03 May 2016 21:11:20
Eds just watching Bayern/ athletico game, second goal apparently offside, with this in mind and numerous all too common errors by referees, cheating by footballers, could we ever see a system such as they use in rugby, such as video analysis in the premiership? I think it's getting to the stage where there's so many bad decisions, fans have had enough. Appreciate your views in advance.

{Ed001's Note - they are already testing that out. Not so sure it is a good idea though. I would prefer retrospective action being taken consistently, after the game is finished, rather than trying to analyse it live.}

1.) 03 May 2016
03 May 2016 21:19:34
I think they need to do something, every team has been on the end of terrible decisions, just look at the Jamie vardy diving incident, I'm no expert on rugby but the players to have slightly more respect for the referees, this could be partly down to the fact their every play can be viewed over and over again. I understand where you are coming from, but I can't see any other alternatives.

{Ed001's Note - the respect is due to the lack of action being taken. That is a totally separate issue and easily resolvable by the relevant FAs cracking down on things. Video refs won't fix it, if anything they would increase it as the man in the middle would be less important and even more impotent.}

2.) 03 May 2016
03 May 2016 21:36:40
Video analysis for offside where the ball ends up in the net before play is stopped is a no brainer to me. Play is already stopped so why not go to a video decision?

3.) 03 May 2016
03 May 2016 23:30:38
taking the thrill out the game guys. leave alone it may not be perfect but it does keep you on your toes.

4.) 03 May 2016
03 May 2016 23:35:08
Video refs would ruin the game imo. Football has survived well over 100 years without it and has given endless topics for debate and arguments from fans and pundits. Geoff Hurst's 1966 goal, Garcia's ghost goal, etc. Some decisions go in your favour, some against, but a lot of the passion and obsession with the game is fuelled by contentious decision making, borderline offsides and incidents unseen by the ref. This will be lost if the game becomes sanitised by live video reffing (not to mention the constant delays) .
Unfortunately, with the amount of money in the sport, it is probably inevitable that we will one day have automated refereeing but expect the result to be a dull game based on absolute fairness, with the kind of passion seen at a lawn bowls qualifier.

5.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 00:05:25
Some results in important and crucial fotball matches becomes wrong, caused by obvious faults by referee. Especially obvious in todays TV world with +10 cameras on the pitch. I think this is bad, and are undermining the footballgame`s credibility.

I would prefer a "hawkeye" kind of system like in tennis. Give each team one or two opportunities each game to call for a video challenge. This would not interfer to much with a fotballgames natural "flow". That way also the referees could rectify any major wrong doings within the the game.

6.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 01:15:12
be careful what you ask for. I could easily see that being the first step to commercials during the game.

7.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 02:00:56
First time poster here love the site spend hours every day on it. Been talking with mates about this for long time now. Why not have the video review for goals, penalties and red cards. Enough time is wasted with players arguing over the decision anyway so why not get quick review to confirm decision or overturn it (if clearly wrong) agree with Ed retrospective action should also been taken after every game to catch the cheaters etc that gets missed in game.

8.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 02:20:18
Not long ago american football went to replay. Coaches have a few chances to throw a red flag. If the call goes there way great. If not they lose a time out. I totally get the difference but everyone said the same argument against but it frankly did not interupt the game and now nobody gives it a second thought. It gave some power to review a play that could have major implications and has helped correct somw bad mistakes. I think there is a way this could work if done correct and input from all sides.

{Ed001's Note - American Football has no game to interrupt! It is constantly stopped. Please do not compare the two, they have no similarities. Last thing we want is to end up like that overhyped crap.}

9.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 07:18:45
What does grass roots do if video ref an silly manager flags become part of the game?

{Ed001's Note - they just don't have them. The game does not have to be the same at every level. Only the basics need to be the same, after all have you always had a goal and pitches drawn up when you played? The professional game should be something to inspire and to aspire to, it should not be the same.}

10.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 08:07:17
I feel as though video replay in football needs to be really quick and instant otherwise it is going to be difficult to find consistent application of its use.

for example, for offsides the benefit of video replay is only useful following a decision being made. say a player scores a goal and then the video replay determines he was actually offside then fair enough it could be ruled out. But what about for the occassions when a player is through on goal and is incorrectly ruled offside by the linesman and then the play brought to a halt? there is no chance then to see what would happen.

so anyways, perhaps if the video ref was in sole charge of offsides all game and could make an instant call to the ref as the play unfolds then that would be good. otherwise it'd be too inconsistent for me.

and regards foul play, retrospective is fine. rugby is getting into this ridiculous situation where we stop play in-game to review potential foul play from minutes ago when we should just be playing on and letting the judiciary sort it out later.

