Video technology NOW!

[Pangaea]

There have already been two incidents today where the referees have made the wrong decision. England got a right goal called off, while Argentina got a wrong goal allowed. Both these incidents would have easily been verified with video technology. For the second goal, it looks like the linesman saw the incident on a big screen, so he knew it was wrong, but still couldn't disallow it cause they're not supposed to look at those screens (not allowed to broadcast 'controversial' events). That may well be true about the England goal too. Perhaps they understood based on player reactions that there was a goal, but they couldn't overturn it.

For a very long time I have wanted video technology to prevent terrible decisions like this, that in one way or another impacts the result of games. 2-2 at half-time means Germany can't sit back and counter England to death. 1-0 to Argentina puts Mexico in a very rough spot. Now they just scored 2-0, but the point still stands. It's also terrible psychologically to know you have a goal allowed that never should have stood, or vice versa for England.

Video technology, as opposed to goal-line referee, would also greatly help to discourage diving and play-acting. We as the TV-viewer have the ability to view all kinds of events from a zillion angles, so it's easy to call a dive or a wrong offside decision. The referees have no such luxury. They must make the call on the spot, with zero replay. I actually think they do a very good job, given the framework surrounding their job. We shouldn't really blame the referees (too much) for these wrong calls, but rather FIFA who are living in the dark ages and refusing to implement solutions to these problems.

Video technology works really well in various settings, like ice hockey, tennis (last I saw a big tournament anyway) and baseball (according to some commentators today at least, I haven't watched the sport myself). Especially for big tournaments like the World Cup, where FIFA get piles of money their way, the extra cost of video technology is not a big issue. There already are videocameras installed in the goals, the referees just have to be able to make decisions based on their images.

There have been so many incidents with playacting, diving, offsides and goals in this World Cup, so this time FIFA have to act. Perhaps crucially, a "big" nation has been affected. Perhaps that can sway FIFA into action. We know they like money, a lot, so perhaps pressure from a influential country like England can help them make the right decision.

The sports badly needs a reform in this area. And it needs it NOW!

[bomma]

While I do agree something needs to be done, I don't think Video Technology is the way.

It an interesting debate.

If we introduce, do we introduce it at all levels? That would be very difficult so we are left with different rules for different levels, which is wrong.

However teams can go out of tournaments, get relegated, etc due to a poor decision by the referee.

Do we want to take out the controversy out of the game? Without that, there would be few talking points.

Personally I like the system they have in the Europa League.

[Paul Bacon]

Wont happen until Switzerland get a dodgy decision against them

[Paul Bacon]

That would be very difficult so we are left with different rules for different levels, which is wrong.

Rugby League they only use video ref for Sky games

[bluebirds4life]

While I do agree something needs to be done, I don't think Video Technology is the way.

It an interesting debate.

If we introduce, do we introduce it at all levels? That would be very difficult so we are left with different rules for different levels, which is wrong.

However teams can go out of tournaments, get relegated, etc due to a poor decision by the referee.

Do we want to take out the controversy out of the game? Without that, there would be few talking points.

Personally I like the system they have in the Europa League.

What do they do in the Europa League?

[englandmanager]

if you build it they will come

[bomma]

What do they do in the Europa League?

Have extra refs on both ends.

[GillsMan]

What do they do in the Europa League?

An extra official behind each goal iirc. Would have spotted Lampard's goal in theory.

[ANDEHLSON]

Personally I like the system they have in the Europa League.

You do realize those refs rarely (if ever) do anything?

From penalties to handballs and agressions I've seen plenty of these, and they failed to do anything about 90% of them.

[Cobbler]

If we introduce, do we introduce it at all levels? That would be very difficult so we are left with different rules for different levels, which is wrong.

Every sport has different rules at different levels. Including football. Go to a sunday league game and see whether there is a fourth official all miked up talking to a professional referee...

