What is your view on the Video Assistant Referee system?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Jose Mourinho thinks.

We all need it. Professionals can’t lose or win matches and titles because of a refusal of this evolution. Sponsors, owners and investors must feel that technology is there. Also, referees especially need and deserve protection. They need the technology to help them, protect them and to support them.

I feel if it is implemented, it is the type of thing that nearly everyone will scratch their heads and ask why it hadn't been done long before.

Reducing obvious bad decisions in games can only have a positive impact to the game.

Tom Mann Centuria

There were loads of examples of video ref poor decisions in Rugby League last season, the NFL and cricket, the sedatest of sport with as much time as you need. Real shockers, the NFL and the NRL have camera angles coming out their arse. It's just another layer of officialdom that make mistakes and Jose or anyone else can blame.

I'm not in favour in soccer having further video refereeing and still like the notion that what's on offer to Premier league clubs is available to the whole game.

Harry Palmr

Mission creep is the big worry for most fans of the game I suspect. In theory it's fine.

Korat

It would be a disaster in soccer. There's not a lot that happens on a pitch that isn't seen by some official so it would mostly be used for incidents the referee has already made a judgement on. The review will nearly always favour the home team especially if their own people control the replays on the big screen. I could even see it leading to crowd trouble.

Andersonisgod

It's crazy that some form of video officiating hasn't already been implemented at the top level. Though given how football is, and has traditionally, been run it's not the least bit surprising. So many big matches, big moments and big titles are decided by basic refereeing errors that it calls into question the very legitimacy of the sport. Is there an absolutely perfect way of implementing this? Probably not, but in any version of video technology it allows an official who is removed from the tensions of the on-pitch action and gives them time and various angles to consider the correct action for an incident. As a result, whatever way it is implemented will be better than the current situation which is archaic.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Almost every call outside of whether the ball has crossed the line is a judgment call. They've sorted out the issue regarding the ball crossing the goal line and technology should go no further than that.

Refs are going to make mistakes with or without video refereeing all this is going to do is add more unnecessary stoppages and bore everyone to death looking at the same replay over and over again and not being much the wiser as almost every decision in soccer outside of whether the ball crosses the line is a judgment call so you are asking the referee to questions himself constantly which will probably lead to massive indecisiveness amongst them and therefore poorer refereeing.

Lovely Bloke

Offside could be called in pretty much real time in disputed goals, the Zlatan goal the other day, against West Ham, it was immediately shown, with lines on the screen and all, that he was offside, in the replay.

Off the ball Serious Foul Play could also be punished in-game (Zidane anyone?), any incidents could be reviewed and at the next stoppage the ref could be flagged and action taken.

All fouls and cardable incidents in a "melee" type situation (Chelsea v City a few weeks back for example) could be reviewed and actioned.

Jayop

I'd have to say yeah I wish we could have this technology. The majority of decisions could be taken while the game is ongoing as you now see happening in Rugby Union. The ref will ask the video ref to review an incident without the game having to be stopped. In this case it should be up to the assistant ref.

For the likes of penalties and goals given the video ref can review them and unless there's a very clear cut reason to overturn the ref then the original decision should stand.

This simple technology has really improved Rugby Union for me anyway and there's no good reason why it can't do the same for football. A lot of the old crying that goes on among fans is that certain clubs are getting all the decisions, or in the case of my club this year up to around Xmas we were getting rode by refs, then instantly a lot of that would be gone. Sure a lot of things are judgment calls, but with the aid of replays then a better judgement call can be given.

Korat

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Offside could be called in pretty much real time in disputed goals, the Zlatan goal the other day, against West Ham, it was immediately shown, with lines on the screen and all, that he was offside, in the replay.

Off the ball Serious Foul Play could also be punished in-game (Zidane anyone?), any incidents could be reviewed and at the next stoppage the ref could be flagged and action taken.

All fouls and cardable incidents in a "melee" type situation (Chelsea v City a few weeks back for example) could be reviewed and actioned.

Who decides what to review?

It'll be completely influenced by the home fans and it's asking for trouble to let fans think that decisions can be changed after the event.

Jayop

Korat wrote: »

Who decides what to review?