11.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 08:21:45
Video reply would be really useful in 2 circumstances

1. Verifying offside (and only offside) regarding goals.
2. When a foul is called right at the edge of the box, deciding if it was in or out

Those are the only natural points - everything else just needs to be retrospective and they need to do away with this 'did an official see it' rule because it makes no sense - clearly they didn't fully see if because they would have made a different decision if they did!

12.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 08:39:24
2 challenges a half by a manager and I don't see a problem. 4th official is beside the managers so a goal is given, manager thinks it's offside, he tells 4th official I want to challenge which is told to the ref via the mic and by the time this has even happened I'd say the decision would be made. They have all the technology now to draw the line across the last man and bam he's either on or off so it's either tip or a free out without any time being wasted in my opinion. Offsides for me anyway are a no brainer as they're black and white same with goal line technology. It becomes more difficult with frees pens and cards as a lot of the time they have an element of opinion to them. How many times do you hear a commentator go it could have been a red but you can understand it only being a yellow or something similar. So I think they would need to make the rules way more clear and in depth to make it black and white for these issues but I don't see that happening.

{Ed001's Note - they do not have the technology to be 100% as the cameras on the sidelines are not always in the correct position. Challenges are crap anyway, they ruin sports and are one of the most childish rules I have ever seen. You have officials, either trust them to make a decision or don't take part.}

13.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 09:25:33
The rules are the rules ed. As I said fouls etc have a grey area and that in my opinion is part of the sport that makes it interesting. However offsides similar to whether a ball is over the line or not is black and white you're either offside or your not and fair enough if the technology isn't there but I don't think it's too far off and it is something that should be achievable. Add to that it can be one of the most difficult decisions to get right, so why not try to fix that? On challenges, whatever it just seems to be the way things would go initially I don't have a problem with them. If it was possible to just have the fourth official with a monitor showing him all the offside decisions that he could clearly instruct the referee from even better, but something should happen with offsides over the coming seasons imo.

14.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 09:36:32
I've said this before but I'm all for video refs and a challenge system. I think they've improved sports where they've been used. Challenges empower team captains and will weed out the dreadful match changing mistakes that ruin the game (off the ball fouls, off sides, penalties etc) . Meanwhile if you have video refs without challenges you get a situation like rugby where it becomes a crutch that the ref uses to check every big decision he makes.

Bring in challenges and video refs ASAP.

{Ed001's Note - I don't agree, every sport they are used in has been affected badly by them and become hugely less watchable.}

15.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 11:26:07
I think Tennis has become better for it ed. Though I am not sure challenges would ever fit into football.

{Ed001's Note - tennis couldn't become any worse to be fair.}

16.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 11:47:02
Hey Ed, Tennis is my second sport and I think that game has been hugely improved by the challenges. I concede that it's not been perfect in Cricket and Rugby (the other two sports which use video refs which I'm familiar with) but I think rugby implemented it badly and in cricket the teams have been awful at choosing when to review.

I think video refs are coming in the next few years regardless so one of us can say I told you so in around 5 years :-)

{Ed001's Note - sorry but I just don't see how you can not understand that tennis is not a team sport and that it only works in individual sports that are stopped anyway. Team sports need a flow or they end up like crappy American ones that stop every five seconds so incredibly obese people can stuff their faces.}

17.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 12:28:09
Agree with Ed. Video is killing Rugby. Was good at the start but now every decision is being waved up to the video ref and in some instances where it is obvious a try has been scored, because the video ref cannot see it 100%, tries are not being given. The idea that video cuts out mistakes 100% is wrong.

Challenges are nonsense. Would turn into time wasting and momentum stopping exercises. Decisions are never going to be perfect because we are not. That is the beauty of it. The desire to remove all doubt is a childish one.

