Video Help Needed

[Barmy Army]

Pedro Mendes took a shot from 45-yards out, Roy Carroll attempted to catch it and dropped it over his shoulder.

The ball bounces a yard over the line and yet the goal is not given.

The introduction of video help for officials would stop this sort of thing from happening.

[fbm]

Although it was a scandalous decision, I am anti video technology. *Consider this:

1) *If the decision had been debatable (which they usually are) then who calls for the video to be seen? *The ref? *If so, then he will do so every time the ball goes anywhere near the line, just to be sure.
2) *If the players or manager calls for the video, then it will called for all the time as well.
3) *If the ball ends up in the net then there is a natural stoppage for a video to be seen. *But if it DOESN'T end up in the net, i.e. it's cleared from on/behind the goalline, then how do you stop the game? *Suppose the next time the ball goes out of play is when the ball ends up in the opposition net?
4) *In football every decision is potentially important. *Which decisions do you allow to be reviewed? *Suppose a player "dives" outside the area and a goal is scored from the free kick? *Suppose a corner is given when it should have been a goal kick and a goal is scored?

Look, these scandalous decisions even themselves out over a career. *Plus, the controversial decisions provide the mass talking points that mean that Geoff Hursts World Cup winning goal is STILL sometimes discussed 38 years on. *The Clive Allen goal that hit the stanchion and came out, the hand of God, all these things contrive to make the sport what we love. *Take the controversy away and you ruin the game. *You win some, you lose some.

However... I would have at each end a goal line assistant, who can help decide on corners, goals etc and will also see events from a different angle which will help the ref. *I'd prefer that to video technology.

[Barmy Army]

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.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/henrikisgod7/picture00097.jpg

[fbm]

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.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/henrikisgod7/picture00097.jpg
And how does that translate to our level, when we only have one camera?

Leave well alone I say.

By all means use video technology retrospectively to punish cheats. For instance a 6 game ban for a blatant dive and perhaps a deduction of 1 point from the team concerned should stop it pretty quick.

An extra pair of eyes at both ends is easy to implement and can be translated into all aspects of the game fairly easily. I would like to see more consultation between refs and assistants and the extra eyes would mean that a lot more decisions were correct without having to keep stopping the game every 5 minutes to check something.

If video technology is introduced, how would you suggest it is called into play because that to me is the biggest concern. Who calls for the video to be seen? I suppose you could have teams limited to their video appeals, a bit like time outs in American football, say 2 per half. But if the two have been used and then something like Carrolls clanger happens in the last minute, then you are no better off.

[fbm]

And don't forget that it is the controversy and the fact that football is so wonderfully unpredictable that makes it such a great game. Any measures taken to try and eliminate the human errors will try to make the game too perfect and ruin in. Why stop at eliminating the refs errors? What about when David Beckham slipped when taking a penalty against Turkey and the ball moved on the spot as he was about to strike it in the shoot out v Portugal? Should we say "Have another go Dave?" Where do you stop with eliminating mistakes?

[Hooly]

Noticeable how quiet about the matter Lord Ferguson has been. *If the decision had happened at the other end he'd be on or in every form of media going, apoplectic with rage & demanding that

1) the game be replayed,
2) if not 1) the entire season to be cancelled,
3) the referee & assistants to be banned for life (& certainly never officiate a ManUre game again),
4) if not 3) all ManUre games to be officiated by 10 "approved" match officials only to avoid similar mistakes,
5) if not 3) or 4) the referee & assistants to be shot at dawn,
6) the Spurs keeper to brought up on a misconduct charge for unsportsmanlike conduct by not admitting that it went in,
7) if not 6) the Spurs keeper to also be shot at dawn,
8) ManUre to be awarded 12 points due to the "post traumatic stress" which will affect the rest of their games,
9) if not 8) all other Premiersh*te teams to be deducted 12 points because he doesn't like them.

I'm sure there's more but that would do for starters!

[Barmy Army]

I think Ferguson has handled it well saying that this is why video evidence is needed.

FBM : It doesn't take much to stick another camera off of the pitch so that it shows the goal-line.

[HUMBLEPIE]

The silly thing is the 4th official saw it on the pitch side monitor but isn't allowed to intervene, he had to calm Jol down instead.

[Napster]

there is an excellent article from Martin Samuel in todays' Times about it. He is anti, and so am I.

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ Jan. 05 2005,10:07)]I think Ferguson has handled it well saying that this is why video evidence is needed.

FBM : It doesn't take much to stick another camera off of the pitch so that it shows the goal-line.
So why not have an official on the goal line seeing it as it happens?

It is the multitude of SKY cameras and different angles that allow every decision to be analysed to death and then a bit more. One or two cameras may help a bit, but it won't solve the problem. And then you have to have people watching it perhaps once or twice and from different angles... the game would be slowed down enormously.

