Technology for all the game, not just goalline

[ncfcpremier<P><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" ><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"><v:stroke><FONT><FONT><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" 0]

How many times have we been robbed this season by the referee or linemen and then the opposition wins the game. The FA are having a meeting on thursday to discuss the goalline technology, why not just breing it in for penalties and ahndballs as well. A fifth official sitting up in the stands could have a yes foul button and a no foul button and he can press the button as soon as he has seen the replay. i was talking about it on canary call to neil adams a couple of weeks ago.

Anyone agree with me?

[Strappy 0]

Nope, sorry. I just don''t like the idea of the game being called to a halt by another official when we''ve got three men on the pitch for that job. Yes, decisions can go against us but then everything comes around and it''s part and parcel of football. Fans have raged against the referee for years and that''s part of the game too - think how sterile a game would be if everything was spotted and decisions were made off the field. And what happens when the video ref fails to spot an infringement?

The bigger problem is with the media pundits - they''re the ones who sit there with the benefit of countless replays and then pronounce that "the linesman had to be blind not to see that" or "the referee has had a shocker of a game" and all we get to see of it is a couple of chosen replays that illustrate their point.

Maybe if we could use the VR technology available for Hawkeye replays to show us a view of the incident from the point-of-view of the official in question that would help us realise that it''s not an easy job!

I''m not against all uses of technology though, I''d be quite happy to see it used on the goal line to judge whether a ball has gone over or not. These days, what with the flyaway balls and the pace of the modern player compared to the average linesman, we''ve seen what can happen with Spurs. A team shouldn''t be robbed of a goal in those circumstances but I don''t think it''s a viable reason for a video ref.

>=17!

[ncfcpremier<P><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" ><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"><v:stroke><FONT><FONT><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" 0]

the game wouldn''t be stoped all the time. The fifth official with the benfeit of video replays would have a green and a red button which would send a signal to the referees earpiece to say if it''s a foul. So the gaem wouldn''t be stopped.Now do you agree with me?

[Carrow89 182]

An absolute disgrace for any fan to want to hand our game over in this way.

It is absolute nonsense to talk of using video replays.

It presumes that there is only one incident in any given replay time. Given that you would have to wait for the ball to go out of play before any action was taken then it is highly possible that there could be another two or three such incidents.

Who would decide which ones warranted a replay. Can you imagine the referee calling for it and if so hoW - Would it be the players or the fans vocal appealing then ? Given that most decisions are subjective how much better would it be for another human to make a snap decision. What would happen if latter evidence proved the 5th ''ref'' was wrong ?

Unlike other sports football has no routine natural breaks. This is a trojan horse to bring in these breaks to allow in TV advertising. The game would degenerate into a farce of stop start incidents padded out with the witless comments of the TV pundits.

How would you cope with a FA Cup game involving a bigger club playing at a smaller ground? How early in the competition would replay cameras be mandatory ? How should a ref react to hand held video evidence at a Jewson league game ?

For those who want to such such nonsense I suggest they leave our game alone and go watch WWF or yank football.

[Strappy 0]

Nope. It''s not as simple as that. The fifth official would press his button, the referee would stop play, the fifth official would have to explain what he saw. The referee would ask for clarification and check with his linesman. The referee would have to explain to the players. The players would complain. Play would be held up indefinitely while Arsene Wenger complained that he didn''t see anything and Alex Ferguson whined about all officials, the FA, the BBC and the Royal Family being against Man Utd. Even when they''re not playing. And what would happen when, as it inevitably would, the fifth official misses something that the referee calls? The players would demand a video review of every contentious decision and we''re back where we started.

Rugby is often held up as an example where video referees work but I think (note *think*) that the video ref is only called in when the referee has stopped play and requests a review. Same in cricket, it only goes to the video when the umpire signals "television program" using Give Us A Clue charades.