[LewisQ]

The second incident proves why FIFA are absolutely 100% 24-carat CORRECT to resist video technology. The assistant didn't realise he'd made an error until he saw the replay. People were baying for goal-line technology, now they want offside decisions too? Do we stop after every goal to spot a possible infringement? Does some video official whisper in the ref's ear that a goal must be disallowed when he sees a certain replay from a certain angle, often after the game has restarted? Can you imagine what that would do to football?

FIFA are entirely right to ignore the media mob and keep the game pure and standardised across all levels and the entire world. Both decisions today could have been called correctly by competent officials. It's not a matter of man vs. machine, it's competent vs. incompetent.

[bluebirds4life]

Now that is a good idea, would they have spotted let's say (Tonight's game )

Tevez's goal tonight

@ These Europa officials

[Coentrao]

You do realize those refs rarely (if ever) do anything?

From penalties to handballs and agressions I've seen plenty of these, and they failed to do anything about 90% of them.

This is true lol, i've sometimes wondered why they were there in the 1st place... and from what i've read those extra refs will be in the Champions League as well this year i think.

I'm all for Video replay.. the positives outweigh the few negatives by far!

[LokedOut420]

The second incident proves why FIFA are absolutely 100% 24-carat CORRECT to resist video technology. The assistant didn't realise he'd made an error until he saw the replay. People were baying for goal-line technology, now they want offside decisions too? Do we stop after every goal to spot a possible infringement? Does some video official whisper in the ref's ear that a goal must be disallowed when he sees a certain replay from a certain angle, often after the game has restarted? Can you imagine what that would do to football?

FIFA are entirely right to ignore the media mob and keep the game pure and standardised across all levels and the entire world. Both decisions today could have been called correctly by competent officials. It's not a matter of man vs. machine, it's competent vs. incompetent.

what rubbish. you don't have to stop play to check the replay. they had no problem broadcasting it on the big screen before the kickoff, so why can't they beam it to a monitor and give the 4th official some relevancy.

[LewisQ]

Even in cricket (snail's pace compared to football, and it STILL slows the game down unbearably), they're limited to the broadcast feed. Who beams it to the fourth official? Who directs what's beamed to the fourth official? In what sequence? If the game has restarted, can he still disallow it? Does the referee have to see it? Stick to the fatball, my friend, you'll find satisfaction there.

[Skoolblowsme]

While I do agree something needs to be done, I don't think Video Technology is the way.

It an interesting debate.

If we introduce, do we introduce it at all levels? That would be very difficult so we are left with different rules for different levels, which is wrong.

However teams can go out of tournaments, get relegated, etc due to a poor decision by the referee.

Do we want to take out the controversy out of the game? Without that, there would be few talking points.

Personally I like the system they have in the Europa League.

I can't stand this "what levels do we introduce it at" argument. In EVERY single sport in the world there are different standards at different levels. The highest level is the most televised, has the most money involved, etc. so the highest level in every sport, except for football, have some type of video replay that is used.

The highest level, like the World Cup, should at the very least have video replay implemented. Then it can be introduced lower and lower depending on costs, need, etc.

This tournament comes around once every four years. For some players they will never play in this tournament again, and to go out of the competition on a goal that could have easily been avoided/given by video replay that takes 4 seconds, would be absolutely heartbreaking.

[Pangaea]

Do like they do in ice hockey - to my understanding. Have some peoples watching the incidents in a separate room, with radio contact wit the referees. If something is wrong, call the ref and let him correct it. There is the odd stop in the game, but it works very well, and there are very few clearly wrong decisions. As we have seen aplenty this WC, there are just too many decisions the refs get wrong.

Overall I do think they do a good job, but the game is so much quicker today than just 10 years ago, so some decisions are bound to be wrong. They are only humans after all. But with video technology these things could be largely weeded out of the game. Like in ice hockey.

Ultimately the fault lies with FIFA, not the referees, although both incidents today could and perhaps should have been spotted.

[Confused Clarity]

While I do agree something needs to be done, I don't think Video Technology is the way.

It an interesting debate.

If we introduce, do we introduce it at all levels? That would be very difficult so we are left with different rules for different levels, which is wrong.

