Should they bring in video replay like in Rugby and American Football?

RedPlanet · 28-06-2006 09:14AM #1

Looking at Henry's dive last night and France's uncounted goal agaist S. Korea (that was cleared from over the line), I think there's a strong argument to allow the ref to stop play and have the lads upstairs make the call.
Like in Rugby or American Football.
Any time wasted looking at the replay could be added-on anyway.

Some of these decisions being made are too match-changing to be left in the hands of one person.

I vote Yes, bring it in, it doesnt have to stay, could be tried for one WC then voted in or not for the next one.

gimmick · 28-06-2006 09:37AM

I dont know about American Football, and I hate rugby, but as far as I know in rugby, video evidence is only used to see whether the ball has been touched down correctly, or indeed, if it was over the line or not.

Further, even if the video shows an offside, or a knock on or whatever other foul, it is irrelevant.

So if video evidence were to be implemented into football, it should only be for this, otherwise the game would be ruined by stop start fouling, and double checking everything. I dont think video evidence should be brought in for anything other than whether a ball crossed the line, not for offsides, not for penalties. The line has to be drawn straight away, ortherwise anarchy will follow.

ghost26ie · 28-06-2006 09:40AM

american footbal in my opinion is proven example why tv replays dosen't work were as rugby is the proven example why it does work. i think tv replays should have been brought in by now. it isnt just this world cup, its needed in the premiership as well. we all remember mendez's shot for spurs against man united, just another examplewhy its needed. i'm sure there are plenty more. a couple of seconds to take a look thats all it would take. it would n't need to used for everything, just goal line decisions and such.

iregk · 28-06-2006 09:51AM

I think video replays whoudl be used but only in goal line clearances. No other situation. We do not want NFL stoppages every second, its why I hate the game. We do want subtle rugby style video ref. Non intrusive, doens't hold up the game and always right. Brilliant.

As for using for normal play, i.e. offsides, diving etc... this is a huge no for me. Again it would hold up the game way too much. I believe that the officials and bodies need to rethink thier diving strategy. Why they are not banning players after post match video evidance shows it was a dive? Why can't they up figos yellow to a red when obviously it was a red. Can they not over rule the ref? This is what they should be doing.

RedPlanet · 28-06-2006 10:32AM

They brought it in for Olympic Ice Hockey one time.
To see if it was a goal or not (according to the rules the puck cannot take an incidental deflection, but can be intentionally kicked in, or intentionally deflected in)
Anyway, video replay didn't last long.

But in the WC they could use it for loads of situations like the Henry dive last night. If the ref is not 100% about the call then why not use technology to make the determination, just like we viewers at home do.

gimmick · 28-06-2006 10:51AM

^ If your idea were to be adopted, I would hazard we would still be watching the Portugal Holland game.

Memnoch · 28-06-2006 11:01AM

I have a better idea.. let's do it like this..

During the match - video replays should be used for only a couple of things - one is the obvious did the ball cross the goal line stuff. The other is if the referee feels he should award a penalty he should check this prior to awarding it. I mean as it is there is usually a small stoppage every time a penalty needs to be taken so a minute or two extra here is not a big deal.

Secondly AFTER the match the refree should be allowed the next day to sit down and watch the game and award Yellow and red cards to players for diving and deliberate dangerous fouls that they committed during the game and these cards could then count towards tournament suspensions.

I think the advantage of this is two fold - firstly we won't be stopping the game for every little incident with video replays. Secondly if the players know for a fact that they will be held accountable for diving by having to miss the next game or for deliberately trying to hurt someone, then they are much less likely to do it and after the first few suspensions they will start to behave themselves which will result in a much better football experience over all with more football and less play acting/fouling.

I mean the governing bodies already do this to a SMALL extent, i'm saying increase the scope, make it so that EACH game is reviewed the next day and players are punished accordingly. If players know that they are bound to be caught by video evidence they will be a lot less cavalier about their actions.

godtabh · 28-06-2006 11:15AM

There was a new thing tested in the last world youth championship with off sides and goal scored/unscored.