It'll be completely influenced by the home fans and it's asking for trouble to let fans think that decisions can be changed after the event.

The referee, the same as the rugby obviously. The video ref won't be some lacky from the home club, it would be a fully qualified referee with training on how to use the technology.

If the video ref spots something that the ref missed then he should be able to bring that to his attention too.

niallo27

Korat wrote: »

Who decides what to review?

It'll be completely influenced by the home fans and it's asking for trouble to let fans think that decisions can be changed after the event.

Who decides what to review in Rugby. If the ref is not on sure on something he asks for help. I know it has slowed rugby down but there is way more going on in Rugby and a lot more players to control.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Soccer has too much flow as a sport for it to work as well. Rugby effectively has a set piece every 10 seconds, American football,tennis and cricket are sports based on continuous set pieces.

Jayop

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Soccer has too much flow as a sport for it to work as well. Rugby effectively has a set piece every 10 seconds, American football,tennis and cricket are sports based on continuous set pieces.

Why does the game have to stop unless it's an occasion the ref has already stopped it?

Scenario...

• Ref see's a potential handball in the box but wasn't sure.
• Waves play on but contacts the video ref for a review of the incident.
• Video ref either awards or dismisses the penalty.
• Play either continues unaffected or goes back for the pen.
• If team denied pen approach the ref at next break in play he can inform them it was reviewed.

Andersonisgod

Good use of technology here in this City vs West Ham game.

Korat

Jayop wrote: »

If the video ref spots something that the ref missed then he should be able to bring that to his attention too.

This is a problem in rugby as TMO's (Television Match Officials)are almost refereeing some games.

If soccer has a problem with refs making bad decisions don't think that having more of them involved in the decision making will improve things.

In the worst cases where there's been a controversial incident it becomes a way for the ref to pass the buck to someone else.

It will cause more problems than it solves in soccer believe me.

Jayop

Korat wrote: »

This is a problem in rugby as TMO's (Television Match Officials)are almost refereeing some games.

If soccer has a problem with refs making bad decisions don't think that having more of them involved in the decision making will improve things.

In the worst cases where there's been a controversial incident it becomes a way for the ref to pass the buck to someone else.

It will cause more problems than it solves in soccer believe me.

I watch quite a bit of rugby and I've never felt the TMO was reffing a game. They are there at the behest of the on field ref and the on field ref has the first and final say on absolutely everything.

I was watching a video of all the questionable decisions that went against United in the first half of the season and bar maybe 2/3 of them they are all things that could be conclusively called with 2/3 views of a replay by a qualified ref. The stakes are just so high in the league now and the attention it gets is so high that every mistake a ref makes is magnified 10 times. As a result I think all respect for refs is gone out the window even though they are no worse than they were 10 years ago.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jayop wrote: »

Why does the game have to stop unless it's an occasion the ref has already stopped it?

Scenario...

• Ref see's a potential handball in the box but wasn't sure.
• Waves play on but contacts the video ref for a review of the incident.
• Video ref either awards or dismisses the penalty.
• Play either continues unaffected or goes back for the pen.
• If team denied pen approach the ref at next break in play he can inform them it was reviewed.

What happens if a booking or goal occurs in this time between the handball and the ref being informed that a penalty should have been awarded. Should they count?

Jayop

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

What happens if a booking or goal occurs in this time between the handball and the ref being informed that a penalty should have been awarded. Should they count?

If there's a booking for foul play then yes. If there's a goal to the other team then clearly not.

The only problem I'd have is that if there's a goal for the team that should have got the penalty what do you do? I guess that's where someone smarter than me will need to come with guidelines. Perhaps give the vid ref a limit of 60 seconds to look at an incident. If it takes longer than that then the game needs to be stopped.

Beasty

I think it would detract massively from the game and possibly result in more arguments over judgement calls. Think they've got it right with goalline technology but even that is not infallible

When I started going to matches you could pretty much guarantee you would be out of the stadium by 4:50. Additional scrutiny of decisions and you might be lucky to be away by 5:30. That's what's happening in Rugby. Football is much more of a flowing game and all these interruptions may destroy the spectacle.

niallo27

Jayop wrote: »

If there's a booking for foul play then yes. If there's a goal to the other team then clearly not.

