Video Refereeing

Oh, FFS, can we drop this Ireland being cheated out of the WC crap. They never even had result at any point which would have taken them to the World Cup.

And it is not a valid argument for and against the technology,it is emotive. In fact,it brought out a massive talking point that we otherwise wouldnt have had. A top referee saying that he wants the technology also isnt an argument either way.

France also had no result at that point either. With France winning 1-0 in the 1st leg and Ireland was leading 1-0 to get the extra-time because of a 1-1 aggregate. That extra time controversial goal gave France a 2-1 aggregate win even though Ireland was all over them in that game. It should have been penalty shootouts at least which means that it was 50/50 chance as the two games have indicated. So you are wrong, el grapadura. It was a illegitimate goal that was allowed and it had huge consequences which even you can't denied.

And im sure Ireland have never benefitted from a refereeing mistake in their history.It gave people something to talk about etc etc. The handball cost the phoenix a 50/50 shot at a place in the A league grand final,doesnt suddenly make it a good idea when you couple it with a statement from a referee supporting the technology

How do you know it should have been penalty shootout at the least? How can you know that France wouldn't have scored anyway?

It's all garbage. Ireland had the opportunity to get another goal even after the Henry incident, and that would have taken them to the World Cup. They didn't, and they can blame no-one for that but themselves.

I think that view is bullsh*t.  They weren't given a fair go which is all that they can ask for.  Though I don't reckon Ireland would have won it either way.

They got given more than a fair go. Check out their game against Georgia at Croke Park.

Some would call it karma.el grapadura2010-03-17 14:44:17

  Wibblebutt2010-03-17 15:00:56

They got given more than a fair go. Check out their game against Georgia at Croke Park.

Some would call it karma.[/QUOTE]  

Replay's break up the game too much. And they are not always right.

Professional trust between officials. If it was not clear then it goes back to the man in the middle. After multiple angles you should see most things. there are like 30+ cameras in an official FIFA match. There should be like at least 4 cameras from different angles on the ball alone. 80% of the commentator can see it at the first look at the replay and the other 19% of the time there is a correction from another angle of the replay. The other 1% is on the multiples looks.

I think that a VR system would solve the Georgia/Ireland problem in 1:30 minutes as it was and without the yellow card given to the protesting Georgian player.AllWhitebelievr2010-03-18 03:52:42

You only have to look at this thread to realise video referees are not going to make things any better.

SiNZ2010-03-18 09:25:52

Milky Pisswit2010-03-18 10:20:24

The penalty was officially awarded for handball by the Georgian defender towards the end of the move.el grapadura2010-03-18 12:29:40

Anyone remember the World Cup game between Brazil and Norway in the 98 (I think) World Cup where the American ref awarded a penalty in the last few minutes and no television camera angle showed any reason for it to be awarded. The ref got slated for his decision until footage from another camera turned up a few days later showing a clear jersey pull in the box and proved that the ref's decision had been spot on.

Agree completely. As soon as the technology becomes available and 99.9% accurate (nothing is ever 100%) this technology should be used. Video refs, no.

  The ref's decision in Sydney was a shocker...hope he gets slated for sometime along with his blind lino....but still no, to any type of video replays in football, tough as it can be...... [ cricket umpiring has gone down hill since they bought it in..... to the point where you don't really them out in the middle now]

I'm up for technology helping the refs. Ball crossing the goal line as well as stuff indicating players being on the offside - heard about this one a while ago as well. I think it's a matter of time when these will be introduced - or at least tested in games.
Seeing all the refs cock ups lately, would love to see video introduced as well - but I imagine it will create more problems and fuss then it is worth.
Extra refs might be a good idea, will see how it works in EUFA cups. It might cut down the number of diving and penalty problems we see in modern football.

We don't need any of this fancy-pants technology!!!

The Refs just need to get their f**king eyesight tested more often!

And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't an unintentional handball still a foul?

Consider yourself corrected. SiNZ2010-03-20 16:59:39

Yeah hell no. You'd see all sorts of penalties for a ball being smashed into the hand of a defender if that were the case. The rule states intentional,but is puropsely vague so the interpretation of it can be left to the referee to (hopefully) use common sense and award it or not at his discretion.

Diving easily solved with retrospective video analysis/citing.

Should definitely be done.

Only for very very blatant dives though. Otherwise itll have the inconsistency problem,and you'll end up suspending players who didnt even dive,but on slow motion replay,looked like they were.