There was a mircochip in the ball and the players shirts. If a player was offside the ref would get a signal and if the goal crossed the line the ref would get a signal.

Dont know how it got on but if they got that to work who needs instant replays

RedPlanet · 28-06-2006 11:18AM

sounds ok Memnoch however according to your implementation France would still get the free kick and resultant goal, thereby winning the match and Henry would receive a post game suspension.
Whereby if video replay was implemented with a different set of criteria, Spain would have had the free kick and Henry shown the red card then Spain would more likely go thru.

In the NFL they change the rules governing video replay all the time. In fact i think today a manager can throw in a towel to "challenge the call on the field" and then the ref uses video replay to see if the call stands or not.
But the thing is the manager can't challenge the ref's call anytime, infact he's limited to 2 challenges per game i think.
But also if he challenges incorrectly, and video replay doesn't overturn the call made at the time, then the manager looses a time-out. So there is a price to pay.
This doesn't translate well to soccer but maybe they could allow a manager to ask the ref to look at video replay once or twice in the half.

Attractive Nun · 28-06-2006 11:40AM

I think offside is a huge problem for football at the moment. Time and again, players are flagged for offside when they aren't, and the game is stopped. The amount of times I've seen onside players through on goal, then incorrectly flagged, is ridiculous. It hasn't actually been too bad this World Cup, but there have been instances (Spain Vs Ukraine). Genuine goals are disallowed so often, and I think this is a much a much bigger problem than more controversial things like yellow cards for diving, or whether the ball has crossed the line. In some matches, you can have up to 3 or 4 legitimate goal chances prevented.

The chips in shirts thing sounds like a decent idea, although it would obviously need to be tested heavily. Everyone knows you can't look at video replays for offside, because the flow of the game would be destroyed, but I feel something must be done.

therecklessone · 28-06-2006 12:00PM

RedPlanet wrote:

I vote Yes, bring it in, it doesnt have to stay, could be tried for one WC then voted in or not for the next one.

I'm inclined to agree. I wish it wasn't the case, but football is going to be ruined by cheating and diving if we don't do something to stamp it out.

I suggest refs should play advantage a lot more, then when the ball goes dead have a word with the video ref. Take last night as an example, the ref obviously felt a free was due to Henry so blew up. When they clashed the ball went to a Spanish player (IIRC) so no advantage went to the French, therefore blow up and consult the video ref. If the ball had gone to a French player, let play continue then consult the video ref later to see if a card should be produced. It wasn't a clear cut decision, but in the current climate the ref has to make a decision one way or the other.

One problem would be how do you restart if no offence had taken place. Lets say he blew up last night with the ball at a Spanish players feet...video ref says it was no foul either way, how do you return the advantage to the Spanish? Award them a free kick? On what grounds? Are we left relying on the sense of fair play of the opposing side to not oppose a drop ball?

therecklessone · 28-06-2006 12:02PM

Attractive Nun wrote:

Everyone knows you can't look at video replays for offside, because the flow of the game would be destroyed, but I feel something must be done.

Marginal decisions should be let go then when the ball is dead consult a video ref.

Nalz · 28-06-2006 12:11PM

gimmick wrote:

but as far as I know in rugby, video evidence is only used to see whether the ball has been touched down correctly, or indeed, if it was over the line or not.

Why not have this as a starting point, pass the line decisions only. Also, if there so worried about video evidence prolonging a game, why not check a bad tackle while the tackled player is in pain/faking on the ground. Time will be waisted there anyway. Should the player be found to be play acting, instant red. That will cut out the crap, get rid of the nasty tackles, make the game fair and waste no time whatsoever. it only takes at most 10 seconds to analize an incident

PHB · 28-06-2006 12:13PM

What pisses me off so much about offside is that it's the ultimate crime to allow it onside when it's not, but if you get it wrong when they are onside, it's just part of the game. It's bull**** to me.

As for offside, I'm sure there is some technological solution to this, in terms of multiple cameras and a very quick decision by a group of refs somewhere, and I don't think it would slow the game down much, but I don't think it's likely to happen.