The only problem I'd have is that if there's a goal for the team that should have got the penalty what do you do? I guess that's where someone smarter than me will need to come with guidelines. Perhaps give the vid ref a limit of 60 seconds to look at an incident. If it takes longer than that then the game needs to be stopped.

Sure why not just play advantage and give the goal. Rugby is not pulled back for pen if a try is scored.

niallo27

Beasty wrote: »

I think it would detract massively from the game and possibly result in more arguments over judgement calls. Think they've got it right with goalline technology but even that is not infallible

When I started going to matches you could pretty much guarantee you would be out of the stadium by 4:50. Additional scrutiny of decisions and you might be lucky to be away by 5:30. That's what's happening in Rugby. Football is much more of a flowing game and all these interruptions may destroy the spectacle.

Yes but so much going on in Rugby and so many more players. People thought the same about rugby but I think 99% of people will say it has made the game better.

Korat

Jayop wrote: »

I watch quite a bit of rugby and I've never felt the TMO was reffing a game. They are there at the behest of the on field ref and the on field ref has the first and final say on absolutely everything.

I was watching a video of all the questionable decisions that went against United in the first half of the season and bar maybe 2/3 of them they are all things that could be conclusively called with 2/3 views of a replay by a qualified ref. The stakes are just so high in the league now and the attention it gets is so high that every mistake a ref makes is magnified 10 times. As a result I think all respect for refs is gone out the window even though they are no worse than they were 10 years ago.

I saw at least two Pro 12 games before X-mas where the TMO was injecting and influencing the course of the game as opposed to being called on to check incidents by the ref.

That may be because the ref has asked them too to do that before the game but it didn't look good for the refs credibility.

Even Nigel Owens, one of the best refs in the world had his own correct opinion swayed by a TMO recently to make the wrong call. Zane Kirchner smashed Darren Sweetnam without the ball and Owen's instinct was to give a yellow card. The TMO pushed his own opinion and in the end no yellow card was given.

Andersonisgod

Korat wrote: »

I saw at least two Pro 12 games before X-mas where the TMO was injecting and influencing the course of the game as opposed to being called on to check incidents by the ref.

That may be because the ref has asked them too to do that before the game but it didn't look good for the refs credibility.

Even Nigel Owens, one of the best refs in the world had his own correct opinion swayed by a TMO recently to make the wrong call. Zane Kirchner smashed Darren Sweetnam without the ball and Owen's instinct was to give a yellow card. The TMO pushed his own opinion and in the end no yellow card was given.

Is that not just an isolated incident though? An exception rather than the rule? Afterall, how can a professional with the benefit of several angles and not swayed by the furore on the pitch not be better placed to give key decisions than an on-pitch referee?

Morzadec

It should only be implemented for black / white decisions (goal line and offside).

Other decisions are too contentious - think about how many times seasoned football fans or pundits disagree on a decision. It could result in a huge amount of "soft" penalties being given as refs reviewing a decision won't really be able to condone that little tug / trip and will have to call it as a foul. This could arguably legitimise "buying" penalties.

An appeal system like in tennis could be a way to go. Refs / rule makers would need to become a lot more cohesive and decisive about what constitutes a red card / a pen etc... and this would arguably have to be universalised a bit more than it currently is (refs in England and in Spain ref the gsme very differently for example )

I would love the immediate introduction of video replays for offside calls based on the success of goal line technology though. It would be a very quick, completely conclusive (we're talking about a clear line again ) and very important match defining decision.

Goal line and offside is very doable, wouldn't slow the game and would be a great first step.

The rest too messy, too controversial and too grey for me.

Not voting in the poll as don't really agree with any of the options, too simplistic

Morzadec

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Almost every call outside of whether the ball has crossed the line is a judgment call. They've sorted out the issue regarding the ball crossing the goal line and technology should go no further than that.

Refs are going to make mistakes with or without video refereeing all this is going to do is add more unnecessary stoppages and bore everyone to death looking at the same replay over and over again and not being much the wiser as almost every decision in soccer outside of whether the ball crosses the line is a judgment call so you are asking the referee to questions himself constantly which will probably lead to massive indecisiveness amongst them and therefore poorer refereeing.

