How much technology is too much?

Xavi6

So the debate over the use of technology is an ongoing thing with calls for goal line cameras, referees to use replays etc, but how far should it go?

Despite the outrage over some refereeing decisions I think it would be bad to completely remove the human element from that part of the game, and by implementing one or two things it could start a snowball affect to the point where referees are no longer required.

For me:

Goal line cams - yep

Offside replays - no

Fouls / free kicks / dives - no, retrospective bans for players / officials

Having said that, I wouldn't mind a challenge system where replays are used if a team feels a red card was harsh, mainly given the impact they have on the course of a game. Obviously there would need to be some sort of penalty if a team challenges just for the sake of it, otherwise they'd just do it every time.

Thoughts?

SantryRed

Goal line technology.

That's it. Anything else would ruin the game.

dfx-

Agree and still not entirely convinced on the need for goal line technology.

I would consider implementation of retrospective action more important than technology.

killwill

Recordable mics on players to stamp out racism(and on refs now too)
Goal line cameras.

DazMarz

Goal-line technology is a must at this stage!

I'd also be in favour of some form of a video-match official for very contentious decisions. Not all of them, obviously, but some form of VMO would be a good thing in the modern game.

Xavi6

I like the idea of refs being miked up to the point where the audio is actually able to be heard through tv for the whole game.

I watch AFL week in, week out and it's one of the best things about it as you hear the umpires explaining their decision to the players after every free kick is given, if they call play one etc.

Having said that, the amount of dissent is far less in that sport and the swearing from Prem players wouldn't cut it with the broadcasters unfortunately.

NIMAN

Bring in technology for all contentious issues in the game but give each manager/captain 2 or 3 'calls' to question a decision.

Once they have used up their quota, they cannot question anything else and have to go with the ref's decisions.

They would use them wisely.

dreamers75

Young lads match this morning, his team scored from a clearly offside position.

When it works at his level it should be the norm.

Football works on the basis that everyone can play it.

Kylo Ren

Would love the players to be mic'd up.

Xavi6

dreamers75 wrote: »

Young lads match this morning, his team scored from a clearly offside position.

When it works at his level it should be the norm.

Football works on the basis that everyone can play it.

I hear that a lot but it's a flawed argument. How many junior games have official linesmen? You won't see a fourth official keeping an eye on things either.

Everyone CAN play football but at the top, professional level you should get the best.

Goal line technology and perhaps a hawkeye challenge system where both teams get 2/3 challenges per game similar to tennis.

Father Damo

In all truth I think changing it too much changes the swings and roundabouts get some poor decisions lose out on some valid ones buz of the game. Maybe a system where no manager is allowed to request more than two queries per match, and even at that a quota on how many per year they can use. If every team plays 38 league games per season, one may only be given, say, 30 queries per season, of which no more than one or two can be used in a single match. If every single goal was delayed in its confirmation like it is in rugby league it would be fairly rubbish tbh, the technology should be used sparingly.

Would the referees association threaten a strike over it mind? After all officils who are proven to be persistently wrong and costing managers their appeals quota should not be working.

G.K.

GLT and mics fully available. I'd rather GoalRef than Hawkeye because you can't make a big song and dance with putting it on the screen, and it can't fail due to the keeper's body being in the way.

On top of that, video replays for all other contentious issues (fouls, dives, offsides) should be available for both a challenge system and retrospective basis.

PHB

I think goal line technology and offside technology should be relatively easy to implement, and have a higher accuracy level than the current system with similar response times.

I think retro-spective review of incidents even if the ref did see them is also a required rule change. Divers need to be punished after the game, even if they get away with it. Straight 5 game ban for a clear dive. Removes the problems for the refs, who have a tough enough job already, and will create a strong enough incentive that it's not worth it to dive anymore.

Appeals of penalties/red cards is too much imo, and would slow down the flow of the game. It's not like rugby where the game has natural stops. A possible penalty can lead to a counter-attack in football, what happens if a clear cut penalty isn't given, the team break, and then score. Does the goal not count? Too much bull**** imo. Just use technology to help where it can, goal line and offsides. Then have 5 refs who can focus on fouls, with all of them actually willing to make decisions, not just leave it up to the top ref.

doc_17

rarnes1 wrote: »

Goal line technology and perhaps a hawkeye challenge system where both teams get 2/3 challenges per game similar to tennis.