I don't like video replay or technology as part of the game in general, unless it's to do with line technology which is really easy and doesn't disrupt the game.

What I do what is post-match punishment.
If a player dives and gets a penalty which wins the game, let the game stand, but give the player a 3 match ban.
If a player fakes injury like Henry did last night, give him a 3 match ban.

This will then carry over into the game.

RedPlanet · 28-06-2006 12:50PM

Trilla wrote:

Why not have this as a starting point, pass the line decisions only. Also, if there so worried about video evidence prolonging a game, why not check a bad tackle while the tackled player is in pain/faking on the ground. Time will be waisted there anyway. Should the player be found to be play acting, instant red. That will cut out the crap, get rid of the nasty tackles, make the game fair and waste no time whatsoever. it only takes at most 10 seconds to analize an incident

There's definately ample time for the ref to consult the video analysis team upstairs while the player is rolling around in pain or faking it.
Or when the players crowd around the ref throwing their tantrums when he's about to make a call.
It's disgusting, cheap and devalues football.

gimmick · 28-06-2006 12:51PM

No no no, we are all getting far too technical at the moment, talking about offsides on camera, fouls on camera etc etc etc.

here are my simple solutions

OFFSIDES:

Revert to the simple, most effective interpretation - if a player is in an offside position when the ball is played, he is offside, simple as that. No crap interpretations like who is active etc etc etc.

FOULING:

Very rare I agree with eamonn Dunphy, but he was stating last week that football referees take a leaf out of rubgy union officials. The players respect the ref, because they have to. if they give lip they are gone, hence the reason it is extremely rare you see an egg chasers remonstaring with the ref, no matter how wrong the ref got it.

Linesmen, or assistant referees should be given more power (or use the power they actually have). Far too often you see a linesman bottling a decision, or indeed, a referee ignoring the linesman. His job is to assist the referee, as his title suggest, not solely to run the line.

If REDPLANETS suggestions were to be used, the game of football as a flowing game is gone. Thats not a cut at you, its just i couldnt disagree more with your suggestions.

I like Memnochs ideas for post game punishment. Sure, France would have gone on and won last nigth anyways, but if Henry was to be punished day for his blatant cheating and acting the maggot (I have never lost so much respect for one player than him last night, i hope someone hurts him, or dives to get him sent off on Saturday), France would be missing him on Saturday vs Brazil. So if this was in place diving cheats like Henry would think twice, assuming they have half a brain, before diving to get an advantage.

Another rule I think should be brought in, and it has been far too apprent at this world cup, is a player gesturing to the ref to book a player should be booked himself. No if buts or maybes.

Benedict XVI · 28-06-2006 12:58PM

iregk wrote:

I think video replays whoudl be used but only in goal line clearances. No other situation. We do not want NFL stoppages every second, its why I hate the game. We do want subtle rugby style video ref. Non intrusive, doens't hold up the game and always right. Brilliant. .

To be pedantic,. the stoppages you talk of in American Football are where the clock is stopped when the ball is out of play, not for video reviews.

In the NFL each coach has 2 ‘challenges’ per game. If they think a ref decision is incorrect they throw a red ‘flag’ on the field before the next play starts. The ref then reviews what happened and unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary the decision stands, they have 90sec to review the video and make their decision.
If the decision is not overturned the team that ‘challenged’ loses a time-out, so coaches are not going to use their challenges unless they are really sure.

From what I have seen in Rugby is that every time the ref is not 100% on a try he goes to the video ref for them to clarify the decision.

Form a soccer point of view I think it should be used for anything in the penalty area where the ref is not 100%, handballs, penalties, balls crossing etc line etc, hell the game is full of stoppages already with players rolling around on the ground etc.

RedPlanet · 28-06-2006 01:00PM

I believe that football "as a flowing game" is an overstatement.
It is already cut up with constant whistles stopping play for fouls, offsides and people feigning injury.
While i agree 100% with the notion that players shouldn't give lip to the ref, in reality i doubt we'll be seeing star players like Zidane, Figo and Ronaldinho booked or sent off for doing it.

