World Cup Play-Offs

[Sun Tzu]

This is a clear cut example where TV Replay would have solved the issue. We'd all seen it before normal play had started again, so the argument it would slow the game down is also false.

Sorry but that is absolutely no basis on which to decide TV replays are the way forward.

Of course in this case it may have meant a different (and correct) decision might have been arrived at.

But you have to consider how it would work every day, in every game played.

The problems are endless and IMHO almost insurmountable.

1. Every week we see TV replays that wouldn't have helped the referees. What do you do if the replay is inconclusive ?
2. That you are totally dependent on whether an incident is caught by the cameras, and whether the camera angle is spot on. Again you regularly see an incident from one angle that looks clear cut, then when you see a different angle it is not
3. That football doesn't lend itself to the use of replays, especially where NO decision is given. if a referee does not see an incident how can he then use a replay, especially if play has continued for some time.
4. You can run a replay and see more than one incident. Sometimes occuring at the same time.
5. The laws of the game rely on the opinion of the referee. Who's opinion do you use in replays ? if you use a 5th official then you are introducing inconsistency
6. Replays would still require an opinion. They would not be definitive in every case. Whilst the ball clearly struck Henry's arm there is still the requirement to judge intent and doing this using multiple camera angles, slo mo etc makes it a very different decision
7. How do you decide what incidents to replay ? Is it the ones the players complain about the most ? Or is it everything ?
8. How would you ensure that at every game you had enough cameras to cover every part of the pitch from several angles ?
9. Imagine a scenario where you have a critical World Cup qualifying game and there is a controversial incident 2 minutes from the end. TV pictures are courtesy of the local broadcasting company and would you believe it, the images of the vital moment just can;t be found.

I have no doubt the list could go on and on. It would be good to see an explanation of a system that would work consistently both technically and practically.
Cricket have some excellent technical aids - but they are fairly easy to use because of the very limited space in which the relevant action takes place and the pretty simple rules they are looking at. Tennis likewise. Rugby is (IMHO) less successful, too often it takes too long to look at the angles and too many results are 'can't tell, go with a 5 yard scrum' when all they are doing is trying to work out if a ball was grounded.

Goal line technology is the nearest football has to these and that seems a sensible route to go down but to try and have a shapeless system covering absolutely every possible scenario during the course of a game just does not work for me


Right, and those are?


Every week we see situations where TV replays would have helped the ref.

So what are the insurmountable problems?

[Sun Tzu]

And no, not everybody would do what Thierry did in that situation, if you are comfortable with cheating then fine speak for yourself, do not speak for all of us

It is waht Robbie Keane woul dhave done.

And if the ref had blown he would have been in his face, arms spread wide calling him every name under the sun.

Three times Keane was penalised for handball last night, every time he argued about it !

WRONG

you don't know what keane would have done and the Keane handballs were all ball to hand/arm anyway, a ridiculous comparison to draw

1. We all know what Keane would have done. We've watched him play for over a decade !

2. If the 3 offences Keane was penalised for were ball to hand then either they weren;t handball and the ref got it wrong 3 times or they were handball because the ball to hand can still be an offence. However seeing as for all 3 he quite deliberately used his arm to control the ball it's a non arguement from you anyway.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

I still remember the little oxf*rd rolling round the pictch at Elm Park to get a Reading player sent off after this player had patted him on the head.

[Sun Tzu]

I still remember the little oxf*rd rolling round the pictch at Elm Park to get a Reading player sent off after this player had patted him on the head.

And managing to get a different one red carded !

He didn;t even have the grace to tell the referee that he was dismissing the wrong player ....

[ZacNaloen]

1. Every week we see TV replays that wouldn't have helped the referees. What do you do if the replay is inconclusive ?

Then the referee makes an informed decision.

2. That you are totally dependent on whether an incident is caught by the cameras, and whether the camera angle is spot on. Again you regularly see an incident from one angle that looks clear cut, then when you see a different angle it is not

No you aren't, you are reliant on the referee making an informed decision
3. That football doesn't lend itself to the use of replays, especially where NO decision is given. if a referee does not see an incident how can he then use a replay, especially if play has continued for some time.

it's called making policy. Here's a suggestion for one such policy that would relate to this problem.

