France vs Spain

[JasonM88]

Anyone watch this? Game wasn't great but it was hugely interesting to watch a game at a high level introducing a video ref. 2 big descisions were made, both over ruling a linesman, one disallowing a goal, and one allowing a goal. 

What did surprise me is how short the break in play was to make a descison. Only 22 seconds between Greizmans header going in and the ref ruling it out due to the TMO. 

Is this the future? 

[The Bard]

If it isn't then football is more corrupt than I thought...

Wish I'd seen this. 

The opposition to video reffing is laughable.  Compared to Rugby, football is more clear cut, yet this has only been trialled for the first time on 28th March 2017. The debates I've heard have all been completely fatuous. It is all about the way the on-pitch referee communicates with the video ref. They simply need to establish similar protocols for football as they have for Rugby.  Former refs like Howard Webb etc are ideal for the job. 

It's hard to not assume the opposition to TMOs lies with those who want to leave football as easier to fix. I struggle to think of anything more tiresome than listening to Alan Shearer going on about a referee making a mistake whilst a minute later talking about a player being 'entitled to go down'.  Football could do with the rules becoming clearer and the opinions of half wits becoming less relevant. Rugby in particular is years ahead of football in this regard. The sooner football catches up the better.

[Shtanley]

We should take a leaf out of American football and review every scoring sequence to make sure nothing occurred that the officials missed. Would add no extra time to the game. 

[TRL]

What happens when you get a goal like Englands 3rd in 66?

[Super]

1 hour ago, TRL said:

What happens when you get a goal like Englands 3rd in 66?

We ignore it

[formerly known as ivan]

Errors are part and parcel of the game and I believe a bad decision against you one week will go for you the next.

Leave it be!

[BRISTOL86]

I'm very much in favour in general of leaving football alone.

Things like changing the direction you can kick off and constantly tinkering with the offside rule etc to the point of no-one having a clue what's right and wrong really annoys me. 

But video technology for key decisions is a no brainer. As long as there's a sensible strategy for implementation and it's not continually tinkered with in terms of what is / isn't subject to review. 

[screech]

I wouldn't mind leaving it alone so much but do away with those pointless slow motion replays for things like offside, pundits roar with outrage after it is discovered that the attacker is 1mm onside as the ball is played at 1/60th speed. That boils my pee.

[Red Army 75]

53 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Errors are part and parcel of the game and I believe a bad decision against you one week will go for you the next.

Leave it be!

I agree with this 100 % . But with the amount of money in the game now . And the pressures that come with that . I think it's inevitable. I must say I'm very impressed with goal line technology. But that's a no brainier. IMO the most important of all 

[Cowshed]

9 hours ago, The Bard said:

If it isn't then football is more corrupt than I thought...

Wish I'd seen this. 

The opposition to video reffing is laughable.  Compared to Rugby, football is more clear cut, yet this has only been trialled for the first time on 28th March 2017. The debates I've heard have all been completely fatuous. It is all about the way the on-pitch referee communicates with the video ref. They simply need to establish similar protocols for football as they have for Rugby.  Former refs like Howard Webb etc are ideal for the job. 

It's hard to not assume the opposition to TMOs lies with those who want to leave football as easier to fix. I struggle to think of anything more tiresome than listening to Alan Shearer going on about a referee making a mistake whilst a minute later talking about a player being 'entitled to go down'.  Football could do with the rules becoming clearer and the opinions of half wits becoming less relevant. Rugby in particular is years ahead of football in this regard. The sooner football catches up the better.

The concerns regarding video technology are hardly laughable.

The rules regarding football are roughly the same from U11's to  the World  cup final.

Football rules are also subjective e.g deliberate, reckless. Offside, fouls decisions are subjective. Most rules are not based on fact. Even with multiple camera angles rules are still subjective.

Any broad use of technology would create a new game needing new rules. New rules, new game.

 

 

[Robbored]

France 0-2 Spain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39339201

Saw the decisions on BBC news just now. 

Personally I like the idea of referees being able to overturn wrong decisions involving questionable goals if the video replays show the wrong decision was made.

its worked in cricket and in rugby so why not football?

Having been to Bristol Rugby this season and seen the TMO employed appropriately I see no reason why replays in football shouldn't be used.

[Cowshed]

7 minutes ago, Robbored said:

France 0-2 Spain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39339201

Saw the decisions on BBC news just now. 

Personally I like the idea of referees being able to overturn wrong decisions involving questionable goals if the video replays show the wrong decision was made.

its worked in cricket and in rugby so why not football?