I agree with your sentiment but i would argue that offside calls also involve a line and therefore should essentially never be a judgement call. The rule is clear enough and the footage can be paused for us to always call whether even a centimetre of a player is beyond the last man.

Offside for me is the next step. Can easily be done imo. Once we have that working well maybe we can discuss what comes next. Could be messy as i said but think step by step is the way to go

Beasty

Goal line technology require cameras in line. With offside you cannot cover every possibility. Equally it's possible that players obstruct a clear view. That then makes it more judgemental. Indeed how granular do you go? Do you use ultra HD to take it down to millimetres? Even then it may be inconclusive. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but you could still end up with debates as long as the one emanating from the 1966 WC Final!

If you have multiple angles people expect them all to be viewed "just in case". Should you therefore look at multiple views for every incident (which can be very time-consuming and still indecisive), only to find another several days later which proves the actual decision wrong (and that has happened in other sports)?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Morzadec wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment but i would argue that offside calls also involve a line and therefore should essentially never be a judgement call. The rule is clear enough and the footage can be paused for us to always call whether even a centimetre of a player is beyond the last man.

Offside for me is the next step. Can easily be done imo. Once we have that working well maybe we can discuss what comes next. Could be messy as i said but think step by step is the way to go

Offside could maybe be acceptable as well as it is generally fairly clear cut but it would have to be 100% certain that there was an offside and zero doubt, but I don't think it can ever get to the stage where fouls are reviewed.

dfx-

Bring in retrospective action and leave it at that. Not in favour of in-game video reviews in whatever form, it doesn't matter what other sports do.

bucketybuck

I think that people calling for more and more technological interference in what is a simple game really aren't seeing the bigger picture, and should be careful what they wish for.

Stop worrying about the money and the concerns of various multi-million pound corporations, start worrying about the long term effect of sanitizing the sport.

Korat

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Offside could maybe be acceptable as well as it is generally fairly clear cut but it would have to be 100% certain that there was an offside and zero doubt, but I don't think it can ever get to the stage where fouls are reviewed.

Even then there'd have to be some technology element to remove any diferences of interpretation between officials in one game and another. Like the goal line technology, there's nothing to debate, no interpretation, it's either onside or offside decided instantly. That would be as far as I'd with it everything else is too subjective.

Tom Mann Centuria

It doesn't matter how many officials, or how many cameras, there are mistakes, lots of them, and they can take an age to still come up with a bad call. TV companies will be all for it, not because they want a pure game, with correct decisions. They want space to squeeze in an ad or two.

Or like the NRL where the video ref is sponsored by KFC.

The complaining wont go away, it'll just be different.

Manager "well I can't see why incident wasn't reviewed, when a similar incident happened last season they reviewed it and overturned the decision on the pitch, it clearly cost us the game"

"well I disagree with that decision, if we'd had angle from far corner flag we'd have clearly seen him touch ball with his hand"

"with the 12 reviews in the 2nd half I worked out there should have been only 7 minutes and 16 seconds of additional extra time, ref played 7 minutes and 22 and they scored"

"this video ref had a poor game last week and misinterpreted the tackle decision, it was possible to see my player got ball first after the 8th replay, but he only looked 7 times" "so I'm disappointed he's in the booth again this week"

Etc etc

Only for the rich clubs though of course.

Tom Mann Centuria

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Offside could maybe be acceptable as well as it is generally fairly clear cut but it would have to be 100% certain that there was an offside and zero doubt, but I don't think it can ever get to the stage where fouls are reviewed.

Used to be clear cut, on or off. Not any more.

Is the player interfering with play, did he make attempt at ball, has he got in keepers eye line.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I think it can work really well with offside as decisions can be assessed almost instantaneously. So see no reason why that can't be implemented right now.

The other two ways in which it can help are when a referee awards a penalty or sends someone off, then it can be referred to the 'Video Assistant Referee'. There simply isn't much else that can 'turn a game on its head' with a wrong call.
It's also important to note that during these moments in a game there is already a long natural break in play before it resumes. Even a straight red card can take 3/4 minutes before play gets started again.