Yes. Very simple. Easily done. Why are they resisting this?

Quazzie

Simple goal line technology which consists of a sensor in the ball that alerts the referee when the ball has crossed the line. That's a definite decision. Anything else, even video referees is debatable. Look at the Torres debate yesterday. After watching the replays it's still not clear if it was a dive,a foul, or both.

jester77

Xavi6 wrote: »

I like the idea of refs being miked up to the point where the audio is actually able to be heard through tv for the whole game.

I watch AFL week in, week out and it's one of the best things about it as you hear the umpires explaining their decision to the players after every free kick is given, if they call play one etc.

Having said that, the amount of dissent is far less in that sport and the swearing from Prem players wouldn't cut it with the broadcasters unfortunately.

I like this idea as well. Swearing could be clamped down on very quickly because of this. It would be very easy for the FA to dish out punishment after the game, players would quickly cop on and adjust. Would also be to the refs advantage as well as they currently take a lot of abuse.

Matt_Trakker

Father Damo wrote: »

In all truth I think changing it too much changes the swings and roundabouts get some poor decisions lose out on some valid ones buz of the game.

Goal line tech is needed badly and it will come.
This thing of assistant refs behind the goals is crap and doesn't work.
And I think that each team should be allowed one 'challenge' per half, where they can ask for a video ref to judge a decision.

I'm not bothered with offside tech though as it would slow the game down to snails pace like rugby, too much stoppin and startin.
Like for example yesterday's games.

If they had a challenge system, lfc coulda used their challenge for the offside system, likewise with chelski, but then again they probably woulda used their's on the torres sending off. Maybe not, but if the rule was one per half I still think it would be fair enough.

The Italian league uses retrospective banning now and it's been good for the game so far. It was probably the reason that Klose told the ref he handled the ball recently, knowing he'd get a 3 match ban after the game if he didn't own up.

machiavellianme

I'd echo everyone elses thoughts; goal line tech but also I'd throw in offside tech (but only in instances where it leads to a goal). I dont see the need to stop the game everytime someone wanders offside and isnt involved in play or if someone picks up the ball offside but balloons it wide. That'd be it though. I just hate to see perfectly good goals ruled out because a linesman panics.

homerjay2005

Goalline tech wont change much to be honest and its not even near to being the biggest problem in terms of incorrect decisions.

lets look at yesterday, there were about 8 incorrect big calls and not one of them would have been solved by goal line technology.

• Sterling dive for first Liverpool goal.
• Another ref may have sent off Sterling before half time.
• Suarez could have been sent off, perhaps should have been sent off
• no foul for the injury time goal -Gerrard just fell over. Coates all over the defender.
• then incorrect call for the offside.
  (i was only half watching this game, so if i missed other poor calls, it is not intentional)

• Torres should have walked quicker and be facing a three game ban, as opposed to one.
• Ivanovics tackle on Evra not even a free, which could have seen him off earlier.
• Ivanovic foul on evans in the run up to the first Chelsea goal.
• Ivanovics foul on Evans not give in the box, defo peno.
• Luis handball, defo peno
• another ref may have given Rooney a second yellow for his foul on Cole.
• the goal was offside.

so the reality is, not one of those decisions would have been changed. i still think a video ref at the top level is a must, with each captain allowed to question one decision per game, plus the ref is allowed to do it himself.

the thing is, some of the decisions are so unclear, that its still impossible to tell what is what.

Its quite simply really:

Goal line technology that goes to the ref's watch. Tells him instantly whether its crossed the line or not - no issues.

Rugby style offside queries. If the lines man isn't 100%, he doesn't put his flag up. Tells the ref to check with the TMO straight after the goal should it to occur, takes 30 seconds max to get an answer.

And obviously retrospective action - none of this referee has dealt with it ****e. Everything should be game when it comes to retrospective decisions. Reds/Yellows/Dives etc etc

mike65

/\ that would be an excellent short list that would address about 80% of controversies in a game.

djPSB

Need a video ref in the stands for decisions where the ref or linesman cant make a definite judgement. Each decision will take about a minute, and it will be the correct decision each time.

