Video Help Needed

[Mr Wooly]

I'm still not convinced it went over the line...

Are you sure?!

On a serious note, that's the worst decision I've ever witnessed while watching football. Martin Jol deserves a lot of credit for his reaction to the 'goal', for not going overboard. Wenger, Souness, Fergie etc take note.

 

[fbm]

There's a better one on the Boston fans site - check this one out. It's on page 3 of this thread.

Boston goalline thread

 

[BoyWonder2]

We don't need video replays in games it would slow it down. Yes things like diving and having reds reduced and yellows scrapped can be down after the game. What needs to be implemented is a chip in the ball to decide whether the ball crosses the line or not. Simple as.

 

[Hockley_Blues]

No, it didn't pass the line. It happened so fast, you may have missed this.

 

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (Hockley_Blues @ Jan. 05 2005,17:55)]No, it didn't pass the line. It happened so fast, you may have missed this.

yup... that's the same one as on the Boston thread! Class!

 

[Barmy Army]

That's absolute quality!

 

[* ORM *]

Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ Jan. 05 2005,08:00)]Sure it'd be extremely difficult to implement, but at least it will stop all of the controversy.  Have some people watching video of the game whilst it's in progress, much like Sky's coverage, and then if there is a problem they can quickly inform the ref of decisions.

Doesn't look over the line to me

Video technology would have meant no 1966 WC win.

 

[RobM.]

Oh yes it would! The German forward handled the ball moments before they made it 2-2 so England would have won 2-1!

 

[* ORM *]

Quote[/b] (fbm @ Jan. 05 2005,14:14)]There's a better one on the Boston fans site - check this one out.  It's on page 3 of this thread.

Boston goalline thread

I ain't registering on no Deliverance country website - give me the low down.

 

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (* ORM * @ Jan. 06 2005,13:02)]

Quote[/b] (fbm @ Jan. 05 2005,14:14)]There's a better one on the Boston fans site - check this one out.  It's on page 3 of this thread.

Boston goalline thread

I ain't registering on no Deliverance country website - give me the low down.

It's the same one as posted by Hockley Blues above

 

[Beefy]

I know I'm a few days late on this one but I've got to disagree with fbm, Matt and anyone else saying that football should stay in the nineteenth century. We need to have a system in place where matter of fact situations like the one we saw the other day at Old Trafford can be resolved correctly, and where a manager or captain can also appeal a referees decision twice in a game. If they are right to appeal then they don't lose one of their appeals, if they are wrong then they do. That way I doubt you'd be talking about more than one or two breaks in play per game and it would probably be resolved in less time than it takes Chester to make a substitution.

Personally I'd go much further and overhaul the entire way that footballis officiated. The whole concept of linesman/assistant referees I consider pointless in the modern era when you can have offsides and linecalls made in the stands and communicated to referee via a earpiece. It would be quicker and much more reliable. Offside by definition is impossible for someone to call correctly every time because its not possible to be looking in two places at once. Can anyone give me a reason why we have a middle-aged man running up and down the line with a little flag making these decisions in this day and age other than because that was the only way possible 150 years ago?

 

[fbm]

Why not eliminate humans from the game completely and have the whole thing computer generated?

Come on, players make mistakes and so do officials. It's the game.

You can't have an enormous level of technology like that. As said before, it works in some sports because of natural stoppages. Football doesn't have that.

And how does a captain appeal? Suppose the captain is a centre half (quite common) and an incident happens on the goalline 50 yards away? How is he meant to see whether or not it is worth appealing for? Does he wait for his team mates to rush and tell him, and if so, what happens to the ball that is still in play?

Unless you invent a different game, it's unworkable. And I, for one, would have no interest in watching a match that stopped every time the ball goes out of play, which is the only way you are going to get an efficient use of the sort of technology you are talking about bringing in.

 

[Beefy]

Come on, players appeal for every decision anyway no matter where they are on the pitch. I'm sick and tired of hearing players and managers go on every weekend about referees costing them the game. If you put an appeals system in place then you eliminate straight away any possibility of that happening. You force these severely overpaid people to take responsibility for their own mistakes and errors, and by limiting teams to two unsuccesful appeals you bring the disruption to the flow of the game to an absolute minimum. You're talking 30 seconds two or three times a game.

As for technology only being useful if you stop every time the ball goes out of play that simply isn't true. As I said I really believe that calling things like offside from the stands rather than the line would actually speed the game up. How many times do you see the game go on for a while before the ref notices the linesman's flag? That sort of thing would never happen if technology took over.

