Should technology be used for reds, yellows and penalty disputes?

nucker

A good point being banded about, should the video technology or other technology be used for disputing red and yellow card disputes as well as penalty decisions?

The confederation Cup that is currently going on is using goal line technology to see if the ball did go over the line in borderline disputes i.e. the ones that can't be decided by human eyes alone

Personally I can't see how this is going to come about, would be interested

Amirani

Goal-line decisions only is fine in my opinion.

lertsnim

Red cards absolutely

nucker

lertsnim wrote: »

Red cards absolutely

But are we going to have so many stops over players just falling over? It seems ridiculous, to be honest. Yes, some of the ref's decisions are blatantly wrong

Outkast_IRE

Goal line decisions it should be automatic .
Other decisions, the captain or manager should be able to challenge 2 decisions in the game, if the decision is reversed then then you keep your challenge.
If you challenge and your wrong then you lose that turn obviously.

Much like NFL in the states, but only used for goal line automatically.

Amirani

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Goal line decisions it should be automatic .
Other decisions, the captain or manager should be able to challenge 2 decisions in the game, if the decision is reversed then then you keep your challenge.
If you challenge and your wrong then you lose that turn obviously.

Much like NFL in the states, but only used for goal line automatically.

I'd rather this didn't happen.

LuckyLloyd

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'd rather this didn't happen.

Football will fall into line eventually.

Outkast_IRE

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'd rather this didn't happen.

I don't see how it will impact the football, it will just help keep things honest.

lertsnim

nucker wrote: »

But are we going to have so many stops over players just falling over? It seems ridiculous, to be honest. Yes, some of the ref's decisions are blatantly wrong

No. If a referee is going to send somebody off the game stops anyway. Check the video then. I mean video technology only after a referee has stopped the game to send someone off.

kryogen

Goal line only for me, only other one I would even be open to discussion on is offside

CSF

Goalline only, nothing that can't be decided instantly.

citytillidie

Goal line and the free kick spray they use in the MLS to stop the wall moving forward

nucker

citytillidie wrote: »

Goal line and the free kick spray they use in the MLS to stop the wall moving forward

Nah, ok, its got to be 10 yards away, but that is asking to be too precise all the time

kryogen

citytillidie wrote: »

Goal line and the free kick spray they use in the MLS to stop the wall moving forward

I like that, where did we see it first? Was it Brazil?

citytillidie

nucker wrote: »

Nah, ok, its got to be 10 yards away, but that is asking to be too precise all the time

Stops another form of cheating

citytillidie

kryogen wrote: »

I like that, where did we see it first? Was it Brazil?

Yea South America had it 1st

nucker

kryogen wrote: »

I like that, where did we see it first? Was it Brazil?

Google it, too easy to find

kryogen

Ah sometimes I like to engage in discussion rather then just google, my memory was correct anyway so no need

Richard Hillman

I agree with a limited number of challenges system. Fouls are interpreted though so it may not be conclusive. There may be an issue over what constitutes going over too easily.

It won't happen under the FIFA umbrella though. They are too conservative.

Bertser

I wonder if they will ever develop technology for offside decisions, that'd be interesting.

DerekDGoldfish

Bertser wrote: »

I wonder if they will ever develop technology for offside decisions, that'd be interesting.

The computer would have to be able to tell if a player is interfering with play, such subjective judgements would result in the computer developing its own consiousness and enslaving mankind, and then those who wanted to introduce technology to football will feel sorry.

Easy Rod

Too much down to interpretation regardless of how much you slow a tackle down, will not work.

Goal line and potentially offsides should work.

CSF

Easy Rod wrote: »

Too much down to interpretation regardless of how much you slow a tackle down, will not work.

Goal line and potentially offsides should work.

The interference with play issue means offsides won't work without delays to the game.

dfx-

No in reference to the OP question

Thankfully FIFA are holding out against bringing it all in technology wise or even almost any of it.

LiamoSail

I think technology should be used retrospectively to punish diving, simulation, violent conduct etc, but doing so during the game would slow the game too much IMO

Goal line technology is fine, but beyond that I'm not sure if technology can fit within the game requirement for instant decisions

I would like to see further use of it retrospectively though as I said, with harsher bans to act as a further deterrent

As an aside, I'd also be in favour of an FA rule along the lines of players being fined the equivalent of their salary for the duration of their ban, hence a three game ban would result in a player forfeiting three weeks salary

osarusan

No problem with goalline technology. Not in favour of it for any other use, although don't see a huge problem with automatic review of a goal for any offsides.