Maybe if the players and media pundits had more respect for the officials we would accept that people are not perfect and that the majority of the time decisions are made correctly. Look at rugby for an example - the referees don''t always spot every infringement but because they''re respected they don''t come in for half the abuse suffered by football officials.

[Francesco Volpe<P><BR><EM><FONT size=3><STRONG>A<STRONG><FONT>wesome<STRONG><FONT size=3>S<FONT><STRONG>ublime<STRONG><FONT size=3>H<FONT><STRONG>onest pro<EM><EM><FONT size=3><STRONG>T<STRONG><FONT>alented<STRONG><FONT size 0]

I agree with you NCFCpremier. I think it would work and is a better idea than putting a chip inside the ball. if they did that then the players would probably start moaning about the ball like they do every world cup and european championships. I don''t believe your idea would halt the game majorly and i think its the best idea suggested so far.

[StevenageFan 0]

I agree.  SKY replays are almost instant, so the ref would have the yes/no decision within 10 seconds.  You would only need those decisions to be made when the ref has blown, the ref would still have the overall control and if he doesn''t blow for a foul etc. the game continues as normal.  Only when he blows (which means he thinks it is a foul) should the 5th official send his verdict with the benefit of a replay.  This would at least prevent wrong decisions and would occur only when the ref has stopped the game anyway.  Instead of a button though it should just be a wireless mic kit, so the official could also confirm whether a yellow or red is needed too.

For example the penalty against Leon.  Ref has blown instantly for a penalty.  Whilst everyone is doing the usual protesting and fighting over the ball, the 5th official would have already seen the replay and confirmed to the ref via the mic that it wasn''t handball.  The ref apologises waves play on, goal kick to Norwich, end of story, could have happened within seconds and we would have won as well.

The same goes for freekick against Doc in Pool penalty area.  Ref has blown, official sees replay, tells him hes wrong and it was infact Carraghers fault and we would have got a penalty, simple.  No stopping the game uncessarily as it is being stopped anyway.  The 5th official with the benefit of an instant replay will just be backing up or changing the referee''s instinctive and somtimes unclear view of the incident that the play has already been stopped for.

 

[Strappy 0]

StevenageFan; the examples you give leave out what would happen every time following that if the referee changed his mind. At every decision the opposition would demand a review from the video official, which would take time. The referee instantly loses the respect of the players because he has shown that he is prepared to change his decision and the game degenerates into a shouting match every time the whistle is blown.

FACT: many entries in the FA rulebook begin "in the opinion of the referee". If you take away the referee''s ability to make a decision and then stick with it you take away the point of the referee being on the field.

I don''t want to see a fast flowing match deteriorate into a sequence of short bursts of play followed by lengthy video disputes. Let''s remember that media pundits are paid to say contentious things and it''s in Sky''s interests to have us watching matches on television with multiple replays instead of going to a game where we can shout and sing at the officials to our heart''s content.

[knowhatimean 0]

Isn''t amazing how many different views are held on this topic? I find it equally amazing how many fans are happy to continue with the present system which allows so much injustices in the game - cheats being allowed to prosper etc. You cannot always blame the officials - with the speed of the game today, they need help in some form or other. To say that there are no natural breaks in the game is a nonsence - what are goal kicks, throw-ins, corners, and free kicks? Obviously we do not want a situation where every decision made on the pitch is queried - the officials are often proved to be correct anyway but where there are clear errors which can only be highlighted by TV, I cannot see why this cannot be introduced into the game. The referee already has buzzer contact whith his assistants so why cannot a similar system be set up with the fourth official sitting in front of a monitor who can see what the watching fans saw at Old Trafford the other evening. This official should have the same decision making powers as the referee but then of course, the camera action would have to be faultless as well! Of course there would be problems in introducing such a system, how far is it extended? I would say that it should certainly cover the four leagues in this country.
The FA has idicated that it is prepared to consider the possibility of using video evidence and I think they have to. They have taken advantage of it to act retrospectively in the past, with Rooney etc so I cannot see how they can be selective in what they accept as evidence.
FIFA, of course will probably have the final say anyway so it would obviously take ages to implement if at all.
The only other way I can think to compensate teams who are victims of circumstances, ie deliberate cheating or incorrect decisions, would be to introduce a supplementary points system which might be worth looking at.
One thing I am sure, this debate will roll on and on until something satisfactory emerges.