I think technology would lead to massive amounts of more tension/excitement for fans as everyone awaits a big decision (that takes no more than 30 seconds) with bated breath.

You'll never eliminate all human error mistakes in the game, but reducing them would bring it on leaps and bounds.

I also really disagree with the poster who said it could lead to crowd trouble, that's a fairly silly argument to make in the context that there would be less injustice within the game to get truly mad about.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many officials, or how many cameras, there are mistakes, lots of them, and they can take an age to still come up with a bad call. TV companies will be all for it, not because they want a pure game, with correct decisions. They want space to squeeze in an ad or two.

Or like the NRL where the video ref is sponsored by KFC.

The complaining wont go away, it'll just be different.

Manager "well I can't see why incident wasn't reviewed, when a similar incident happened last season they reviewed it and overturned the decision on the pitch, it clearly cost us the game"

"well I disagree with that decision, if we'd had angle from far corner flag we'd have clearly seen him touch ball with his hand"

"with the 12 reviews in the 2nd half I worked out there should have been only 7 minutes and 16 seconds of additional extra time, ref played 7 minutes and 22 and they scored"

"this video ref had a poor game last week and misinterpreted the tackle decision, it was possible to see my player got ball first after the 8th replay, but he only looked 7 times" "so I'm disappointed he's in the booth again this week"

Etc etc

Only for the rich clubs though of course.

I don't think they could be used for anything more than off sides, penalties and red cards. And all would be a quick review and a yes or no answer back to the ref on the pitch.

Arghus

I think there should be a poll option for I'm not sure dammit.

Because I'm not. Sure, in principle, who wouldn't want improved decision making in the game? But you do have to think in what cases is it applicable or helpful. Some things on the field are clear cut, but many contentious issues are contentious precisely because they are often unclear and open to interpretation. Was that a penalty? Is that a foul? Is that a deliberate handball? etc ,etc ,etc... What about how the flow of the game is affected? Is play allowed to continue while a decision is being made? What happens then if something crucial happens during that time? Is play stopped to allow decisions? How are the dynamics of the game altered? Is it a fair trade off? Loads of questions....

Maybe increased reliance on technology assisted decision making will be a panacea to many of the ills that supposedly beset the game. Or maybe it will just bring us into a new era with even newer controversial flash-points that we can't conceive of yet, until they arrive. In addition to that we don't really know how it could potentially be phased in anyway or, most pertinently of all, - what it really entails.

So: I don't know.

Andersonisgod

Arghus wrote: »

I think there should be a poll option for I'm not sure dammit.

Because I'm not. Sure, in principle, who wouldn't want improved decision making in the game? But you do have to think in what cases is it applicable or helpful. Some things on the field are clear cut, but many contentious issues are contentious precisely because they are often unclear and open to interpretation. Was that a penalty? Is that a foul? Is that a deliberate handball? etc ,etc ,etc... What about how the flow of the game is affected? Is play allowed to continue while a decision is being made? What happens then if something crucial happens during that time? Is play stopped to allow decisions? How are the dynamics of the game altered? Is it a fair trade off? Loads of questions....

Maybe increased reliance on technology assisted decision making will be a panacea to many of the ills that supposedly beset the game. Or maybe it will just bring us into a new era with even newer controversial flash-points that we can't conceive of yet, until they arrive. In addition to that we don't really know how it could potentially be phased in anyway or, most pertinently of all, - what it really entails.

So: I don't know.

I think the poster above that said it could easily be used for offsides, penalties and red cards without interrupting the flow of the game is spot on. I also think the argument that video assistance shouldn't be implemented because "it wouldn't be 100% full proof" is completely missing the point. The very reason these things would be brought in would be to help officials. An off-pitch official given the benefit of replays from different angles can then give an informed decision to the on-pitch official. Ultimately while decisions like penalty or not, red card or not will still come down to human interpretation, surely you'd want the human who is interpreting these things to have the best possible information to base it on. We all know that an on-pitch official cant see everything, maybe he's not in the best position to give a decision, maybe his view is obstructed by a player, maybe he's missed something that's happened at the other end of the pitch. A video assisted referee system isn't a giant robot that will define each situation into right or wrong, but it does offer officials the best possible resource to officiate a game correctly by giving them all of the information available. I can't believe there are people out there who'd rather sport was officiated on the basis of occasionally uninformed decisions rather than informed decisions.