However teams can go out of tournaments, get relegated, etc due to a poor decision by the referee.

Do we want to take out the controversy out of the game? Without that, there would be few talking points.

Personally I like the system they have in the Europa League.

Why should it be introduced at all levels?

You're aware the system from the Europa League would not be able to be implemented at all levels either right? There's already a shortage of officials lower down the football pyramid, there's no way that could be implemented on a large scale.

Video technology absolutely should be used at International tournaments, at Continental tournaments and in the top leagues of countries who can afford it. It's the best solution that does not impact the lower levels of the game.

[Cobbler]

FIFA are entirely right to ignore the media mob and keep the game pure and standardised across all levels and the entire world. Both decisions today could have been called correctly by competent officials. It's not a matter of man vs. machine, it's competent vs. incompetent.

So if the specially selected cream of the world's officials, having undergone rigerous training, cannot be relied upon to be competent, what exactly are you suggesting.

Case for video for goaline decisions is irrefutable imo. It's nothing to do with being competent or incompetent - if youre not dead in line or someone is in the way, the most competent official will miss the decision. It's easy to do, doesn't come up that much and would be spectacularly easy to implement. There's literally no reason not to do it.

[skybluedave]

What Gregg said \0/

[Confused Clarity]

The second incident proves why FIFA are absolutely 100% 24-carat CORRECT to resist video technology. The assistant didn't realise he'd made an error until he saw the replay. People were baying for goal-line technology, now they want offside decisions too? Do we stop after every goal to spot a possible infringement? Does some video official whisper in the ref's ear that a goal must be disallowed when he sees a certain replay from a certain angle, often after the game has restarted? Can you imagine what that would do to football?

FIFA are entirely right to ignore the media mob and keep the game pure and standardised across all levels and the entire world. Both decisions today could have been called correctly by competent officials. It's not a matter of man vs. machine, it's competent vs. incompetent.

Why is it wrong to review any goal WHERE THERE IS DOUBT? It doesn't have to be every goal, just where there is the possibilty of whether it crossed the line, whether there was an infringement or whether there was an offside.

[LokedOut420]

Even in cricket (snail's pace compared to football, and it STILL slows the game down unbearably), they're limited to the broadcast feed. Who beams it to the fourth official? Who directs what's beamed to the fourth official? In what sequence? If the game has restarted, can he still disallow it? Does the referee have to see it? Stick to the fatball, my friend, you'll find satisfaction there.

wtf are on about? fatball?

the same people that beam it to the feed in the stadium and to your television would be able to get it to the 4th official.

[Pangaea]

I can't stand this "what levels do we introduce it at" argument. In EVERY single sport in the world there are different standards at different levels. The highest level is the most televised, has the most money involved, etc. so the highest level in every sport, except for football, have some type of video replay that is used.

The highest level, like the World Cup, should at the very least have video replay implemented. Then it can be introduced lower and lower depending on costs, need, etc.

This tournament comes around once every four years. For some players they will never play in this tournament again, and to go out of the competition on a goal that could have easily been avoided/given by video replay that takes 4 seconds, would be absolutely heartbreaking.

Exactly. It only takes a few seconds to watch the replay for additional officials. The players won't even have finished celebrating before a right decision has been made. It's not like play will be stopped every two minutes to check the video replays. The refs can be contacted when something has been done wrong, so the flow of play is unaffected most of the time.

I think the big point here is to get crucial decisions like goals and red cards correct. It's just wrong that people should get sent off or goals allowed/disallowed erroneously. This tournament happens only once every four years, so a little bit of extra effort to get things right won't go amiss.

How much does it cost to host a World Cup?

How much does it cost to let referees watch a video and talk to the referee (which the fourth official already have contact with)?

I'd say the extra cost, at least for the WC, is negligible.

[Skoolblowsme]

For all these people who say it takes too much time, at took the linesman and the head referee a good minute to discuss the goal that Tevez scored. All the fourth official would need to do was look at a replay and give the ref a decision in 10 seconds. All controversy avoided, game resumed in less time than it took for the officials to discuss it.