Having been to Bristol Rugby this season and seen the TMO employed appropriately I see no reason why replays in football shouldn't be used.

Why just decisions when the game is dead? What about the decisions where the referee does not blow his whistle? How would a team play to the non whistle/TMO? What about goals that are incorrectly not given due to non infringement? What about the rules that are subjective?

Or people could not look to blame others and accept error and opinion are part of football. 

[BS4 on Tour...]

3 hours ago, TRL said:

What happens when you get a goal like Englands 3rd in 66?

You would rely on the goal-line technology that we already use in our game...

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

Why just decisions when the game is dead? What about the decisions where the referee does not blow his whistle? How would a team play to the non whistle/TMO? What about goals that are incorrectly not given due to non infringement? What about the rules that are subjective?

Or people could not look to blame others and accept error and opinion are part of football. 

Obviously which decisions can be reviewed have to be clear cut and not subjective. That would be goals.

It would be ridiculous to review every questionable decision including ones that were missed.

In rugby the referee can ask the TMO if there is any reason that the try can not be awarded but three point penalty awards are subjective and not open to review. Penalty points often win the game. 

There are some rugby rules that would be transferable to football. 

The sin bin for example and only the captain can speak to the referee is another. Both of those would improve the game in my view.

[Sixtyseconds]

Fanny Warnock would die.

I WANT A REVIEW

REVIEW REF

REF

REF

REVIEW

REFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

FOUL THROW BACK THERE TWO MINUTES AGO BEFORE THEY SCORED ARE YOU BLIND!!!! 

[The Bard]

10 minutes ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Fanny Warnock would die.

I WANT A REVIEW

REVIEW REF

REF

REF

REVIEW

REFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

FOUL THROW BACK THERE TWO MINUTES AGO BEFORE THEY SCORED ARE YOU BLIND!!!! 

That's better than the current situation where refs are bullied by certain managers.. 

 

[Cowshed]

21 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Obviously which decisions can be reviewed have to be clear cut and not subjective. That would be goals.

It would be ridiculous to review every questionable decision including ones that were missed.

In rugby the referee can ask the TMO if there is any reason that the try can not be awarded but three point penalty awards are subjective and not open to review. Penalty points often win the game. 

There are some rugby rules that would be transferable to football. 

The sin bin for example and only the captain can speak to the referee is another. Both of those would improve the game in my view.

You were not particularly clear in your answer. No zzzz.s emoticons please.

The ball crossing the line is based on fact. Most rules are not clear cut. Football rules are highly subjective.

Football and rugby are hardly parallel games and rules. Rugby rues are highly factual.

A foul throw ninety metres from goal can affect a goal.

Would you review anything where the referee has not blown his whistle? Are referees currently making huge amounts of error? Within this data to back the use of TMO are more wrong and game changing decisions being made v errors occurring when the referee has blown his whistle?

My opinion is that referees are not incompetent. Error is human. And error from referees is not endemic, or even close to a point where TMO is necessary.

What would improve the game would be this ... The referees decision is final.  

[TRL]

3 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

You would rely on the goal-line technology that we already use in our game...

Do we use it everywhere or only in the premier?

Genuine question. If we already use it then good point well made 

[BS4 on Tour...]

40 minutes ago, TRL said:

Do we use it everywhere or only in the premier?

Genuine question. If we already use it then good point well made 

I'm not sure TRL to be honest, wouldn't be surprised if it was only available to the premier league - after all, getting their decisions correct is obviously far more important than for clubs in other divisions!

Edit - just checked, it looks like it could be in the championship next season - not sure we will be though! https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/16/football-league-goalline-technology-championship

[CityCiderEd]

5 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Errors are part and parcel of the game and I believe a bad decision against you one week will go for you the next.

Leave it be!

Not if it's the last game of the season it won't .

[Robbored]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

You were not particularly clear in your answer. No zzzz.s emoticons please.

The ball crossing the line is based on fact. Most rules are not clear cut. Football rules are highly subjective.

Football and rugby are hardly parallel games and rules. Rugby rues are highly factual.

Would you review anything where the referee has not blown his whistle? Are referees currently making huge amounts of error? Within this data to back the use of TMO are more wrong and game changing decisions being made v errors occurring when the referee has blown his whistle?

My opinion is that referees are not incompetent. Error is human. And error from referees is not endemic, or even close to a point where TMO is necessary.

Like football some rugby rules are subjective. Things like penalties which are entirely the referees call are not open to review. Whereas has the ball carrier stepped into touch is easily reviewed by the TMO.