WhiteWashMan · 28-06-2006 01:26PM

ghost26ie wrote:

american footbal in my opinion is proven example why tv replays dosen't work .

im not sure i understand why video reply doesnt work in american football.
after all, there is a deadball situation after each play, regadless of clock stoppage or not.

the same is true for rugby on the goal line.

however, the same cannot be said for football, where there are no stoppages. the problem arises with the question of 'at which point do i stop the game to review a goal'?
i mean, if someone had 'scored' and it was not given, and then rushed down the other end of the pitch and scored, what happens?

on the other hand, if a video reply was automatically done by a fifth official when the ref blows his whitle for a foul, then that would be a good chance to inform the ref if there was a dive or not.
and the free given the appropriate way.

as for off-side, im all for doing what we do in hockey.
have no offside at all.

Revelation Joe · 28-06-2006 01:38PM

gimmick wrote:

No no no, we are all getting far too technical at the moment, talking about offsides on camera, fouls on camera etc etc etc.

here are my simple solutions

OFFSIDES:

Revert to the simple, most effective interpretation - if a player is in an offside position when the ball is played, he is offside, simple as that. No crap interpretations like who is active etc etc etc.

You have to have something like active, interfering with play etc. otherwise every time a winger cuts a ball back from the bye-line into the area, as soon as the forward shoots, the winger would be off-side. There'd be no incentive to cross the ball or to use the wings. You'd just get long balls down the middle all the time

Del

Revelation Joe · 28-06-2006 01:43PM

Cast your minds back a few years. Last game of the season, Carlisle need to win to stay in the League. In injury time, they get a corner. Up comes the keeper and scores.
Let's imagine that it's cleared off the line, but Carlisle think it's over the line. They all stop and appeal. meanwhile the opposing centre-half hoofs it out, their speedy winger chases after it and manages to roll it into the empty net.
So at what point does the ref stop for videlo analysis? What if it's a case of whoever wins stays up? Can you imagine the arguments?

Del

PHB · 28-06-2006 01:49PM

That's a silly situation, as ball line technology can tell you in literally no time whatsoever, that the ball went over the line.

Revelation Joe · 28-06-2006 02:15PM

PHB wrote:

That's a silly situation, as ball line technology can tell you in literally no time whatsoever, that the ball went over the line.

Yes...if you go down the 'chip in the ball' route. But the *original* post was asking about video replays.

Del

RedPlanet · 28-06-2006 02:36PM

In fairness that could happen.
If the ref hadn't blown the play dead after the allegded goal was cleared.
However i believe the frequency of that scenario happening is neglible.

Today we see a similar situation occur with much greater frequency.
A pass is played and the player is onside yet the ref blows for Offside. Thus denying them a legitimate chance on goal.
Happens all the time.

Technology again could resolve the problem (of the S.Korea vs France scenario). When the ball crosses the line the ref is alerted by a silent alert or something and he immediately blows the whistle. This will happen before S. Korea have a chance of hoofing it upfield and into the net.
Alternatively we could have a few refs upstairs contantly watching the game via video and if they see something but the onfield ref didn't blow the whislte, they can.

Rollo Tamasi · 28-06-2006 02:57PM

Like WWM said i wouldn't mind seeing the offside role been thrown in the can altogether. It would bring a more total football appeal to the sport. Will never happen though!

However, i think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker on close calls and then the 'was it onside or offside' video evidence is reviewed quickly by a Video Evidence Crew.

They should introduce those cameras that run the touchlines, like the ones they have on the straights on racing tracks for the evidence. Maybe even add a sensor to them which detects the defender/attacker and the ball. It can't be that hard to do in fairness.

MisterAnarchy · 28-06-2006 04:40PM

I think if they abolished the offside rule or only allowed offside from 30 yards in ,it would improve the game no end.
It ridiculous to see 20 players in an area 15 yards either side of the halfway line for most goal kicks.
You could throw a blanket over them.