[Skoolblowsme]

Exactly. It only takes a few seconds to watch the replay for additional officials. The players won't even have finished celebrating before a right decision has been made. It's not like play will be stopped every two minutes to check the video replays. The refs can be contacted when something has been done wrong, so the flow of play is unaffected most of the time.

I think the big point here is to get crucial decisions like goals and red cards correct. It's just wrong that people should get sent off or goals allowed/disallowed erroneously. This tournament happens only once every four years, so a little bit of extra effort to get things right won't go amiss.

How much does it cost to host a World Cup?

How much does it cost to let referees watch a video and talk to the referee (which the fourth official already have contact with)?

I'd say the extra cost, at least for the WC, is negligible.

Exactly what I said in another thread.

The cost is not a factor whatsoever as you say, it's those stubborn high-ups at FIFA. The cameras are already implemented in the goal ffs! Just have someone look at the dam replays from them.

[Cobbler]

Why is it wrong to review any goal WHERE THERE IS DOUBT? It doesn't have to be every goal, just where there is the possibilty of whether it crossed the line, whether there was a foul or whether there was an offside.

As I said, goaline decisions, there is no reason not to.

The other things are a lot more arguable. For a start, you say 'review every goal where there's doubt', but how far back are you going? Maybe a handball was missed a minute earlier at the other end. Just in the act of scoring? What if the player who played the final pass had been offside when he received the ball? Secondly, what about where there isn't a goal? Are we only penalising the attacking team? What about all the times when a player is wrongly flagged offside and play stops? Do the linesmen stop giving marginal offsides thinking 'well if he scores we can look at the replay then'?

[Jason the Yank]

Do like they do in ice hockey - to my understanding. Have some peoples watching the incidents in a separate room, with radio contact wit the referees. If something is wrong, call the ref and let him correct it. There is the odd stop in the game, but it works very well, and there are very few clearly wrong decisions. As we have seen aplenty this WC, there are just too many decisions the refs get wrong.

The NHL video rules only cover goals.

[Skoolblowsme]

As I said, goaline decisions, there is no reason not to.

The other things are a lot more arguable. For a start, you say 'review every goal where there's doubt', but how far back are you going? Maybe a handball was missed a minute earlier at the other end. Just in the act of scoring? What if the player who played the final pass had been offside when he received the ball? Secondly, what about where there isn't a goal? Are we only penalising the attacking team? What about all the times when a player is wrongly flagged offside and play stops? Do the linesmen stop giving marginal offsides thinking 'well if he scores we can look at the replay then'?

He didn't say where there is doubt, he said 'where there is the possibility of whether it crossed the line.' So you can't start saying how far will it go, there is only one instance when it should be used. All the other things you say are purely opinion from the referee, none are factual, like a ball crossing the line or not.

[Cobbler]

He didn't say where there is doubt, he said 'where there is the possibility of whether it crossed the line.'

Yes he did, I quoted what he said?! He even put it in bloody capitals!

[Skoolblowsme]

Yes he did, I quoted what he said?! He even put it in bloody capitals!

He said it doesn't have to be every goal, just whether it crossed the line or not....

It doesn't have to be every goal, just where there is the possibilty of whether it crossed the line

[Confused Clarity]

As I said, goaline decisions, there is no reason not to.

The other things are a lot more arguable. For a start, you say 'review every goal where there's doubt', but how far back are you going? Maybe a handball was missed a minute earlier at the other end. Just in the act of scoring? What if the player who played the final pass had been offside when he received the ball? Secondly, what about where there isn't a goal? Are we only penalising the attacking team? What about all the times when a player is wrongly flagged offside and play stops? Do the linesmen stop giving marginal offsides thinking 'well if he scores we can look at the replay then'?

Have the referee decide?

If he feels that there's a dubious decision somewhere, then he says "from such and such a point, Is there any reason why I cannot award a goal?"

