Lita's disallowed goal - the case (again) for video analysis

[higher]

I tend towards the leave things alone camp although possibly some goal line technology that can immediately send a bleep to the ref signalling whole ball crossed line may just be acceptable.
As pointed out elsewhere the idea of stopping the game to await video evidence is the road to hell and damnation and American football with all the convenient ads chucked in just to really annoy us.Can you imagine awaiting a critical moment and having shake and vac ads etc thrust into our delicate psyches??
Some tennis tournaments have the interesting idea of allowing an aggrieved player to have a couple of shouts for hawkeye replays.Perhaps this could be modified and a manager able to request a video replay to 4th official.If game is stopped and replay prooves ref is correct the team is docked a point(or worse).I dont suppose there would be too many shouts in that event!!

[alad]

Keep it how it is, things do even themselves up over a season. Football has managed OK for well over a hundred years. Linesman and refs will get it wrong, just like a player will get it wrong. Human error is part and parcel of the game.

[The 17 Bus]

Platini wants 4 lines men, sensible move, have been wanting that for a long time, a close call like yesterday cannot be seen from 50 yards away.

[alad]

How will it work, one in each quarter of the pitch I presume. What happens if one flags and the other doesn't?

[Millsy]

Platini wants 4 lines men, sensible move, have been wanting that for a long time, a close call like yesterday cannot be seen from 50 yards away.

4 linesmen would slightly improve things that's all and as alad rightly says may cause more problems. I don't see how it'd help with th majority of difficult decisions etc.

It might've been a good idea a couple of decades ago but in this day and age when we have the technology for a quantum leap in increasing the accuracy of decisions (especially when there's been a quantum leap in the importance now of every decision!) it seems a little daft to ignore it and just slightly augment our already woefully failing methods.

Platini et al are desperately hanging on for some reason to an archaic and failing system trying to tweak it mildly, when the answer is glaringly obvious and right in front of us. We got the technology now - let's bloody use it!

[Mr Angry]

I'm in the "shit happens" camp on this; you will never take out mistakes made honestly by officials for whatever reason, and i think that there is pretty well no decisions made because officials are either biased or corrupt. (regardless of whatever Spacey thinks).

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game, especially at the speed and with the skill levels of today (I would have sworn blind that Man Utd's first goal against us at OT was offside, yet looking at it again on the replay it wasn't - because of the skill of Solskjaer in timing his run so precisely).

And things DO even themselves out over a season; against Wigan we got a goal that, in all probability, was offside.

[Arch]

I'm in the "shit happens" camp on this; you will never take out mistakes made honestly by officials for whatever reason, and i think that there is pretty well no decisions made because officials are either biased or corrupt. (regardless of whatever Spacey thinks).

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game, especially at the speed and with the skill levels of today (I would have sworn blind that Man Utd's first goal against us at OT was offside, yet looking at it again on the replay it wasn't - because of the skill of Solskjaer in timing his run so precisely).

And things DO even themselves out over a season; against Wigan we got a goal that, in all probability, was offside.

Agreed. A legit goal that's disallowed is right up there with a glaring miss by one of our strikers on an open goal. As Steve Coppell once said, if the players made as few mistakes as the officials we'd be the best team around (or words to that effect).

[nivek elyod]

I tend towards the leave things alone camp although possibly some goal line technology that can immediately send a bleep to the ref signalling whole ball crossed line may just be acceptable.
As pointed out elsewhere the idea of stopping the game to await video evidence is the road to hell and damnation and American football with all the convenient ads chucked in just to really annoy us.Can you imagine awaiting a critical moment and having shake and vac ads etc thrust into our delicate psyches??
Some tennis tournaments have the interesting idea of allowing an aggrieved player to have a couple of shouts for hawkeye replays.Perhaps this could be modified and a manager able to request a video replay to 4th official.If game is stopped and replay prooves ref is correct the team is docked a point(or worse).I dont suppose there would be too many shouts in that event!!

You say that, but that equates almost exactly to what 'challenges' are in american football - the coach challenges the ref's desision, and if he's wrong he's docked a time-out.