Would prefer to see the authority of refereees being backed more by suspensions as it would not take long for players to learn that screaming 'f&&k you' in a refs face is going to cost them a game or two. Perhaps a summer camp for the FA and referees with Nigel Owens on how to keep a game flowing without losing the integrity of the officials.

The game is beautiful. And a pain in the ass at times when something goes against your team. But it is still beautiful. Don't let it be cut into slices of replays over and over so that it becomes like a slow moving cartoon farce. We can leave that to Americans who design their sport around their bellies. No offence, but the average NFL game lasts 3 hours 11 minutes, ball in play for 11 minutes, average play is 4 seconds, and they hit you with 100 Ads during that time.

The only people who would love to see games stopped for decisions are advertisers. No one else. Your screen would be split into waiting for a decision and the latest betting offer or some other useless crap. You could say that the beauty of football is that for 45 minutes you get to watch it uninterrupted by the usual tsunami of hypnotic bauble dangling.

I'm surprised they haven't already increased half time to 30 minutes to shoehorn more crap into your head. Let the game flow. It is beautiful enough as it is.

18.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 13:24:32
The reason that football is loved much is because of the unpradicatabilty. Refs making mistakes, players willing to mix it up physically, effing and Jeffing is what makes it exciting. I used to love watching top end rugby but look how dull that is now, 30 robots on the field!

19.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 13:25:08
Ed, there are a few reasons why I think you're wrong on this.

1. Football doesn't actually flow that well. Actual playing time in any given match is in the region of 55-65 minutes. There are a huge amount of interruptions to the game already where video consultation could take place.
2. Your fear that the game would stop every 5 seconds is addressed by the challenge system. It would mean that only the most critical errors are reviewed.
3. The sort of situation where a challenge may be used is normally accompanied by a long break in play already (think players remonstrating with the refs) . Suitable gaps for a video review are already in the game.
4. Following on from above this would decrease player aggression towards refs something I think we all agree would be good to see.
5. One of the worst things in football is losing because a referee's mistake. That issue can be eliminated in one go.
6. This could actually improve the flow of the game, refs would be more willing to play advantages knowing that if they've made a mistake play can be brought back.

As I said, video refs are coming and I expect them to improve the game but if I'm wrong and it does go badly then they can be taken away again. There's no harm in trying.

{Ed001's Note - 1. Those interruptions would only be added to with your plan, very few of those times would be any good for video refs. They tend to be after a decision has been given or, mostly, things such as throw ins. Try and understand what exactly the true nature of the stoppages are before claiming they are relevant.
2. That is simply crap. It would be used for tactical means and waste more time. Most of the decisions that would end up being challenged are opinions that can be argued over for days. It would come down to a video ref's opinion instead of a refs opinion. Pointless.
3. Those sorts of situations are rarely solved by looking at the video footage. Just let the ref decide and make the players show some respect and accept the decisions, then we wouldn't have those incidents.
4. It would increase it because they would want everything taken to the video ref and no longer respect the ref's decision at all.
5. No it would not. Again it would still be an opinion. Nonsense point from you. People argue for years over these incidents, not a chance one video ref will change that.
6. Then it is pointless having a ref at all, just have a video ref.}

20.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 15:08:46
this is just a thought, a video ref would cut out any cheating by the refs or the players, i know its rare but players have been caught cheating to make money on the asian markets, with rugby if a player argues with the ref the ref can move the ball 10 yards towards the opponents line where a pen can be given if its close enough to the sticks,

{Ed001's Note - how would it do that? That is an assertion with little basis in reality.}

21.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 16:06:33
Ed, my reply.

1. We can only disagree on this, if it was well implemented I do not think it would slow down the game at all. A good video assistant watching the game will know the answer to a query before it even gets asked.
2. Wasting challenges on frivolous calls would risk the team not having a challenge when they need it. There may be some small tactical usage but it would be negligible. At worst it would be the same as a team using a substitution to waste seconds at the end of a match.
3. Maybe not every situation could be resolved by a video but many could, the current system isn't perfect nor is any theoretical system. As long as it's an improvement it has value.
4. The on-field ref will still do 99% of the work and teams will respect that. The beauty of the challenge system is that it puts the responsibility for correct decisions on the players not the ref. If they don't utilize the system efficiently the blame is on them. In tennis and cricket nobody talks about games turning on umpires decisions any more, we should hope that football can get to a similar place.
5. Fine, not all of them, but most of them. Anything that improves a ref's ability to make the correct decision is an improvement on the current system.
6. If a video ref on his own could do a better job than an on-field ref on his own I'd support that option but that's clearly not the case, a blend is needed. Video refs will empower on field refs. The current system forces a ref to make a decision when he's not completely sure, having video back up gives him the option to allow play to continue and then go back to it if necessary.