I know what you're saying, and am not really sure what the solution is, but that's the best I can think of.

[Cobbler]

He said it doesn't have to be every goal, just whether it crossed the line or not....

Seriously, it's just up the page, will you stop incorrectly telling me what Gregg said and actually go and read it. I'll even quote it for you again:

Why is it wrong to review any goal WHERE THERE IS DOUBT? It doesn't have to be every goal, just where there is the possibilty of whether it crossed the line, whether there was an infringement or whether there was an offside.

[Confused Clarity]

He didn't say where there is doubt, he said 'where there is the possibility of whether it crossed the line.' So you can't start saying how far will it go, there is only one instance when it should be used. All the other things you say are purely opinion from the referee, none are factual, like a ball crossing the line or not.

I did actually. Cobbler is right.

[Confused Clarity]

He said it doesn't have to be every goal, just whether it crossed the line or not....

I also said other things too ffs.

[Pangaea]

The NHL video rules only cover goals.

Thanks. That is a great place to start. Maybe this is just for Olympics or World Champs, but I think I've seen ice hockey refs consult with others on other events too, like harsh tackles, slashings or something like that. But I may be incorrect as I don't exactly follow that sport.

I just hope the controversy this time around will be severe enough so that FIFA have to act. That's the only good thing about it.

[Nikos]

I play Sunday League football without linesmen. I am outraged that they are used in the World Cup, it clearly should be the same at all levels.

[Icondacarver]

Every sport has different rules at different levels. Including football. Go to a sunday league game and see whether there is a fourth official all miked up talking to a professional referee...

He does not mean that and you know it. Will it be the same in Africa, South America and the levels just below the top flight. It brings a "challenge" system into the game as you would have to challenge the referees decision or wait for the 5th official to overrule.

Watching it will be an entirely different experience from watching games without it. I think more officials are needed as an extra official would have spotted both incidences today.

[Skoolblowsme]

Seriously, it's just up the page, will you stop incorrectly telling me what Gregg said and actually go and read it. I'll even quote it for you again:

I did actually. Cobbler is right.

Ok, I thought you meant to just look at goals whether they crossed the line or not. I saw that you put where there is doubt, but then I thought your next sentence you were saying we could do that but it should just be goals that crossed the line or not.

Anywho, I think that goals should only be reviewed to see whether they crossed the line or not. Anything else leading up to the goal is purely opinion by the referee

[Pangaea]

Watching it will be an entirely different experience from watching games without it. I think more officials are needed as an extra official would have spotted both incidences today.

It will add a better safety net against mistakes, but I think the best solution is video technology. There is soooo much money in football, the cost of implementing it is very negligible. And the reward is a cleaner sport with fewer controversial match-changing decisions.

[McMaster#28]

Let's be honest, the only step FIFA will take now is to ban replays being shown in the stadiums for the rest of the World Cup games.

[Icondacarver]

Video technology absolutely should be used at International tournaments, at Continental tournaments and in the top leagues of countries who can afford it. It's the best solution that does not impact the lower levels of the game.

Thats what is stopping Fifa right there, you would have it at the Euros, the World Cup, The Champions League, the top european leagues like England & Spain and maybe the Uefa cup.

The rest of football will most likely not have it which leads to a greater gap between the top leagues and the rest, as most people will watch the games with video technology and overlook the other leagues even more.

Remember Fifa is for the world and not just for England and the premier league and we need to reduce the difference in the various levels of the game.

[Icondacarver]

It will add a better safety net against mistakes, but I think the best solution is video technology. There is soooo much money in football, the cost of implementing it is very negligible. And the reward is a cleaner sport with fewer controversial match-changing decisions.

The cost for big European leagues is negligible but for the rest of football where they still use only 2 or 3 camera at games it isnt so easy.

[Confused Clarity]

Why does it matter if it's used at levels just below it or not?

It also doesn't have to be a challenge system. It just needs to be the referee reviewing it when there is doubt in his mind. At the moment, the referees do have doubt, but they have to use their instincts. Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right. If they have a back up with technology, what's the problem?