FatherTed · 28-06-2006 07:12PM

To whomever said Video Replay doesnt work in the NFL, actually it does. They amended the rules some years ago because the system was abused and limited the number of times it can be used.

For footie, the technology is there regarding using a chip in the ball to determine whether it has crossed the goal line or not. It is just a matter of using it. For other video play scenarios, I think it should be limited in its use, such as determining whether a penalty/yellow/red card decision is correct or not.

ghost26ie · 29-06-2006 09:34AM

WhiteWashMan wrote:

im not sure i understand why video reply doesnt work in american football.
after all, there is a deadball situation after each play, regadless of clock stoppage or not.

the same is true for rugby on the goal line.

however, the same cannot be said for football, where there are no stoppages. the problem arises with the question of 'at which point do i stop the game to review a goal'?
i mean, if someone had 'scored' and it was not given, and then rushed down the other end of the pitch and scored, what happens?

on the other hand, if a video reply was automatically done by a fifth official when the ref blows his whitle for a foul, then that would be a good chance to inform the ref if there was a dive or not.
and the free given the appropriate way.

as for off-side, im all for doing what we do in hockey.
have no offside at all.

sometimes in american footbal i've seen refs take upward of 5 or so minutes to come to a decision. i think has more to do with some of the rules in the game though. in soccer they could trial it out at least, when it comes to goal ine decisions, penaltys.

RedPlanet · 29-06-2006 10:49AM

ghost26ie wrote:

sometimes in american footbal i've seen refs take upward of 5 or so minutes to come to a decision. i think has more to do with some of the rules in the game though. in soccer they could trial it out at least, when it comes to goal ine decisions, penaltys.

ghost26ie there must have been something else going on because the rules of the video replay are quite specific. When the ref's decision has been challenged and he must stick his head in the camera to view the replay, a clock is ticking. He's got 90 secs to view the incident in question from all the angles available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay
(under American Football you'll find the 90 second rule)

on edit:
I guess i was wrong about the Olympic Ice Hockey earlier. I just remember them bringing it in during one Olympics and hearing the players and commentators giving out. Llast Olympics i don't remember them using Instant Replay at all.... strange maybe it's just that seamless today.

Benedict XVI · 29-06-2006 01:28PM

RedPlanet wrote:

When the ref's decision has been challenged and he must stick his head in the camera to view the replay, a clock is ticking. He's got 90 secs to view the incident in question from all the angles available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay
(under American Football you'll find the 90 second rule)

To that extent I cannot see how this would work in soccer. In the NFL all games have the same coverage, number of cameras etc, so at each game each ref has the same amount of evidence available to him to make his decision.
In soccer it is different, there is more coverage of Primership than Championship, League 1 etc, and even within the premiership there may be differences in the amout of coverage, Liverpool v Utd, Watford v Reading, so on the same day in the premiership one ref may have more evidence to make a decision than another.
At what level do you introduce it, World Cup, European Championship only ?

RedPlanet · 29-06-2006 02:20PM

Benedict XVI wrote:

To that extent I cannot see how this would work in soccer. In the NFL all games have the same coverage, number of cameras etc, so at each game each ref has the same amount of evidence available to him to make his decision.
In soccer it is different, there is more coverage of Primership than Championship, League 1 etc, and even within the premiership there may be differences in the amout of coverage, Liverpool v Utd, Watford v Reading, so on the same day in the premiership one ref may have more evidence to make a decision than another.
At what level do you introduce it, World Cup, European Championship only ?

I don't know the details about the video coverage. Dunno if the NFL is accessing whatever private tv company's feed or not. Maybe the NFL have their own cameras for Instant Replay decisions. Having a different number of cameras/coverage is not automatically a problem. It's only a problem if video replay available to the ref doesn't see the incident in question (yet assuming private camera's available to joe public does capture the same incident) Otherwise we can just say: Sorry but none of the angles available show what really happened.
I'd say introduce it in the biggies: WC, EC, Champions League.
Let domestic leagues make up their own decisions.

Should they bring in video replay like in Rugby and American Football?

Comments