The manger gets the option to contest a decision if play has been stopped (i.e foul that results in sending off, goal etc. You get three per game.

4. You can run a replay and see more than one incident. Sometimes occuring at the same time.

So?

5. The laws of the game rely on the opinion of the referee. Who's opinion do you use in replays ? if you use a 5th official then you are introducing inconsistency

Linesmen already give their opinion. Rubbish argument.

6. Replays would still require an opinion. They would not be definitive in every case. Whilst the ball clearly struck Henry's arm there is still the requirement to judge intent and doing this using multiple camera angles, slo mo etc makes it a very different decision

Linesmen already give their opinion. Rubbish argument.

7. How do you decide what incidents to replay ? Is it the ones the players complain about the most ? Or is it everything ?

Manager decides. You get a limited number of decisions you can contest.

8. How would you ensure that at every game you had enough cameras to cover every part of the pitch from several angles ?

By paying money for the cameras. If Rugby can afford it football definitely can.

9. Imagine a scenario where you have a critical World Cup qualifying game and there is a controversial incident 2 minutes from the end. TV pictures are courtesy of the local broadcasting company and would you believe it, the images of the vital moment just can;t be found.

And now you are into conspiracy theories.

I have no doubt the list could go on and on.

I have no doubt it would have just as many sensationalist and stupid points to make.

It would be good to see an explanation of a system that would work consistently both technically and practically.
Cricket have some excellent technical aids - but they are fairly easy to use because of the very limited space in which the relevant action takes place and the pretty simple rules they are looking at. Tennis likewise. Rugby is (IMHO) less successful, too often it takes too long to look at the angles and too many results are 'can't tell, go with a 5 yard scrum' when all they are doing is trying to work out if a ball was grounded.

And so therefore? The argument is whether or not it helps sometimes, not whether is doesn't help sometimes.
[qupte]
Goal line technology is the nearest football has to these and that seems a sensible route to go down but to try and have a shapeless system covering absolutely every possible scenario during the course of a game just does not work for me[/quote]

Goal line technology has one fatal flaw. It can't tell you if someone hand balled the ball in the build up to it going in the net.

[TBM]

Tell you what, if they had the extra two officials on the goal line like they do in the UEFA cup - they would have spotted it and no goal would have been given!

[ZacNaloen]

I've just realised I havne't watched a single Europa game this season.


Where exactly the extra officials stand? Do they run along the line or do they stand permanently on the corner flag?

[Stranded]

I've just realised I havne't watched a single Europa game this season.


Where exactly the extra officials stand? Do they run along the line or do they stand permanently on the corner flag?

One of the officials would have been stood directly behind Henry as he handled the ball.

[TBM]

I've just realised I havne't watched a single Europa game this season.


Where exactly the extra officials stand? Do they run along the line or do they stand permanently on the corner flag?

Down the other end he is on the opposite side.....so basically the lino in the pic above will be where the lino was in last nights game (the other side of the pitch) so all areas of the pitch are covered. The extra officials go between the corner flag and the goal post basically.

[ZacNaloen]

^ That would do it then.


No need for cameras, problem solved.

[Sun Tzu]

Goal line technology has one fatal flaw. It can't tell you if someone hand balled the ball in the build up to it going in the net.

That's not a fatal flaw, it's something beyond it's spec !

It also can't tell if the person who scored was offside.

I'm not going to even discuss your other comments as they are so flimsy they don't warrant it !

But one easy comment is that linesmen have specific roles which require then to advise referees. They aren't required to second guess decisions already made by the referee which is what TV replays would involve.

Your idea that managers might have challenges only to be used when play has stopped shows a real lack of understanding of the game. The next time play stops could be several minutes away and play could have been stopped to dismiss a player (for example). Does the replay invalidate everything that has happened in the intervening time ? If not then what happens in the challenge is overruled ?

Three challenges just delays the problem. If last night the ref had given the Anelka pen, allowed the offside goal and booked Keane for his challenge on the French keeper we'd be where we are now. There are ALWAYS 3 incidents that can be challenged and managers would ALWAYS use their challenges. And you'd frequently get a late 4th incident.....

[Sun Tzu]

^ That would do it then.


No need for cameras, problem solved.