I'd love the idea though, because SC would only contest blatantly incorrect decisions (and then you'd have Arse W*nker taking more points off Arsenal than they'd get for winning cos he complains so much.)

[igoe agogo]

i agree wth Higher, something on the goal line - this would report utter fact, no interpretation, no opinion - just fact.

I also think that video evidence should be used to crackdown on blatant cheating - instances such as Didier Zakora - as far as i'm aware he got off scot free for that outrageous dive - why are the authorities so against making a stand on this - i really don't understand.

[zac naloen]

I'd like the think that any sort of line technology could be incorporated. The ref knows when the whole ball has gone out of play cos a buzzer goes off in his ear. A different buzzer for when it's a goal obviously. But still, using modern technology this kind of technology is not impossible, nor especially expensive to incorporate.

[RoyalChicagoFC]

I also think that video evidence should be used to crackdown on blatant cheating - instances such as Didier Zakora - as far as i'm aware he got off scot free for that outrageous dive - why are the authorities so against making a stand on this - i really don't understand.

Exhibit A in favor of in-game, on the spot video review in the booth upstairs, quickly and easily done in a matter of seconds and before the man sent the wrongly awarded penalty kick goalwards, and no needless wastage of time (aside of course from the actual penalty award, inevitable players' complaints to the referee and then setting up for the kick --but so it goes). In fact, a few seconds very well spent for the purpose of getting the call right.

Absent video review, I wonder just what the ref might have been expected to do to "even things out" after a call like that (RiLOLey, wasn't it?).

[higher]

zac naloen wrote:

I'd like the think that any sort of line technology could be incorporated. The ref knows when the whole ball has gone out of play cos a buzzer goes off in his ear. A different buzzer for when it's a goal obviously. But still, using modern technology this kind of technology is not impossible, nor especially expensive to incorporate.

Like i mentioned earlier I can see scope for something of the sort so long as it can be instant,reliable and doesnt require stoppages.
Regarding diving etc I think a panel should review games and where players are proven to be using well honed self tripping methods etc that a range of retrospective penalties be issued to individuals/clubs ultimately involving points/league position etc.Managers simply wouldnt tolerate their players risking such serious penalties and terminal offenders simply not be selected.

[3 veesinarow]

If football is to remain the same game, whether played at Prospect Park or The Madejski Stadium, we cannot accept video refs or replay decisions.

If you have a goal line camera at a premier league ground, there must be the same technology available at the grass roots level of the game.
Clearly, this is not an option and if top flight football were to have different laws, which this would clearly mean, football would no longer be the same game played across the world at every level.

Imagine the outrage of frustrated dads when their little ray of sunshine has his goal disallowed, or the father of a 10 year old raging that you can't allow that offside as there isn't a camera around to prove it was.

All we can do is trust the judgment of the only person on the pitch that does not attempt to deceive or cheat during a game.....the referee.

I have argued for years that 2 more linesmen running the goal lines would be far more practical. They could decide on goal line decisions, but, more importantly, they would be in the perfect position to see the diving/shirt pulling/handling that the referee misses due to his position nearly always meaning that he is behind the play.

It appears that Michel Platini is an advocate of this. It's a solution that can be applied throughout football, at every level. Not just for the benefit of messrs Allardyce, Mourinho and oxf*rd.

As has been pointed out in another answer on this thread, video technology is only available at the highest levels of cricket and both codes of rugby. None of these sports trot out the tedious line about it having to be available from their equivalents of the Bernabau to the Hackney Marshes - why do opponents of modern technology in football only use this rationale to "prove" their argument?

No sane and intelligent father on the park touchline is going to expect the cameras to be at little Johnny's game and, although upset with decisions made, he's not going to rant and rave at it not being there. That's just plain stupid.

As for saying the game has to be the same the world over and then expect four linos to run a park game, well, I played park football for ten years and it was a bonus if the ref had any linos at all to call on, let alone expect to hand out four flags!

I would rather the game was left largely alone, but football today has to move on. One hundred years ago, goals were net-less and had tape stretched across instead of crossbars - should we still be there?