Would not like to see a challenge system like the one mentioned earlier, unless there were severe restrictions on what decisions could be challenged; otherwise we'd have teams challenging unimportant decisions again and again, getting the decision overturned, and using that to badger the referee even more.

All in favour of using technology (TV basically) to retrospectively address serious fouls and dives a referee may have missed.

Technology should be used wherever possible imo.

A guy in front of a tv, with a quick word through to the ref. 9 times out of 10 it will be clear cut and be fairly instant.

CSF

rarnes1 wrote: »

Technology should be used wherever possible imo.

A guy in front of a tv, with a quick word through to the ref. 9 times out of 10 it will be clear cut and be fairly instant.

How do you use it though, considering the ball might not go out of play for 5-10 minutes after the incident?

inmyday

Why not copy rugby with technology? I think that would be ideal for football. And also, the ref should have the same respect as they have in rugby.

CSF

inmyday wrote: »

Why not copy rugby with technology? I think that would be ideal for football. And also, the ref should have the same respect as they have in rugby.

Because rugby is ****.

jimjimjimmy

The challenge system similar to NFL is not as applicable to soccer. In NFL they can't challenge judgement calls only things that can be physically proved, such as ball location, feet touching the line, ball being dropped.

For soccer this would be only useful for things like handball, who the ball touched last, offside(which has some judgement), was the foul in the box or outside. With the exception of offside, the other ones don't happen frequently or get called wrong frequently enough to justify the expense of the video technology.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

Because rugby is ****.

Embarrassing. If rugby's governing body were looking after football it would be in much better shape. They actively try to solve issues, FIFA/UEFA/FA do not and are a shambles at times.

CSF

AdamD wrote: »

Embarrassing. If rugby's governing body were looking after football it would be in much better shape. They actively try to solve issues, FIFA/UEFA/FA do not and are a shambles at times.

I'm not embarassed. If rugby's governing body were looking after football, it would probably be **** like rugby.

Pepe LeFrits

Easy Rod wrote: »

Too much down to interpretation

That's what the referee is there for.

I find the argument that these things would slow the game down too much odd. Try counting how much time ticks down while the ball isn't in play next time you watch a match (it'll probably be about 40 minutes). Also, watch any heated matched with perceived injustices and see how much time is wasted with players arguing about decisions.

Irregardless, getting match changing decisions like penalties and red cards right is far more important than adding a small amount of time onto the game. It only takes a few seconds to view a replay, much better than spoiling 90 minutes of a match.

losthorizon

CSF wrote: »

Because rugby is ****.

Can I click the thumbs up sign 100 times?

Knex*

I'd love to see a challenge system, similar to tennis, brought in tbh.

I don't think it would hugely get in the way of the game either, but I can definitely see it enhancing it.

ArmaniJeanss

AdamD wrote: »

Embarrassing. If rugby's governing body were looking after football it would be in much better shape.

The European Championship would take place yearly on a Home and Away basis between Spain, Italy, Holland, England, Germany and France.
No-one else would be allowed in or even have a means of entry via playoff.
A couple of the lesser nations would get to the World Cup every 4 years where they'd have to play all their 3 group games in a 72 hour period.

Rugby does a lot of stuff right, but thats from our ivory tower position of being established in the unbreakinable Tier 1.
Be outside that group and I doubt it's very pleasant.

AgileMyth

Technology will be the death of football. Half the fun of going to a game is talking about contentious decisions afterwards.


Even goal line technology is ****e.

The_Kew_Tour

AdamD wrote: »

Embarrassing. If rugby's governing body were looking after football it would be in much better shape. They actively try to solve issues, FIFA/UEFA/FA do not and are a shambles at times.

no it would not.

Dont cod yourself.

Flincher

The advantage rugby/tennis/American Football has is that the game is stopped when the TMO is being used. In rugby, its to decide if a try can be awarded - the remit has been extended to cover clear and obvious decisions in the lead up to the try, and foul play.