 

[Napster]

The new offside rules regarding interfering with play means it will be impossible to rely on video alone.

 

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (Beefy @ Jan. 11 2005,04:19)]Come on, players appeal for every decision anyway no matter where they are on the pitch. I'm sick and tired of hearing players and managers go on every weekend about referees costing them the game. If you put an appeals system in place then you eliminate straight away any possibility of that happening. You force these severely overpaid people to take responsibility for their own mistakes and errors, and by limiting teams to two unsuccesful appeals you bring the disruption to the flow of the game to an absolute minimum. You're talking 30 seconds two or three times a game.

As for technology only being useful if you stop every time the ball goes out of play that simply isn't true. As I said I really believe that calling things like offside from the stands rather than the line would actually speed the game up. How many times do you see the game go on for a while before the ref notices the linesman's flag? That sort of thing would never happen if technology took over.

1. Yes, players do appeal for everything. But if you only have 2 "lives" as such, then whcih ones do you decide to use up as possibly successful?

Also, once you have used and failed twice, what happens if there is another controversial decision? That simply doesn't resolve anything.

2. Players are severly overpaid! But I don't think refs are.

3. Why have offside at all? Then the issue doesn't arise.

4. I am going to give you an example of something that highlights the whole area of why video technology wouldn't solve the whole problem. Remember Peter Enkelmans howler for Villa against Birmingham last year? There is a prime example of a situation that would have allowed video evidence to examine the incident. The ball was in the net, the game had stopped. Did Enkelmann touch the ball on it's way in (in which case it's a goal) or not? SKY and their multi angle magnified slo-mo replays couldn't decide after an hour or so of looking at replays. So, if it's inconclusive, who do you give the final decision to as to whether it's a goal or not? And if the answer is "the ref", then why are we bothering to undermine him by looking at video in the first place?

Video technology has a place, but in my view it should be used retrospectively to catch the football cheats, i.e. the blatant divers, and then long bans and points deductions possibly be applied. But otrherwise leave well alone.

 

[Beefy]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Jan. 11 2005,09:35)]The new offside rules regarding interfering with play means it will be impossible to rely on video alone.

Why? It just means that the judgement call over whether a player should be judged offside would be made by an official in the stands rather than an official by the side of the pitch. Of course that means that the decision itself might not always be right because the new offside rule relies on the offiicial's interpretation of play and who is interfereing and who isn't, all you'd be doing is making sure that the matter of fact part of the decision (is the attacker beyond the last defender) would be correct one way or another.

 

[TrueBlue]

Personaly I feel things should stay the same compleetly Human mistakes are all part of the fun of the game it strikes debate, banter, humour you cant take these key elements away from the game!

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Beefy @ Jan. 11 2005,13:14)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Jan. 11 2005,09:35)]The new offside rules regarding interfering with play means it will be impossible to rely on video alone.

Why? It just means that the judgement call over whether a player should be judged offside would be made by an official in the stands rather than an official by the side of the pitch. Of course that means that the decision itself might not always be right because the new offside rule relies on the offiicial's interpretation of play and who is interfereing and who isn't, all you'd be doing is making sure that the matter of fact part of the decision (is the attacker beyond the last defender) would be correct one way or another.

But then you'll be undermining the referee.

At the moment, the lino gives offside, and the ref decides if an offence is made or not. If we get someone else to come in just for offsides, we'll be deluged by officials. Lino for throw-ins, someone near the dead-ball line for corners and goal kicks and maybe penalties, someone responsible for the microchip on the ball (what if it doesn't work? then what would happen?)

We'll end up like American Football, and games would take over 2 hours.

Personally, I can see why Prem managers are all for video intervention. But as a fan, I hope it doesn't happen.

 

[BoyWonder2]

The law of offside is all about the opinion of the officials so bringing in video technology to decide on offside would take away the power of the officials.

The only things we need so sort of technology (I'm taking video, extra officials, sensors, chips etc) is on the goalline to decide whether the ball crossed the line or not. Simple really.

 

[Beefy]

Quote[/b] (BoyWonder2 @ Jan. 11 2005,13:47)]The law of offside is all about the opinion of the officials so bringing in video technology to decide on offside would take away the power of the officials.

The only things we need so sort of technology (I'm taking video, extra officials, sensors, chips etc) is on the goalline to decide whether the ball crossed the line or not. Simple really.

No it wouldn't. It would still be called according to the opinion of an official, but an official in full possession of the facts rather than one facing the physical impossiblitiy of having to look in two places at once.[/color]