[brendywendy]

i had two pound on at 52-1 that lita would get a hattrick, was devestated.
although the pound i had on at 51-1 for lita to score first in a 0-2 win made me feel slightly better

[Great Knolly]

The FA, UEAFA etc. need to be strong about this and remind
everyone that the refs decision is final. It might not be
right, but it is final. The game is 22 players and 3 officials.

The media can have their fun looking at replays, but that's
as far as it should go. In cricket it's interesting to see
what hawkeye sees, but it should never be used to adjudicate.

If you don't want to concede a penalty then you are better off
in the other teams half. If you want to avoid goal line decisions,
make sure the ball hits the back of the net.

The England rugby match at the week-end showed what a farcical
place you can get to if you use video replays. Wilkinsons non-try
was given after video review ! The game should be judged within
human parameters. If the linesman had given the try or not given
it, not many people would have complained either way.

I would allow video replay for reviewing foul play after a game
had finished.

[Royalphil]

.... I would allow video replay for reviewing foul play after a game
had finished.

Now we're talking, this would certainly solve the diving epidemic.... all after-match video should be reviewed and used in evidence... the FA (or whoever) should be able to punish any indiscretions even if the ref "deals with it at the time".

[readingbedding]

i had two pound on at 52-1 that lita would get a hattrick, was devestated.
although the pound i had on at 51-1 for lita to score first in a 0-2 win made me feel slightly better

Who was that with? 51-1???

[Stranded]

I have absolutely no problem with goal-line technology so that it can be told with certainty that the ball has crossed the line. The technology is there so it seems mad not to use it. Isn't something similar already used in Ice Hockey - as soon as the puck crosses the line a bell sounds to show it's in.

A beep in the refs ear - he whistles for the goal - job done.

It wouldn't stop goals like Lita's being struck off though and I've no problem with that.

[Dirk Gently]

The rule changes that the FA are requesting the IFB (the body that makes the rules) this season are the ability to retrospectively punish "simulation" (i.e. diving) using video evidence.

I'm violnetly opposed to any use of video DURING a game, though. Anything that stops a game is wrong. Let me give you an example : a shot goes in and is cleared from on or behind the line. The defending team then immediately go and score up at the other end.

When exactly would you want to stop and look at the video? If it's as soon as the incident happens then you're stopping play and stopping what might be a great goal at the other end - even worse if the video proves that the goalline clearence was fine.

But if you stop play to look at the video the next time the ball goes out of play, that's when the second goal has been scored, so do you then rule that one out to allow the first goal. It might be 5 minutes later!

And the worst scenario is if you allow a team to appeal for the game to be stopped - whats the betting that a manager would invoke that as soon as the opposition team had a promising break on, regardless of what had happened before.

Horribly unworkable and would produce a completely different game.

[Stranded]

The rule changes that the FA are requesting the IFB (the body that makes the rules) this season are the ability to retrospectively punish "simulation" (i.e. diving) using video evidence.

I'm violnetly opposed to any use of video DURING a game, though. Anything that stops a game is wrong. Let me give you an example : a shot goes in and is cleared from on or behind the line. The defending team then immediately go and score up at the other end.

When exactly would you want to stop and look at the video? If it's as soon as the incident happens then you're stopping play and stopping what might be a great goal at the other end - even worse if the video proves that the goalline clearence was fine.

But if you stop play to look at the video the next time the ball goes out of play, that's when the second goal has been scored, so do you then rule that one out to allow the first goal. It might be 5 minutes later!

And the worst scenario is if you allow a team to appeal for the game to be stopped - whats the betting that a manager would invoke that as soon as the opposition team had a promising break on, regardless of what had happened before.

Horribly unworkable and would produce a completely different game.

In that instance - an official in the stand could see a replay almost instantly showing the ball in and give the goal - anything after that is null and void.

As I suggest though, it is easy (and better than videos) to put technology in place that can show 100% when a ball is over the line. The game is about goals and as the technology is there to show that one has been scored then it should be brought in.

I'm sure everyone recalls the Bolton "goal" against Everton that was clearly two yards over the line and not given. The 1-0 win that would have given Bolton would have kept them up and sent Everton down. Goaline techology would end mistakes like that.