Arghus

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I think the poster above that said it could easily be used for offsides, penalties and red cards without interrupting the flow of the game is spot on. I also think the argument that video assistance shouldn't be implemented because "it wouldn't be 100% full proof" is completely missing the point. The very reason these things would be brought in would be to help officials. An off-pitch official given the benefit of replays from different angles can then give an informed decision to the on-pitch official. Ultimately while decisions like penalty or not, red card or not will still come down to human interpretation, surely you'd want the human who is interpreting these things to have the best possible information to base it on. We all know that an on-pitch official cant see everything, maybe he's not in the best position to give a decision, maybe his view is obstructed by a player, maybe he's missed something that's happened at the other end of the pitch. A video assisted referee system isn't a giant robot that will define each situation into right or wrong, but it does offer officials the best possible resource to officiate a game correctly by giving them all of the information available. I can't believe there are people out there who'd rather sport was officiated on the basis of occasionally uninformed decisions rather than informed decisions.

I think if there's a way of improving Offside decision making using the system then yes, I'd give that a tentative thumbs up. But, in practice, hopefully it wouldn't become endless debates about how could they possibly have judged Player A to be active and so on. We'd really have to see how it operates. Right now we can only speculate and guess. Other than that anything involving "fouls" could be potentially opening a Pandora's box.

I absolutely accept that any system wouldn't be 100% accurate, because that's impossible.

ceegee

Video reviews for offside decisions could be easily introduced. Leave it up to the ref to decide if someone's interfering with play etc, just ask the video ref if someone was past the last defender.
Should only take a few extra seconds.

AgileMyth

Always amazes me that the vast majority of proclaimed football supporters are in favour of this. Greatest sport in the world, let's ruin it.

Television decisions for television fans.

Beasty, you make some very good points but I don't think anyone thinks it's going to be some silver bullet that solves every poor decision. If it clears up even 90% of poor calls surely its an improvement?

What impact it will have on flow to the game remains to be seen. That's what testing is for and for this it would have to be pretty rigorous surely.

Richard Hillman

All goals are reviewable for 5 seconds up to the ball crossing the line.

Each manager gets 1 appeal per game. The manager keeps his appeal if the decision was incorrect

A video ref constantly monitors violent conduct incidents.

Beasty

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Beasty, you make some very good points but I don't think anyone thinks it's going to be some silver bullet that solves every poor decision. If it clears up even 90% of poor calls surely its an improvement?

What impact it will have on flow to the game remains to be seen. That's what testing is for and for this it would have to be pretty rigorous surely.

The other factor is part of the "game" is debating/arguing decisions. Take away those debating points would take a lot of the "fun" out of it

Mushy

Beasty wrote: »

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Beasty, you make some very good points but I don't think anyone thinks it's going to be some silver bullet that solves every poor decision. If it clears up even 90% of poor calls surely its an improvement?

What impact it will have on flow to the game remains to be seen. That's what testing is for and for this it would have to be pretty rigorous surely.

The other factor is part of the "game" is debating/arguing decisions. Take away those debating points would take a lot of the "fun" out of it

I don't think clubs would care about that bit if they lost out on millions though. It's fun for fans/media, I'd be surprised if clubs didn't push for it in some form.

Fr Tod Umptious

My takeaway from this thread :

"Andersonisgod in common sense posting shocker"

Dirty Dingus McGee

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I think the poster above that said it could easily be used for offsides, penalties and red cards without interrupting the flow of the game is spot on. I also think the argument that video assistance shouldn't be implemented because "it wouldn't be 100% full proof" is completely missing the point. The very reason these things would be brought in would be to help officials. An off-pitch official given the benefit of replays from different angles can then give an informed decision to the on-pitch official. Ultimately while decisions like penalty or not, red card or not will still come down to human interpretation, surely you'd want the human who is interpreting these things to have the best possible information to base it on. We all know that an on-pitch official cant see everything, maybe he's not in the best position to give a decision, maybe his view is obstructed by a player, maybe he's missed something that's happened at the other end of the pitch. A video assisted referee system isn't a giant robot that will define each situation into right or wrong, but it does offer officials the best possible resource to officiate a game correctly by giving them all of the information available. I can't believe there are people out there who'd rather sport was officiated on the basis of occasionally uninformed decisions rather than informed decisions.