I don't see the problem with it being different types of games to watch either. I watch a rugby side that play in Division Four East of the Welsh league. We don't have video technology. There really isn't THAT much of a difference in terms of the enjoyment between that an the games I watch on tv when it comes to the decisions that are refered to the video referee.

[Confused Clarity]

Thats what is stopping Fifa right there, you would have it at the Euros, the World Cup, The Champions League, the top european leagues like England & Spain and maybe the Uefa cup.

The rest of football will most likely not have it which leads to a greater gap between the top leagues and the rest, as most people will watch the games with video technology and overlook the other leagues even more.

Remember Fifa is for the world and not just for England and the premier league and we need to reduce the difference in the various levels of the game.

I don't see the problem.

If it's affordable. People use it. If it's not they don't. So long as it's the same across the entire competition, or round of the competition so that it's a level playing field, really, what is the problem?

[Icondacarver]

Why does it matter if it's used at levels just below it or not?

It also doesn't have to be a challenge system. It just needs to be the referee reviewing it when there is doubt in his mind. At the moment, the referees do have doubt, but they have to use their instincts. Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right. If they have a back up with technology, what's the problem?

I don't see the problem with it being different types of games to watch either. I watch a rugby side that play in Division Four East of the Welsh league. We don't have video technology. There really isn't THAT much of a difference in terms of the enjoyment between that an the games I watch on tv when it comes to the decisions that are refered to the video referee.

The Confederations for whom putting the various cameras required at each ground would be a high cost would be against it.

If you enjoy your Welsh league division four team without technology then you can also enjoy football at all levels without technology.

At the moment a football match with 11 a side, a referee, two linesmen and a fourth official is the universal standard at all top levels (except Europa with the trial).

You might see slight differences in the number of officials as you drop down but at ALL top levels its the same. Now you implement a rule that will be used in a minority of top level leagues.

[Pangaea]

I don't see the problem either. The issue here is that FIFA is too conservative and don't want to change it. They romantize about "having a human face" on football. If a über-conservative sport like tennis can change its stance on this issue, football certainly should be able to too.

[Icondacarver]

I don't see the problem.

If it's affordable. People use it. If it's not they don't. So long as it's the same across the entire competition, or round of the competition so that it's a level playing field, really, what is the problem?

The problem is that Fifa is trying to reduce the gap and not increase it between the competitions of WORLD football. Video technology is not easily affordable and will further enhance the rich leagues while making the poorer leagues even less attractive.

A world cup qualifier between Ghana and Senegal will be operating under different conditions to a world cup qualifier between England and Andorra (same competition as both are heading to the World Cup)

[Cobbler]

The Confederations for whom putting the various cameras required at each ground would be a high cost would be against it.

If you enjoy your Welsh league division four team without technology then you can also enjoy football at all levels without technology.

At the moment a football match with 11 a side, a referee, two linesmen and a fourth official is the universal standard at all top levels (except Europa with the trial).

You might see slight differences in the number of officials as you drop down but at ALL top levels its the same. Now you implement a rule that will be used in a minority of top level leagues.

So, will it be ok to have behind goal officials in the Champions League and Euro 2012 qualifiers, but not in the Premiership?

[Cobbler]

A world cup qualifier between Ghana and Senegal will be operating under different conditions to a world cup qualifier between England and Andorra (same competition as both are heading to the World Cup)

Why can't Ghana have the same technology?

[Icondacarver]

So, will it be ok to have behind goal officials in the Champions League and Euro 2012 qualifiers, but not in the Premiership?

Hence my bit in the gap about the trials, trials have been done in football for ages mainly with the age competitions (i remember when they wanted to replace throw-ins with kick ins).

You are suggesting bringing it in permanently where it can be afforded, which is a different kettle of fish as that is a permanent rule change.

Its okay for disciplinary actions after the game but for things that take effect during the match i am firmly against anything that will be used in Europe but not used at the top levels in Africa, South America etc.