In football offside is factual but offside decisions like last night were made subjectively and when reviewed were proved to be wrong and the decision correctly overturned. I see no problem with that.

All officials in any sport make errors and cricket is no different and why reviews were introduced. Now the game is even better with wrong decisions being overturned.

Refereeing errors have cost City three or four points this season and prompted letters of apology from the referee association. Had relays been available those errors would have been reversed. 

City have no recourse if we get relegated by two points, the consequences of which are massive. 

Shuld that happen no doubt you'll say "it was human error"......

 

[Cowshed]

23 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Like football some rugby rules are subjective. Things like penalties which are entirely the referees call are not open to review. Whereas has the ball carrier stepped into touch is easily reviewed by the TMO.

In football offside is factual but offside decisions like last night were made subjectively and when reviewed were proved to be wrong and the decision correctly overturned. I see no problem with that.

All officials in any sport make errors and cricket is no different and why reviews were introduced. Now the game is even better with wrong decisions being overturned.

Refereeing errors have cost City three or four points this season and prompted letters of apology from the referee association. Had relays been available those errors would have been reversed. 

City have no recourse if we get relegated by two points, the consequences of which are massive. 

Shuld that happen no doubt you'll say "it was human error"......

 

Not like rugby ... Rugby has scrums as restarts. Rugby is not fluidly played 360%. Rugby is a game of clear yes and no's. Football is made of interpretations.

That subjectivity was demonstrated ...  Spain's first goal. Nailed on penalty or? It was not nailed on. Ref did not review his decision.

The ref was over ruling last night his linesman. If he had blown his whistle ... How do you review a decision you made when a team plays to the whistle!

The grey areas are massive.

The potential is that referees will be under more pressure than they are now and the unscrupulous (one is residing in South Wales) will seek to undermine officials.

However I did ask what data indicates Referees are getting things enormously wrong. There is none. 

I think this says more about those in the game seeking to apportion blame, than those who ref it. Where is the campaign from whoever thinks this is a good idea to enthusiastically back the FA's respect project?  That is where there is a real problem.

[Robbored]

Cowshed - of course there are " grey areas" and that's why those in official roles would decide on what can or cannot be reviewed.

The obvious one one would be when a goal scratched off. A review would clarify the decision as right or wrong. It's a win win situation.

I really can't see what the problem you have with it is.............

[TRL]

48 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I'm not sure TRL to be honest, wouldn't be surprised if it was only available to the premier league - after all, getting their decisions correct is obviously far more important than for clubs in other divisions!

Edit - just checked, it looks like it could be in the championship next season - not sure we will be though! https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/16/football-league-goalline-technology-championship

:laugh:

 

Bet we get many disallowed goals which are good in L1.  Fingers crossed we get to test this technology first hand next season

[Trueredsupporter]

not sure its the future. just seems like  something else to beat refs with if they wont review something or are proved to have made an error. you can review offside but not penalties!!! the refs decides what he wants to review or the likes of Mourinho shout loudest for. 

 

[Robbored]

15 minutes ago, Trueredsupporte said:

not sure its the future. just seems like  something else to beat refs with if they wont review something or are proved to have made an error. you can review offside but not penalties!!! the refs decides what he wants to review

They said thing about reviews  in cricket and it's the Feilding captain or the batsman that ask for a review. Only three per innings as well.

Something similar could apply in football. Only the captain can ask for a review and a set number per match. 

It so simple and straightforward and not remotely time consuming.

[Trueredsupporter]

anything but simple. you can review offside but not penalties!!! where does it start and stop? review sendings off? or give managers three reviews? get three reviews right get one free and bin the ref and assistants? minefield. slippery slope to go down

[AppyDAZE]

10 minutes ago, Trueredsupporte said:

anything but simple. you can review offside but not penalties!!! where does it start and stop? review sendings off? or give managers three reviews? get three reviews right get one free and bin the ref and assistants? minefield. slippery slope to go down

VERY slippery

[Dave]

In future then when any offside is given, does the referee have to let the game continue, just in case a goal is scored, and then go back and check the offside is correct.

Just imagine if Delefeou was thirty yards back and clean through, but flagged offside.

Does he stop, or does he run through and score in case offside was incorrect, but risk getting booked for not playing to the whistle if offside decision was correct.

Cricket umpires rarely give run outs now, relying on replays. I suspect this system in football will result in less offsides being given without referral.

[Super]

I'm all for it as long as it doesn't add 10-15 minutes onto each half!