Paul Tergat

AdamD wrote: »

Its quite simply really:

Goal line technology that goes to the ref's watch. Tells him instantly whether its crossed the line or not - no issues.

Rugby style offside queries. If the lines man isn't 100%, he doesn't put his flag up. Tells the ref to check with the TMO straight after the goal should it to occur, takes 30 seconds max to get an answer.

And obviously retrospective action - none of this referee has dealt with it ****e. Everything should be game when it comes to retrospective decisions. Reds/Yellows/Dives etc etc

Agree with a good lot of this

Just on the offside thing though - do you only check offsides when it leads directly to a goal? What about say an instance where someone is offside and through on goal, keeper saves it and pushes it out but the attack continues and 2 crosses later we have a goal.

I guess my question is how far do we look back?

Paul Tergat

djPSB wrote: »

Need a video ref in the stands for decisions where the ref or linesman cant make a definite judgement. Each decision will take about a minute, and it will be the correct decision each time.

The last bit isnt really true, some of it will still come down to interpretation and benefit of the doubt.

The issue over this is when do you stop play to check? How the game is restarted?

I hate sport that is stop and start and i think any move towards this is quite a delicate matter

SantryRed

AdamD wrote: »

Its quite simply really:

Goal line technology that goes to the ref's watch. Tells him instantly whether its crossed the line or not - no issues.

Rugby style offside queries. If the lines man isn't 100%, he doesn't put his flag up. Tells the ref to check with the TMO straight after the goal should it to occur, takes 30 seconds max to get an answer.

And obviously retrospective action - none of this referee has dealt with it ****e. Everything should be game when it comes to retrospective decisions. Reds/Yellows/Dives etc etc

It isn't that simple. How do you stop play when there is an offside call? How do you bring the ball back into play? Football isn't like Rugby or American Football, there is no time where the clock stops. You can't bring in technology for offsides unless you first of all change the way the clock runs in football.

SantryRed

SantryRed wrote: »

It isn't that simple. How do you stop play when there is an offside call? How do you bring the ball back into play? Football isn't like Rugby or American Football, there is no time where the clock stops. You can't bring in technology for offsides unless you first of all change the way the clock runs in football.

I said if there is a goal. Its not hard to understand...if there's a goal there can only be two outcomes:

1: Goal was onside having checked - Kick off
2: Goal was offside having checked - Free kick

It would only take 20/30 seconds, like a substitution and probably wouldn't happen more than once a match.

No issues. Its not going to be 100% because a team may get a corner they don't deserve as somebody said above. But it would be infinitely better than what we have already.

SantryRed

AdamD wrote: »

I said if there is a goal. Its not hard to understand...if there's a goal there can only be two outcomes:

1: Goal was onside having checked - Kick off
2: Goal was offside having checked - Free kick

It would only take 20/30 seconds, like a substitution and probably wouldn't happen more than once a match.

No issues. Its not going to be 100% because a team may get a corner they don't deserve as somebody said above. But it would be infinitely better than what we have already.

Sorry, misread that part.

I completely agree with that.

Hazys

GLT is stupid. How often does a ball maybe crossing the line decide the game? Maybe once/twice a year in major competitions, not even close to how many offsides given/not given decide a game which i would guess could be upto nearly every second game.

Why not have a video ref instead of sticking some chip in a ball and having special goals to identify if it crossed the line or not? Then any game that is televised can have "GLT".

If you put in the foundation of video refs, it could someday worked in to decide close offside decisions and other major decisions if appropriate.

As for Soccer being a non stop game i think thats rubbish. Just because the clock is running doesnt mean the game is being played. The ball is actually only in play 60/70 mins out of 90.



Anyway i dont think technology is the answer, mostly because the simple stuff FIFA can't do right...if they cant even handle the enforcement of simple rules of the game, adding technology to whats clearly a mess at the moment isn't going to do much.

Soccer is extremely badly officiated in comparison to other professional sports, it needs a lot of improvements. It starts with FIFA trying to install some level of integrity into the game in terms of fairness. They game is crippled with diving, inconsitent enforcement of the rules, poor offside decisions, players & fans abusing the refs influencing decisions, etc. You cannot blame the refs as they are receiving no help from FIFA. FIFA has to set out a simple set of rules and enforce them consistently.