But those decisions are almost always judgment calls and therefore no matter how many times they are reviewed you can't be 100% sure about it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The great thing about soccer as a sport is you know when a game starts a 3pm it will be completely finished by 4:50.

You bring in reviews and who knows how much time will be delayed and how boring it will be looking at the same incident over and over again, discussion of refereeing decisions is honestly the most tedious part of watching a game.

Also there is the slippery slope element of this aswell. If reviews are brought in and the clubs see how much extra money they can make from adverts during this period I predict they will look for a drink stoppage (like in the last world cup) and maybe try and argue for time outs so they can milk as much money out of the game as possible.

Andersonisgod

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But those decisions are almost always judgment calls and therefore no matter how many times they are reviewed you can't be 100% sure about it.

Like I said, because they are judgement calls it's impossible for a decision to be 100% I'm not suggesting we create some kind of robot football referee whose sole purpose is to distinguish between foul or no foul.

However while those decisions remain judgement calls, surely you'd want the person or people tasked with making those calls to be equipped with the best possible information on an incident before making a call on it? And really how long does it take currently between a red card being given and play being restarted? Same with a penalty decision? In that time period a video official could have viewed the replay several times from different angles and then make a call on it. You end up with roughly the same amount of time taken up and likely a far higher percentage of correct decisions.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Like I said, because they are judgement calls it's impossible for a decision to be 100% I'm not suggesting we create some kind of robot football referee whose sole purpose is to distinguish between foul or no foul.

However while those decisions remain judgement calls, surely you'd want the person or people tasked with making those calls to be equipped with the best possible information on an incident before making a call on it? And really how long does it take currently between a red card being given and play being restarted? Same with a penalty decision? In that time period a video official could have viewed the replay several times from different angles and then make a call on it. You end up with roughly the same amount of time taken up and likely a far higher percentage of correct decisions.

That doesn't help the existing referee it just makes him less confident and more nervous and results in worse refereeing and him becomes dependent on the technology to the point where the actual referee becomes redundant.

Imagine in you day to day job you had someone looking over your shoulder as you were working and commenting on everything you do you'd be far less comfortable in your job and far less likely to do a good job.

AgileMyth

What difference does it actually make to the game if the decisions are 'correct' a few more times? It takes away the soul of the sport and robs the supporters of most of the talking points from every game.

There is nothing in football better than leaving a ground after a late winner that probably shouldn't have stood.

Don't give me the crap of "there's too much money in it" that's complete bollocks. We shouldn't be actively trying to ruin the sport for the benefit of the sponsors. Football is for the supporters.

Andersonisgod

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That doesn't help the existing referee it just makes him less confident and more nervous and results in worse refereeing and him becomes dependent on the technology to the point where the actual referee becomes redundant.

Imagine in you day to day job you had someone looking over your shoulder as you were working and commenting on everything you do you'd be far less comfortable in your job and far less likely to do a good job.

That analogy would only be applicable if we lived in a world where football matches weren't televised. As it stands referees already have a foe looking over their shoulder, judging their every move and, if they get a decision wrong, they run the risk of being publically flogged ala Mike Dean the last week, or Howard Webb after World Cup 2010.

The video assistant is a way of relieving that pressure. That they can use the technology that they get hammered by currently and use it to their advantage. Afterall, for a big decision like a straight red card or a penalty I'm sure a referee would rathet be able to make an informed decision rather than one made in an instant and possibly being made with a poor view of the incident only to then be proven wrong to a worldwide audience by technology.

eagle eye

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But those decisions are almost always judgment calls and therefore no matter how many times they are reviewed you can't be 100% sure about it.

There are times where you can be 100% and those are the ones that need to be addressed. If a review is done and it's 100% certain that the decision made on the field was incorrect then you can go and change it if you have video replay.