There was at least one incident (Fulham game IIRC) where there was an incident the 5th official didn't see !!

The idea as it stands is interesting but I don't think they've found a way to make it work effectively. It's a huge overhead for a small number of incidents

I wonder where you would find all the extra officials from ?

[TBM]

^ That would do it then.


No need for cameras, problem solved.

There was at least one incident (Fulham game IIRC) where there was an incident the 5th official didn't see !!

The idea as it stands is interesting but I don't think they've found a way to make it work effectively. It's a huge overhead for a small number of incidents

I wonder where you would find all the extra officials from ?

True but in other cases it has worked - in the Fulham v Roma game, a penalty was given and the ref sent off the wrong man - the 5th official informed the ref who it was that brought the player down and the ref then sent that man off instead. Also Saha was sent off for Everton for an incident off camera that the ref or lino didn't see, the 5th official saw it and rightly so.

Its cheaper to employ 2 extra officials than it will to put goal line technology etc in place and the argument of "where would you get the extra officials from" - if there isn't enough coming through (which i don't believe) then simply restrict the 5th official to major games (semi finals/finals of cup competitions) or the whole of a major competition (Champs league, UEFA cup, World Cup etc etc)

[ZacNaloen]

That's not a fatal flaw, it's something beyond it's spec !

Christ Sun Tzu I was being facetious.

I'm not going to even discuss your other comments as they are so flimsy they don't warrant it !

Concession accepted.

But one easy comment is that linesmen have specific roles which require then to advise referees. They aren't required to second guess decisions already made by the referee which is what TV replays would involve.

No, TV replays don't have to be used to second guess anything. They can be used to provide that extra bit of information between a correct a decision or an incorrect decision. That they may not be able to do that everytime is 100% irrelevent.

Your idea that managers might have challenges only to be used when play has stopped shows a real lack of understanding of the game. The next time play stops could be several minutes away and play could have been stopped to dismiss a player (for example). Does the replay invalidate everything that has happened in the intervening time ? If not then what happens in the challenge is overruled ?

Idiot.

I said if play has been stopped, not after waiting for play to stop.

[Super_horns]

Ireland were unlucky anyway but this only added to that.

No-wonder players think they can cheat (an Irish player might do so this weekend..) when the ref and linos don't see it.

[Stranded]

Three challenges just delays the problem. If last night the ref had given the Anelka pen, allowed the offside goal and booked Keane for his challenge on the French keeper we'd be where we are now. There are ALWAYS 3 incidents that can be challenged and managers would ALWAYS use their challenges. And you'd frequently get a late 4th incident.....

Wouldn't that just make the managers job and the challenges more interesting. They have a set number and you are correct there are always likely to be more than the 3 they could get - so how and when they use them becomes a key tactical tool.

[Gus the teenage cow]

can we shut up about this already. we're out, fifa will come out with some spin, waffle and pay lip service " we regret this incident, we apologise to Ireland, we will investigate how to prevent such incidents happening in the future" bla bla bla.....i.e. they'll fudge the issue, it'll be forgotten in a week, we're out, it's depressing

they should introduce video technology but they won't just yet, maybe when something like this happens to a bigger nation in a crucial game they'll get around to it, i don't know

[Sun Tzu]

Three challenges just delays the problem. If last night the ref had given the Anelka pen, allowed the offside goal and booked Keane for his challenge on the French keeper we'd be where we are now. There are ALWAYS 3 incidents that can be challenged and managers would ALWAYS use their challenges. And you'd frequently get a late 4th incident.....

Wouldn't that just make the managers job and the challenges more interesting. They have a set number and you are correct there are always likely to be more than the 3 they could get - so how and when they use them becomes a key tactical tool.

Do we really want or need managers having even more of an influence ?

Can you imagine how people like SAF would use their challenges to pile pressure on officials ?

Introducing the concept of being able to officially challenge referees sounds very dangerous to me. It's been terrible in cricket so far...

I'd be moreopen to a 5th official having access to all tv footage and advising the referee in real time by radio of anything that he thinks the referee may find useful, but even that I don;t believe would be good.

[TBM]

maybe when something like this happens to a bigger nation in a crucial game they'll get around to it, i don't know

Like England, 23 years ago???

[ZacNaloen]

Everyone hates england, you know that TBM