The ingerity in the game is appaling. One tackle in one game is a straight red and in another, its not even a card. One person scores a goal that is clearly offside is allowed, in another its not a goal...how is that fair? A lot of games are decided by randomness, not whos the better team.

How often are Rugby or American Football games decide by reffing decisions? in comparison to soccer, very rarely. The lack of reffing controversy doesnt seem to hurt those games.

darced

This post has been deleted.

machiavellianme

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Goalline tech wont change much to be honest and its not even near to being the biggest problem in terms of incorrect decisions.

lets look at yesterday, there were about 8 incorrect big calls and not one of them would have been solved by goal line technology.

• Sterling dive for first Liverpool goal.
• Another ref may have sent off Sterling before half time.
• Suarez could have been sent off, perhaps should have been sent off
• no foul for the injury time goal -Gerrard just fell over. Coates all over the defender.
• then incorrect call for the offside.
  (i was only half watching this game, so if i missed other poor calls, it is not intentional)

• Torres should have walked quicker and be facing a three game ban, as opposed to one.
• Ivanovics tackle on Evra not even a free, which could have seen him off earlier.
• Ivanovic foul on evans in the run up to the first Chelsea goal.
• Ivanovics foul on Evans not give in the box, defo peno.
• Luis handball, defo peno
• another ref may have given Rooney a second yellow for his foul on Cole.
• the goal was offside.

so the reality is, not one of those decisions would have been changed. i still think a video ref at the top level is a must, with each captain allowed to question one decision per game, plus the ref is allowed to do it himself.

the thing is, some of the decisions are so unclear, that its still impossible to tell what is what.

I dont know what match you were "half watching" as I havent seen a single analyst anywhere suggest that Sterling dived. In fact most stated he had legitimate claim for a penalty.

Morzadec

Offside: Yes
Goalline: Yes

The rest, I wouldn't outright reject, but it becomes complicated. Certain penalty decisions, red card decisions, dives etc... often remain very difficult to judge even with the benefit of replay.

Take the Shelvey/Evans incident - everyone has their say, and even after numerous replays, angles, slow motions, a common consensus is not agreed upon.

This puts a huge amount of pressure on refs, as they have to justify their interpretation and decision knowing they have had all the benefit of replay.

Decisions like this also could slow the game down. It may be borderline, and the ref wants to get it right so we end up delaying the game for several minutes. This is obviously something we don't want.

With offside and goalline we don't have this problem - there is a line in play, there is a definitive 'yes' or 'no', there is no interpretation involved, it is black and white, no grey areas involved.

Offside and Goal-line technology would improve the game hugely. For the rest, interpretations of various offences would have to be more rigidly defined, because at the moment the interpretation of the game varies hugely from ref to ref, especially from country to country. This could get really tricky and I'm not sure if it could plausibly be achieved.

recyclebin

Any chance of a multiple choice poll to see what the overall consensus is?

Goal line technology: Yes
Video ref for offsides for goals: Yes
Video ref for all offsides: No
Video ref for penalty decisions: No
Video ref for red cards: No
Keep it the way it is where ref decides everything: No
Recording of referees mics so anyone can listen in via red button etc: Yes

The_Kew_Tour

machiavellianme wrote: »

I dont know what match you were "half watching" as I havent seen a single analyst anywhere suggest that Sterling dived. In fact most stated he had legitimate claim for a penalty.

11 out of 12 aint bad though. But sure not like Liverpool to miss out on the 1 wrong one.

machiavellianme

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

11 out of 12 aint bad though. But sure not like Liverpool to miss out on the 1 wrong one.

I just stopped after the first one was so grossly inaccurate as there was no point in continuing. After reading the rest, there were 4 others I'd dispute as being biased and some glaring omissions. For example the throw that led to Evertons goal should have been given the other way. Evans should have been sent off. etc etc
But yes, the whole point of this thread is because referees/linesmen "miss out on the 1 wrong" call so I'm glad we are in agreement. I fail to see what Liverpool have to do with it however, as far as I know they dont have any referees on their books?