It works in cricket because of the amount of natural stoppage. Part of footballs appeal is the speed the game is played. Video Technology would cause havoc and as I have said, who decides which decision gets reviewed?

[Barmy Army]

Quote[/b] (fbm @ Jan. 05 2005,11:04)]
Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ Jan. 05 2005,10:07)]I think Ferguson has handled it well saying that this is why video evidence is needed.

FBM : It doesn't take much to stick another camera off of the pitch so that it shows the goal-line.
So why not have an official on the goal line seeing it as it happens?

It is the multitude of SKY cameras and different angles that allow every decision to be analysed to death and then a bit more. One or two cameras may help a bit, but it won't solve the problem. And then you have to have people watching it perhaps once or twice and from different angles... the game would be slowed down enormously.

It works in cricket because of the amount of natural stoppage. Part of footballs appeal is the speed the game is played. Video Technology would cause havoc and as I have said, who decides which decision gets reviewed?
OK then whack an official there to see it. I suggested a camera so that there can be evidence rather than having one manager claim that the official's decision was swayed by the crowd.

Alternatively have a system like tennis whereby if the ball crosses the line everybody can hear a noise that indicates that in fact the ball has crossed the line.

Surely it's better to have a slower game in which the majority of decisions are correct, rather than a fast-paced game in which errors are made?

What would happen if Southend scored a goal to keep us in League 2 but it wasn't given as the official didn't see it go over the line? Surely it's therefore better to take a minute and see a correct result given.

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Jan. 05 2005,11:02)]there is an excellent article from Martin Samuel in todays' Times about it. He is anti, and so am I.
And that article is here - well worth reading and expressed in a better way than I ever could

Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8305-1425911_1,00.html)

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ Jan. 05 2005,11:18)]
Quote[/b] (fbm @ Jan. 05 2005,11:04)]
Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ Jan. 05 2005,10:07)]I think Ferguson has handled it well saying that this is why video evidence is needed.

FBM : It doesn't take much to stick another camera off of the pitch so that it shows the goal-line.
So why not have an official on the goal line seeing it as it happens?

It is the multitude of SKY cameras and different angles that allow every decision to be analysed to death and then a bit more. *One or two cameras may help a bit, but it won't solve the problem. *And then you have to have people watching it perhaps once or twice and from different angles... the game would be slowed down enormously.

It works in cricket because of the amount of natural stoppage. *Part of footballs appeal is the speed the game is played. *Video Technology would cause havoc and as I have said, who decides which decision gets reviewed?
OK then whack an official there to see it. *I suggested a camera so that there can be evidence rather than having one manager claim that the official's decision was swayed by the crowd.

Alternatively have a system like tennis whereby if the ball crosses the line everybody can hear a noise that indicates that in fact the ball has crossed the line.

Surely it's better to have a slower game in which the majority of *decisions are correct, rather than a fast-paced game in which errors are made?

What would happen if Southend scored a goal to keep us in League 2 but it wasn't given as the official didn't see it go over the line? *Surely it's therefore better to take a minute and see a correct result given.
Sorry mate, I personally disagree. I would rather have a fast moving exciting game with some controversy than a slow dull one.

And we wouldn't get relegated (or not promoted) on the basis that we didn't get a last minute winner in the final match. It would be because we failed to get enough points in the previous 45 matches.

Yes, it would be cruel. But there may well have been an occasion when we were awarded a goal that shouldn't have been, so things even out.

[Napster]

The way I see it is that over a season decisions even themselves out.

We can't sacrifice the fast-flow football to be correct all the time and we can't undermine the referee's authority.

[Matt the Shrimp]

Samuel's article is excellent, and I agree with it wholeheartedly:

"Unless we accept that the word of the referee will no longer be final and the game can be interrupted from an editing suite in the stand, the debate ends here."

That's good enough for me. By all means put a chip in the ball which makes a hooter go off when the ball has completely crossed the goal-line... that makes for more noise, more fun, and the end to grave injustices like that last night or (dare we say it) England '66.

But in all other respects, football is a fluid game, and cannot be stopped/started like almost all other sports. That being so, the decision must rest with the ref, and the ref alone.

End of, really.

Matt

[Barmy Army]

I'm personally undecided about it, but having seen such a blatant decision in the Spurs game last night I felt that the use of technology would be helpful.

I'd prefer to have a slightly slower game (it's not often that incidents would need reviewing) in order to see a fair result in the game achieved.

As I've already said having a microchip in the ball to let somebody know when it has crossed the line seems a brilliant idea to me.

[McScriven]

I'm sorry but it's so easy to bring into the game for decisions about goals only (crossed the line off side etc...)