The only comparable situation in soccer is deciding if a goal can be awarded - I think perhaps a review of goals for offside could work. However, if a team is defending, and play is stopped to review what turns out to be a fair tackle, it would seem unfair to deny the team a counter attacking opportunity because a manager throws a flag in the air. Given how long teams keep the ball in play, waiting for the next stoppage is tricky. Do you wait 3 or 4 minutes, review the decision, and the rewind the clock to the time of the incident if it turns out a foul has been committed?

It's definitely a tricky one.

And as mentioned above, I'd love to see soccer refs being shown the same respect as they are in rugby. In the English rugby Premiership final, the Northampton captain got a straight red card for calling the ref a "****ing cheat". The incident is here, but I think the most impressive thing is that having their captain sent off, not one Northampton player approached the ref. Compare that to, well, most red cards in soccer.

Gbear

Far more goals are given/not given because of incorrect offsides than incorrect goal-line calls. I'm happy that they're (hopefully) fixing goal line decisions but offside is more important imo.

What they could do is leave a computer to tell the ref whether a player is offside or not (and maybe tell the officials which player it was on a little gadget on their wrist) and then it's down to the 3 officials (depending on where it happened) to decide who was interfering with play. So if they weren't interfering with play they just ignore the computer.
I think that that's easier to judge than the actual offside itself.

It might still not be perfect but an improvement is good enough.

Wouldn't slow the game down either.

For other calls they could have a quick question to a computer to clarify certain decisions - "did the player make contact with the ball", "was the player in or outside the box".
These are things that could be pretty much answered straight away so slowing the game down wouldn't really be a problem.

losthorizon

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

no it would not.

Dont cod yourself.

Western Samoa and Tonga might also be world forces in football if the Rugby authorities were in charge. Which just goes to show what a farce "the world cup" is.

the European cup in rugby consists of teams from Britain, France, Ireland and Italy. Thats hardly Europe in my book.

losthorizon

losthorizon wrote: »

Western Samoa and Tonga might also be world forces in football if the Rugby authorities were in charge. Which just goes to show what a farce "the world cup" is.

the European cup in rugby consists of teams from Britain, France, Ireland and Italy. Thats hardly Europe in my book.

This is hilarious. Don't comment on the sport if you have a ridiculously poor knowledge of it.

CSF

AdamD wrote: »

This is hilarious. Don't comment on the sport if you have a ridiculously poor knowledge of it.

It is actually very accurate. Very few countries participate to a meaningful degree.

losthorizon

AdamD wrote: »

This is hilarious. Don't comment on the sport if you have a ridiculously poor knowledge of it.

I went to a rugby school and played rugby when nobody else did (or rather was made to). I used to get into fierce trouble for sneaking off to football games so I think I know a good deal about the game. My PE teacher was Moss Finn for a while (if you know who he was).

Guy:Incognito

nucker wrote: »

But are we going to have so many stops over players just falling over? It seems ridiculous, to be honest. Yes, some of the ref's decisions are blatantly wrong

If players were getting booked every time they dive id say after a while there will be a lot less stoppages to check for diving

Guy:Incognito

DerekDGoldfish wrote: »

The computer would have to be able to tell if a player is interfering with play, such subjective judgements would result in the computer developing its own consiousness and enslaving mankind, and then those who wanted to introduce technology to football will feel sorry.

Not if they just went back to the good old days of either on or off side.:)

The_Kew_Tour

AdamD wrote: »

This is hilarious. Don't comment on the sport if you have a ridiculously poor knowledge of it.

What other European countries play in it?

inmyday

CSF wrote: »

Because rugby is ****.

Well its your opinion. I never said you have to like rugby. Just copy their use of technology and the respect for refs.
With the money involved in football, technology has to be used. And a video ref, not these officials behind the goal line that seem to do nothing.

AgileMyth

inmyday wrote: »

Well its your opinion. I never said you have to like rugby. Just copy their use of technology and the respect for refs.
With the money involved in football, technology has to be used. And a video ref, not these officials behind the goal line that seem to do nothing.

And thats your opinion. and, in my opinion, its ridiculous. 'We have to use technology because of the money'- Why? Why ruin a brilliant sport because theres a lot of money in it? How will that benefit the supporters?

Maybe if we don't introduce the use of technology the dickheads who are ruining football by pumping vast amounts of money into it will **** off and we can get back to watching a bit of football.

Also, as someone else said, rugby is a bad example. Because its ****.

losthorizon

I agree rugby is **** but the one good thing is the respect for the ref and if I could get rid of one thing it would be diving. What we need are more Collinas!