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

11 out of 12 aint bad though. But sure not like Liverpool to miss out on the 1 wrong one.

My Dads bigger than your Dad!

The_Kew_Tour

machiavellianme wrote: »

I just stopped after the first one was so grossly inaccurate as there was no point in continuing. After reading the rest, there were 4 others I'd dispute as being biased and some glaring omissions. For example the throw that led to Evertons goal should have been given the other way. Evans should have been sent off. etc etc
But yes, the whole point of this thread is because referees/linesmen "miss out on the 1 wrong" call so I'm glad we are in agreement. I fail to see what Liverpool have to do with it however, as far as I know they dont have any referees on their books?

Would Technology have helped or be necessary though for the say the 2nd Everton Goal? Will it really have to come down to stopping play to see who should get a throw?

I hope not. All for Technology in some aspects but not all. It would turn into a farce.

ahnowbrowncow

Refs should watch a replay before sending someone off, the amount of games that are ruined because the refs are card happy.

Goal line technology, yes. Fouls outside the box, no. Penalties, not sure. Offsides, no.

_blank_

machiavellianme wrote: »

as far as I know they dont have any referees on their books?

The implication here is that other teams do?

Vurnon San Benito

I reckon it'll be a sad day when goalline technology comes in.

What would be ideal however, is giving the ref the ability to watch a replay of the tackle on the big screen and then deliver his decision, rather than pressurized on the spot decisions.

machiavellianme

Des wrote: »

The implication here is that other teams do?

Jeez, someone is suspicious? No nothing implied at all, though I cant vouch for all teams, particularly italian ones.

Chucky the tree

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

11 out of 12 aint bad though. But sure not like Liverpool to miss out on the 1 wrong one.

11 out of 12? Most of them are completely wrong or just "could have" bull****. For someone who watched only half the match it's amazing he only found fault with Liverpool decisions and no Everton ones. Oh no wait, it's homerjay so it's actually not amazing at all and is just true to form for one of the regular bridge dwellers.

ArmaniJeanss

AdamD wrote: »

Rugby style offside queries. If the lines man isn't 100%, he doesn't put his flag up. Tells the ref to check with the TMO straight after the goal should it to occur, takes 30 seconds max to get an answer.

This sounds so pleasingly simple, yet it would actually have the effect of drastically changing the game.

Sometime during Week1 of this rule a linesman would put up his flag and it would later be seen to be wrong, not offside. Castigated for this, all linesman would now err on the side of caution and keep their flag down for 95% of decisions*, allowing the safety net of TMO to cater for situations where a goal is scored. However most of the time a goal isn't scored (goals as we know are difficult to score).

Effect of this.
Currently a team who has played a perfectly good offside trap and caught a player half a yard offside gets a nice freekick, which is comfortable possession and an opportunity to dictate the next phase of the game.
Under this new rule they instead find themselves having to defend a corner or throwin, or with 'possession under pressure' near to their own penalty box. Such a fundamental change in the flow of the game that it would actually call into the question the whole merit of playing a high line and an offside trap.

* Best evidence I have for this is cricket. TMO for run-outs was originally designed for close ones only, but now its incredibly rare for an umpire to make a decision and I'd estimate they go to TMO 90%+ of the time. Human nature.

Turtyturd

machiavellianme wrote: »

I dont know what match you were "half watching" as I havent seen a single analyst anywhere suggest that Sterling dived. In fact most stated he had legitimate claim for a penalty.

His Liverpool posts make for some funny reading....top journalist.

The second Everton goal yesterday provided a good example of how technology should be used, nobody wants to see the game slowed down to decide which way a throw in should go but if it leads to a major incident like a goal then a manager should have the chance to call for a replay to challenge the decision. Same also could have been applied to the Suarez incident, obviously the amount of challenges would have to be limited to prevent certain managers turning a 90 minute game into a half day event.

The_Kew_Tour

Chucky the tree wrote: »

11 out of 12? Most of them are completely wrong or just "could have" bull****. For someone who watched only half the match it's amazing he only found fault with Liverpool decisions and no Everton ones. Oh no wait, it's homerjay so it's actually not amazing at all and is just true to form for one of the regular bridge dwellers.