It works in Rugby so well for trys why not football? The ref calls to the video ref who says goal or not. If it's not a goal it's a free-kick to the defending team.

[RobM.]

Not good, the attacking team are then punished for no reason.
If the ball was cleared off the line and then deflected for a corner, why should the defending team get a free kick?

The way forward as fbm hinted was a goal-line judge.

In tennis there are 7 officials per match - in football there are 3 (OK but the 4th doesn't do anything really). So stick a judge on the goal line by the corner flag and his SOLE duty is goal or not.

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 05 2005,12:18)]I'm sorry but it's so easy to bring into the game for decisions about goals only (crossed the line off side etc...)

It works in Rugby so well for trys why not football? The ref calls to the video ref who says goal or not. If it's not a goal it's a free-kick to the defending team.
But Scriv, who calls for the video to be seen?

If it's the ref, he will call for it all the time, just to be certain. As you now have in cricket, the umpires call for the video decision on run outs when the guy is a good yard away from the crease. They have passed the decision making buck to the guys in the stand. So, if the ball goes in and there's some debate about an offside or a foul, then yes - the ball is dead and they can have a look. But as we know, it is not a goal when the ball hits the net - it is a goal when it crosses the line. So, if it is cleared off the line, the ref is going to stop the game immediately so it can be looked at. now, how many times has a ball been cleared off the line and but the attacking team has socred after a scramble or a rebound? Far more than the sort of incident that occurred yesterday. Howlers like that are few and far between. So you have therefore deprived the attacking team of the chance of scoring on a follow up, and, to add insult to injury, have awarded a free kick to the defending team if it is not a goal. How fair is that?

So, let's wait and see a bit before calling for the video. How long do we wait? Until the ball has left the penalty area? Well, suppose the ball has gone to a defending player who springs a quick counter attack and is now in a one-on-one situation. You've stooped the game and possibly discovered that it didn't need to be stopped at all. Defending team penalised this time.

Alright, take the decision away from the ref. Who calls for the video? The managers? How can they see from the halfway line? They'll be calling for anything and everything. Same problems ensue.

What about the guy in the stand? By the time he has reviewed the video and come up with an answer, 3 or 4 minutes may have elapsed. What happens if something controversial happens in that 3 or 4 minutes? Or a goal for either side that will subsequently be disallowed? Can you imagine the crowd reaction? There'd be a riot!

And that's just for goals. What about for penalties i.e. did he/didn't he dive? If the replay is inconclusive, who do you give the decision to? What about free kicks on the edge of the area? Would video have helped us the other day against Mansfield when Duds goal was disallowed? No because we cannot see from the angle of the camera. So you have more cameras, more costs, more time reviewing from different angles...

This "crossed the line" debate will rage for ever until the laws are changed so that the goal is only a goal when it HITS THE NET. And that's not going to happen, is it?

It's a can of worms that will kill the game. We must leave it alone and take the rough with the smooth. Perhaps more officials would help. But not video.

[fbm]

Quote[/b] (RobM. @ Jan. 05 2005,12:57)]Not good, the attacking team are then punished for no reason.
If the ball was cleared off the line and then deflected for a corner, why should the defending team get a free kick?

The way forward as fbm hinted was a goal-line judge.

In tennis there are 7 officials per match - in football there are 3 (OK but the 4th doesn't do anything really). So stick a judge on the goal line by the corner flag and his SOLE duty is goal or not.

Not necessarily the sole purpose - they'd be bored soppy. *They could decide on corners and goal kicks as well, and could also assist with free kicks and handballs in their part of the pitch, which would ease the burden on the refs and linesman.

I think this would work. *And of course football could spend a fraction of it's players wage bill on a completely professional team of officials that would be a separately represented body. *5 on pitch officials and one off pitch - that's 6 per match. *Each team playing has squads of probably average size 20, so allowing for a "reserve" official that's 1/6 of the number of players that are officials - not a bad proportion - and the standard of decision making would improve enormouly IMHO.

[Mr Wooly]

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

Are you sure?! (http://www.40percent.tv/fnord/howard.jpg)

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

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 (http://www.bufc.drfox.org.uk/Patter/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=4636;st=20)

[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.

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/1920/hahahahaaha9vg.gif

[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.

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/1920/hahahahaaha9vg.gif
yup... that's the same one as on the Boston thread! Class!

[Barmy Army]

That's absolute quality!

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[* 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.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/henrikisgod7/picture00097.jpg
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! http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[* 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 (http://www.bufc.drfox.org.uk/Patter/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=4636;st=20)
I ain't registering on no Deliverance country website - give me the low down. http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[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 (http://www.bufc.drfox.org.uk/Patter/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=4636;st=20)
I ain't registering on no Deliverance country website - give me the low down. http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
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?

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

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.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

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]