Dive = falling over without contact. Should get HEAVY penalty.

Making the most of a foul, not a dive.

Agree, if there is any contact it all, let it go, impossible to prove whether or not the contact was 'enough' as you don't know where the players balance is, and it only takes a small touch the right way. If it can be proved there is zero contact, then two match ban.

I struggle with the whole simulation thing and retrospective banning of players.  While it'll be good in that it may temporarily shut people up who continually whinge for video replays and the introduction of other new measures it has major problems.

I mean, if a player is running quickly and puts his foot down on a dodgy bit of turf he could go down hurt, or as a kind of reflex action to avoid seriously screwing his ankle or what have you.  That would look like a dive and there would have been no contact but certainly shouldn't be a ban.

And what if a player just plain old lost their balance?  Nothing in it from either side, and not necessarily completely obvious on the camera if he just overbalanced or was looking for a penalty.

And then there's the blundering oafs who trip over their feet.  That is usually a bit more obvious, though.

I agree with you loyalgunner. People would also scrutinize it so much more than they already do to players who dive. Every player would suddenly become a diver. There would be outrage if someones player is banned nut not another etc. Itd cause a lot of fuss thats for sure,especially on the instances you mentioned,amongst others. Tegal2010-03-21 03:43:26

I think what the FFA are doing that if a penalty is won from a dive that wins the game for a team then that player can retrospectively be banned if they're reasonably sure it's a ban.

Another thing I forgot to mention is when a player goes in for a tackle (say a slide tackle) and for your own well-being you jump over it and you don't land properly and fall over.  Dive! everyone roars.  That's not a dive at all in my books.

Something that happened at my football game on saturday has left me with a question.  Here's the scenario:
A defender was trying to be all Kevin Muscat on me in the box.  He'd had about 3 or 4 shots at my ankles and I didn't go down, and then he finally knocked one of my feet out from under me when I had a goal scoring opportunity and I possibly could have stayed up (I'm not too sure on that) but the defender fell over in front of me.  Even if I had been able to stay up I would have had to stand on him to get to the ball before the CB cleared it.  So I just fell down* onto his back.  He was about 20kg smaller than me so I hopefully taught him a lesson.

So question is: if you've genuinely been fouled (several times) is it OK just to go down?

Or, am I the next Brosque?

*Being a fat bastard I was very tired.
loyalgunner2010-03-21 12:25:57

You don't have to fall down to get a foul.

If someone kicks you on the ankle, it's a foul, regardless of whether you stayed up or went down.

Not that a lot of referees seem to know that. Thats where a lot of diving stems from too,referees only calling fouls/penalties if the player goes down

And that only exacerbates the problem, because players feel the need to go down in order for the foul to get called.

And then people see it on TV, and go, 'oh, only tapped him on the ankle, that diving cheating c**t' and before you know it 'diving' is seen as the biggest blight on the game.

I think just like in other sports, there are grey areas where video technology can not help, so should not be used. I personally think the technology has gone too far in cricket, particularly with LWB referrals. I like the human element and I think the projected path of the ball used in the decisions takes that away. I would like that human element to stay in football too, but the refs should be assisted as muc as is reasonable.

Perhaps the "hot spot" technology, as seen in cricket and tennis, could be used to see whether there was contact in a foul/dive decision. Only following the game, to determine post game punishment.

A lot of that can be controlled by whether or not they 'appeal' for a free kick. If a player trips over/goes down and doesn't make a fuss, no problem. If they launch and roll and whinge and moan then ban.

Agreed

Exactly. And they won't appeal for a free kick/penalty if they know it may cost them a couple of games. But the punishment won't work if it is in a final... unless you confiscate their winners' medal!

f**k me, I never knew...
all this time....

Having been properly corrected I searched online.
Some might find this interesting
http://www.corshamref.org.uk/law12/law12hand.htm
or not

Good point.  Appealing for the free-kick would make it obvious (no doubt to avoid a ban they'd say they were appealing to the groundsman to do a better job on the pitch!) but if they don't whinge and moan and do get a free-kick/penalty, 90% of the time they won't tell the ref that it wasn't a foul.  Would we then ban them due to that?

While some good points have been raised, personally I just see too many issues with it.
loyalgunner2010-03-21 18:14:55

Players would then just go down without complaint in the hope of a foul anyway. Id like to think it was what the ref saw that they base their decision of whether it was a foul or not,not based on whether they appeal for a foul or not.