No

He is actually pretty spot on with most of them its just that its only big deal when United get them.

Luckycharms_74

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Goalline tech wont change much to be honest and its not even near to being the biggest problem in terms of incorrect decisions.

lets look at yesterday, there were about 8 incorrect big calls and not one of them would have been solved by goal line technology.

• Sterling dive for first Liverpool goal. Wrong
• Another ref may have sent off Sterling before half time.
• Suarez could have been sent off, perhaps should have been sent off Wrong
• no foul for the injury time goal -Gerrard just fell over. Coates all over the defender. Wrong Again
• then incorrect call for the offside.
  (i was only half watching didn't watch this game, so if i'm missed other poor calls biased against Liverpool, it is not intentional)

• Torres should have walked quicker and be facing a three game ban, as opposed to one.
• Ivanovics tackle on Evra not even a free, which could have seen him off earlier.
• Ivanovic foul on evans in the run up to the first Chelsea goal.
• Ivanovics foul on Evans not give in the box, defo peno.
• Luis handball, defo peno
• another ref may have given Rooney a second yellow for his foul on Cole.
• the goal was offside.

so the reality is, not one of those decisions would have been changed. i still think a video ref at the top level is a must, with each captain allowed to question one decision per game, plus the ref is allowed to do it himself.

the thing is, some of the decisions are so unclear, that its still impossible to tell what is what.

What a ridiculous post & a typical United POV.
I'm glad your not a ref because you would have gotten a large portion of those decisions wrong.
Oh sorry maybe you are a ref is your name Howard Webb

Mr.Nice Guy

I see goal line technology as a must at this point.

I would also be in favour of allowing referees the right to check if a goal should be given, or ruled out as offside (as was the controversy in Arsenal, Liverpool and United's games at the weekend). A replay as in rugby union would have helped here.

As regards video for penalty decisions, I think if the referee is uncertain he ought to be able to do this.

Video ref for red cards? Again if the referee has doubts - as may have been the case with Evans and Torres - I think the ref should have this right.

I would also be fine with managers having maybe two opportunities to request the referee look at incidents above if the referee himself has not chosen to do so. A bit like in tennis when the player gets the right to challenge the umpire's ruling on disputed calls.

I don't agree that this would hamper the flow of a game because currently when there are controversial calls you have about 2-3 minutes spent with players surrounding officials and linesmen.

_blank_

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Video ref for red cards? Again if the referee has doubts - as may have been the case with Evans and Torres - I think the ref should have this right.

The ref had absolutely no doubts about his decision at the time on Sunday as regards Torres - it seemed to me he was fairly quick to take the card out and send torres off, in that instance, even if the option was there, Clattenburg WOULDN'T have taken it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Des wrote: »

The ref had absolutely no doubts about his decision at the time on Sunday as regards Torres - it seemed to me he was fairly quick to take the card out and send torres off, in that instance, even if the option was there, Clattenburg WOULDN'T have taken it.

Yes, you're right. Technology wouldn't have saved Torres in that situation. There would have had to be some sort of opportunity for Di Matteo to request the decision be looked at again.

I would be in favour of this myself, but I would have to concede it would undermine the authority of officials in situations like this.

Chucky the tree

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

No

He is actually pretty spot on with most of them its just that its only big deal when United get them.

He's not. He's wrong with most of the Everton vs Liverpool ones anyway. Didn't bother reading the rest.

DM_7

Goal line Yes.

Referee have should have the option to check if a goal is legitimate by referring to a Video Ref that makes the decision like in Rugby. As in Rugby the ref should ask the question he wants answered.

Penalty decisions, maybe but its not always clear if it is a peno or not and can come down to opinion so I'm not sure

Red cards, Dives etc should not be checked imo, again because the decision is open to a personal opinion unlike if the player is offside or ball is over the line.

Regardless a team/manager should not be allowed to call for a referral like other sports. Referees are under enough pressure without managers getting the chance to put even more scrutiny on a decision. At least the current system means the ref won't know about a mistake till after the game and stop him second guessing himself all match. Allowing referrals could lead to more mistakes as the ref becomes less decisive. Any rules brought in need to help the ref, not make the job harder for them.