[Carrow89 182]

We are now entering the realsm of fantasy in the defence of the destruction of the game we love.

The idea that the 5th referee would only be used when the referee stops play totally ignores why this issue is being discussed now. If the referee fails to stop play when later video evidence proves he should have then we are back to where we are now.

What those that woulld destroy our game have repeatedly failed to answer is all the obvious questions that their farcical ideas raise.

Perhaps we should look at a failing sport that tried it -

" Rugby League introduced video referees in 1996, when Super League started.

Stuart Cummings, the Rugby Football League''s match officials director, says it now seems strange to imagine life without the drama of T-R-Y time.

"It was part of the new package, it''s still only used for televised games, but we hope to have it in every Super League game in the future - it creates great theatre. "

It has nothing to do with accuracy or sorting out contentious decisions. It merely provides amusement and valiable advertising time for the TV.

Football needs protecting from those idiots who would destroy it.

Save our game.

[StevenageFan 0]

Strappy, I know what you are saying and believe me I don''t want the game to be ruined.  I am simply saying that it would be quick and easy for a 5th, 4th or whatever official to give an opinion over a MIC within 5 seconds of the referee blowing his whistle.   By the time the referee has caught up with play, collected the ball, calmed down players, all the usual stuff that happens whenever the whistle is blown anyway, he would have had the benefit of the replay into his ear.  If it was a foul he carrys on as normal, free kick and any relevant bookings.  If it was not a foul i.e. a dive (which in my opinion is ruining the game more than anything else) then he could card the offending cheater and award a free kick to the other team.  There should be no disputes or delays.  The players dispute everything anyway and the referee blew the whistle because he saw an incident so someone on one of the teams is going to argue.  The referee doesn''t have to make a decision until 5 or so seconds have passed and he has been given the opinion of the 5th official who has seen a replay, therefore there is no changing his decision involved, no extra stop starting, no extra complaining, just a more accurate and justified decision.  Assuming the replay helps that is and 90% of the time they do IMO.  If the replay hasn''t helped then it is still down to the ref.  Those players that are diving all over the place would soon stop and the most likely result is that the game flows alot more than it does now.

Imagine as a player you know that if you pull a shirt, spit at someone, trip someone, handball, dive, etc.etc. you are going to get seen because the replay is now being verbally fed straight to the referee.  At the moment you get away with this stuff as the lino and ref can''t possibly watch every incident that goes on between 22 players at the pace it all occurs.  My point is as a player you will probably not risk the cheating anymore and the result will be pure football skill and ability and more of a flowing game.  Fast strikers running past slow defenders without the fear of being fouled for the sake of it, seems to me to be a more entertaining sport to watch.

Of course if it fell into the realms of structinising the replay it could very quickly get silly and with TV getting involved I see your point.  However, as long as it is a bloke with a monitor watching the immeadiate close action replay and reporting back straight away, yes that was a foul, no the player dived or I am not sure your call, then the game will not be any more stop start than it already is.

Ralph your way of dealing with people that have a difference in opinion to you, with statements like "What those that woulld destroy our game have repeatedly failed to answer is all the obvious questions that their farcical ideas raise", is a tad unfair to say the least.  I agree with your points and those of strappy, but haven''t said you have farcial ideas or you wish to ruin the game we all love.

On top of all that Alex Feguson, Martin Jol, Arsene Wenger, Chris Coleman and many more including Nigel all believe it is time to introduce tehcnology to help decisions and I think they know more about the game than any of us and I wouldn''t think their opinions are farcial.