Decision reviews Cricket V football

[mrsblue]

Each side has 3 reviews which can only be used for penalty claims/awards and red cards.

 

[fbm]

Yes we do:

I wouldn't call that a system though, that's just the game.

 

[fbm]

Each side has 3 reviews which can only be used for penalty claims/awards and red cards.

I think something like this has the best chance of working, but they should be limited to being used on matters of fact - i.e. did the ball go out of play, blatant handball (i.e. "Hand of God") and was the foul in the box - rather than matters of opinion, i.e. was it a bookable offence, was it a red card.

 

[LeighDad]

The decision review system works well in hockey (at least at international level, don't know if it used lower down), which is also a fast and flowing game. As far as I can see, it adds to the interest and excitement of the game. Has to be for matters of fact though.

 

[Fish]

The decision review system works well in hockey (at least at international level, don't know if it used lower down), which is also a fast and flowing game. As far as I can see, it adds to the interest and excitement of the game. Has to be for matters of fact though.

It does indeed, and the cricket-sized ball pinging round a field of play I referred to earlier in the thread is in fact the example of hockey. the speed at which hockey is played makes a mockery of the 'football's too fast for video replays' argument, because hockey is played at a much higher pace than football ever will be. Yet it's a team game with goals and continuous play as a principle, unlike cricket. Here's a few characteristics of how VR's are applied in hockey that I think could work for football:
- It's restricted to a limited number of appeals per half (the number depends on the tournament rules, and anyway it's the principle that's important here)
- You lose the right to appeal if you appeal erroneously
- The scenarios under which you may appeal are tightly defined, so you can't just appeal on anything. Usually it's only allowed relating to the award or non-award of a goal or a penalty corner.
- Where play is interrupted because someone appeals and the appeal is subsequently erroneous, or where play was stopped for an offence which was shown by the replay to be a wrong call, I believe the equivalent of a drop ball is how the game restarts.

 

[fbm]

It does indeed, and the cricket-sized ball pinging round a field of play I referred to earlier in the thread is in fact the example of hockey. the speed at which hockey is played makes a mockery of the 'football's too fast for video replays' argument, because hockey is played at a much higher pace than football ever will be. Yet it's a team game with goals and continuous play as a principle, unlike cricket. Here's a few characteristics of how VR's are applied in hockey that I think could work for football:
- It's restricted to a limited number of appeals per half (the number depends on the tournament rules, and anyway it's the principle that's important here)
- You lose the right to appeal if you appeal erroneously
- The scenarios under which you may appeal are tightly defined, so you can't just appeal on anything. Usually it's only allowed relating to the award or non-award of a goal or a penalty corner.
- Where play is interrupted because someone appeals and the appeal is subsequently erroneous, or where play was stopped for an offence which was shown by the replay to be a wrong call, I believe the equivalent of a drop ball is how the game restarts.

One major difference for Hockey v Football is that in Hockey, you don't have 11 players basically trying to con the ref and cheat their way to a free kick/penalty/whatever, something that makes the refs job in football incredibly difficult.

Aside from that, there are several occasions per game where even the players may not be sure who touched the ball last, did it cross the line, etc etc. Reading your post above, it would seem that the team appealing would have to be pretty darn sure they were right. If they were wrong on appeal, is that it for the whole game or just a half?

Also, how does it work for an appeal for non-award of a goal? Does the appealing team have to specify exactly why they are appealing, or is the whole move looked at to see if it is legit? And if the former, what happens if they discover something that was missed that would have led to the goal not being awarded but it wasn't the reason for the appeal?

 

[Fish]

Hockey players do indeed try to con the officials, just a lot more subtly than footballers normally do.

And yes, it's normally one appeal per half. Get it wrong and you lose it, so you have to be damn sure with your appeal.

An appeal also has to be specific about a particular incident. You can't say "I think something wrong happened there, please review it", you have to specify "there was a stick tackle there". Appeals can't be speculative, nor can incidents spotted whilst reviewing be cited if they're not the direct subject of the referral.

 

[fbm]

Hockey players do indeed try to con the officials, just a lot more subtly than footballers normally do.

And yes, it's normally one appeal per half. Get it wrong and you lose it, so you have to be damn sure with your appeal.

An appeal also has to be specific about a particular incident. You can't say "I think something wrong happened there, please review it", you have to specify "there was a stick tackle there". Appeals can't be speculative, nor can incidents spotted whilst reviewing be cited if they're not the direct subject of the referral.

Thanks for that, interesting. For clarity, if you win the appeal, presumably you still have it to use. It's not 1 per half whether you are correct or not.

I suppose the problem I have is that the whole argument for technology in football seems to be to try and "right a wrong", where a shocking decision has been made by officials. So, for example, Frank Lampards "goal" v Germany in the 2010 WC would have stood.

Or would it? Lampard scored late in the first half, so if there had been an unsuccessful appeal beforehand, the technology wouldn't have assisted and we'd still be in the same boat.

I would prefer to focus on the overall improvement of officiating with perhaps additional assistants and far greater penalties for players who con and cheat and also dissent. Not technology related, but I would like them to re-try the 10 yard penalty rule that was experimented with a few seasons back but this time allow the attacking team the speed and advantage to get things moving quickly rather than stop the game to book the offender and then ceremonially goose-step the 10 yards.