ad breaks.

If we had replays to rule goals out for offside then Brazil never would have beaten Ghana in 2006.

Replays for goals doesn't stop referees being biased towards the elite teams. It might stop them awarding wrong goals, or not awarding right goals, but there are plenty of other ways for the officials to influence a game.

Hence, I think replays are a waste of time. Competent, uncorruptable referees would be the first port of call. And blowing up FIFA headquarters.

Juligen wrote:I dont like the instant replay, I dont think if fits football, but I like the idea of the chip in the ball.

I just wacthed an interview on CNN where the reporter explains Seph Blater reasons to not use the ball and you can see its a bit complicated.

While I hate FIFA's irrational tech-phobia, I also think going to the other extreme of everything going into replay will be to the detriment of this beautiful game...

Use of technology should be judicious, and should neither significantly impact the flow of the game, nor dumb down the referee. Any significant impact on the smooth flow of the game will only make things worse for the audience, and dumbing down the referee should only be attempted if its universal - the arguement FIFA currently have against technology.

Thats why I like the tennis style challenge system, over the cricket style "third umpire"... coz the challenge system puts the onus on the player rather than the referee/umpire. Also, its usually the 1 or 2 key incorrect decisions which cause most of the anguish... so if you allow the teams say 2 "challenges" each per game, which will be decided by the 5th official using replay/chip technology, that should take care of most of the anguish. It will not impact the flow too much (as we have seen in other sports), and can be left to each tournament to decide whether they want to implement it - it does not have to be universal as the referee still takes the initial call on everything. And it does put the onus of careful "challenges" on the teams, you cannot blame the referee if you waste your challenges on correct decisions. Also, FIFA could decide what kind of decisions can be challenged - it should be allowed only for the critical game changing ones.

kas wrote:Adapting the American concept of timeouts or long delays while plays are reviewed will be an epic fail football. We don't want your ad breaks.

Agree on that point.

kas wrote:Adapting the American concept of timeouts or long delays while plays are reviewed will be an epic fail football. We don't want your ad breaks.

But what is intersting is to see how the TV-referee comes to his conclusion so we also can judge the decision...

That won't be an epic fail but an extra plus to the game!