Last Thursday was a great example, when Lallana broke the offside trap the linesman had to make a decision and went with safety first, flagging him offside. With a video ref play could have continued. If Lallana had fluffed the chance no one would have had to challenge it but if he'd scored it would have been challenged. I'd rather we suffered a 15 second check that he was onside than debate after the game about how the ref had cost us a goal.

{Ed001's Note - you clearly do not watch sports news if you think no one talks about those things in tennis and cricket. Pointless arguing over the rest, if you think it has worked in those and done that then it is a waste of time having this discussion at all.}

22.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 17:07:15
Ed, you're very frustrating when you're in this kind of mood (to be fair you're always in this kind of mood) . One day you'll (metaphorically) buy me a beer and we'll laugh about the time you told me video refs were a bad idea in football. You don't have to worry, I promise not to be smug about it.

{Ed001's Note - I don't think it is a bad idea, per se, I just don't think the technology is there yet for the uses it would work for. Other than that, I think it should be purely for retrospective punishments and rescinding wrongly awarded cards.}

23.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 18:24:07
muscatred - How does that work? let's assume Lallana was offside but the ref didn't give it because the ref plays on as he isn't sure and the video ref can sort it later if he does score. That's great - assuming the options are score or dead ball. But it's football - it can go dead, or it can be very much alive and reside with either team. It can be picked up by another attacking player who passing it back and around again. It can take a long time - 5 or 10 minutes - before the ball goes out of play. At what point do they revisit the decision? At what point do they call a stop to it? How do they go back to the decision and restart on the correct one - do they just accept the time wasted? Do they just add that time on again, which will be exhausting for the players if they have to play yet another extra 5-10 minutes due to those calls. It's just taken away from the refs ability and willingness to make decisions. And there will not necessarily be the ability to recompense most of the time for wrong stops or flagging.

And that's all assuming that you have to challenge a decision as soon as its taken. If you can retrospect it then they'll have to be monitored time limits, a way to instantly clarify what decision is being challenged, a whole bunch of logistical nightmares and ultimately it'll just be used as an extra time wasting tool for teams.

Ultimately mate it sounds to me like your plan works for about 80% of decisions, but doesn't really work for any 'non-decisions' because by nature there is no break in play for a non-decision!

And as a cricket fan I can tell you without a doubt that people still talk about umpire, and video ref, decisions all the time.

24.) 04 May 2016
04 May 2016 22:23:49
Hey Hjikle. I enjoy my ideas being challenged, gives me a chance to test them. A few thoughts off the top of my head:

1. The worst case scenario in my system is that a ref makes a mistake, a team fails to challenge and the other team benefits. This is exactly the same as situation now so we're no worse off.
2. The system doesn't need to be about making football perfect, it's purpose is to improve on the current situation, if it solves 80% of the problems that's a huge win.
3. A challenge would be a valuable commodity that is unlikely to be used on anything bar key decisions (goals, red cards etc) so if Lallana doesn't score the issue wouldn't even come up.
4. Who says we have to wait for a break in play to stop? There are a few options, a time limit, till possession changes, the refs judgement. It's a simple fix.
5. The time wasting thing could come up but the problem it may create would be far smaller than the problem it fixed. Teams already exploit the rules to time waste, did anyone argue against substitutions because they could be used to time waste?
6. Don't forget the video refs aren't there to replace decision making they're there to give a team an opportunity to correct a mistake. The ref and his assistants still have responsibility to get the basics right.

Not saying my idea is perfect, it would need a lot of kinks to be worked out but that doesn't automatically disqualify it from consideration. There might be a trade off but as long as it provides a net gain it would be worth doing.

25.) 05 May 2016
05 May 2016 00:08:19
How about just don't have refs just have Howard Webb sitting in the BT sport booth telling Michael Owen if it's a foul or not ten minutes after its happened?