Why does it matter?

It's not like looking at a video is going to result in worse decisions being made. The only caveat would be if decisions were selectively made, or reviews occurred selectively but that already happens on the pitch.

The usual procedure is for a referee to "cite" an incident for post match review during the match. Penalty calls could be one case where the decision is automatically reviewed.

@ Coombsy don't be disingenuous- You know too well that once the arbitrator becomes a device and not the ref even for something as "relatively uncontroversial" as "has the ball crossed the line or not" the precedent will be set and so when the discussion starts to introduce them for other equally important decisions like offside the proponents will point to the goal line technology and ask (with some justification) "whats the big deal? we already have it"- i.e. the thin end of the wedge.

BTW I'm an electrical technician I know exactly how the technology works, how it would need constant recalibration testing and certification and how it can fail.

We've drifted a bit from the original topic about diving and should retrospective review/punishment be introduced for it.
I think its madness to be talking about using technology to clamp down on something as relatively trivial as diving when we don't even have it to certify if the ball has crossed the goal line yet.

We're confusing three separate discussions here:

• Goal line technology where a device makes the authoritative call on whether the ball has crossed the line
• In-game video reviews
• Post match video reviews

I'm all in favour of the third option and many of the caveats raised about the other two, viz. calibration and maintenance, the infrequent use of the technology, interruptions to the game or "natural" decisions in game being reversed, simply don't apply to it. They're not relevant.

In my opinion the "thin end of the wedge" argument against it is also weak, as it's easy enough for regulators and officials to (a) choose which decisions may be subject to review (b) review the choice periodically if it's not working or adds nothing for certain types of decisions. Once again, this is done in other sports with great success and zero to minimal impact during a match.

Compare this to the situation that prevails at the moment: no recourse to apply a punishment for a player cheating beyond an ad hoc and skewed demolition job of that player's reputation in the press.

Ok lets discuss the three forms of technology independently.

I'm opposed to goal line technology.
I'm fucking opposed to in game video reviews.
I'm open minded to post match video reviews where the result of the tie is decided and the review has no effect on the result or replay .

Ok:

I'm in favour of goal line tech, if it's implemented a la Hawkeye in the tennis or cricket. Referee or linos to signal when a machine decision is needed if play has not been stopped.

I'm strongly opposed to in game reviews, I don't like the theatre or the disruption. The goal isn't to get decisions "righter" in game, it's to deter players from cheating so that what seems to be correct to the ref on the day is actually correct.

I'm in favour of post match reviews where:

• only certain types of decisions are subject to review, and that in itself is reviewed
• a system of suspensions is applied which considers a player's past record
• there may be an element of the referee having to nominate incidents during the match for later review (a "report" or "citation")
• the process and judgements are transparent and public, and managed by an FA or UEFA tribunal with 3+ chairs, conflict checks and a clear and transparent process of appointment

Burnwinter wrote:

I'm in favour of post match reviews where:

• only certain types of decisions are subject to review, and that in itself is reviewed
• a system of suspensions is applied which considers a player's past record
• there may be an element of the referee having to nominate incidents during the match for later review (a "report" or "citation")
  * the process and judgements are transparent and public, and managed by an FA or UEFA tribunal with 3+ chairs, conflict checks and a clear and transparent process of appointment

Well theres the kiss of death right there.

No it isn't. There's nothing unusual about the proceedings of a sports tribunal being transcribed and publicly available with full media access.

Would you use video technology when a penalty isn't given but should be? Like the incident during the Spurs v United game?

Biggus wrote:

Ok lets discuss the three forms of technology independently.

I'm opposed to goal line technology.
I'm fucking opposed to in game video reviews.
I'm open minded to post match video reviews where the result of the tie is decided and the review has no effect on the result or replay .

I'm in favour of goal line tech. Seems no downside to it from what I can see.

I'm completely opposed to in game video review. The claims that it'd be as quick as arguing with the ref are bullshit IMO. I don't watch Rugby often but I've seen enough to know that those reviews can be really slow sometimes. And football is a much faster, much more continuous game than Rugby,

Post match video review is the one I want the most though. Obviously you can't over turn a result but we don't currently over turn results when red cards are rescinded so I don't see any issue there. Video review for all manner of incidents and an acceptance that referees can make mistakes would improve the game immensely IMO. Especially in a generation when conning the ref has become so common place.

General Mirth wrote:

Would you use video technology when a penalty isn't given but should be? Like the incident during the Spurs v United game?

Not in my opinion, as that would imply a video review during the match.

There might be cases where the offence that 'would have' been a penalty would be worthy of a retroactive punishment.

The referee is at once asked to be better at his job, while being denied every opportunity to do so. Why is the linesman allowed to flag for a foul? It's a suggestion. No reason why a "video assistant" can't be introduced. It wouldn't affect the flow any more than a linesman waving his flag and the ref waving "play on" because he's having none of it, or pulling it back because he wasn't in a position to see the incident and trusts his assistant.

Goal line technology is whatever. You don't even really need it if you have a video camera. If the viewers on the other side of the tele know something the ref doesn't, then the game is broken. Severely broken.

Dunno who is suggesting "in game video reviews". Who said there has to be a review by the ref on the pitch? What "ceremony" is necessary? It'd be the same as a linesman...or should we get rid of those, too?

Post-match review of an event should not even be necessary, because the decisions shouldn't be wrong 40% of the time in the first place. Of course, in special circumstances, it could be useful, and should of course be used if it would help in any appeal process.

@ flo, It would be pretty simple to review straight red cards and penalty incidents if the club at the short end of the stick appeals the decision. Just keep the old "frivolous appeal" rule and it'll be kept to only the ones that are truly worthy of review. Ban the cheater for cheating, rescind the card, or what-have-you. Certainly don't change the result of the match. If they were using video during the match anyway, though, this would be very, very rare.

There's such a simple solution to all of this. What's wrong with this:

Challenger system. Just like in cricket and tennis. BUT each team only has 1 challenge per match. It gets to retain the challenge if it is successful. It will be decided by another official who has the benefit of replays but it will always side with the current refereeing decision unless there is absolute clear evidence otherwise. The fact that there is only 1 available for a team for the whole match means they won't even try it for silly things like goalkicks or trivial fouls, in case the decision goes against them and they've wasted it. They will only appeal when they feel they have been very hard done by.

Advantages:

• This actually adds a meaningful role in the captaincy. Each team's captain would be responsible for making the challenge.

• This is a good and transparent way of judging the performances of officials. It would create an easy system to judge and reward those who are good officials, since they will usually be those with least decisions overturned or challenged.

• Adds a bit of drama too since there's a strategic element to when the right time to challenge is.

Disadvantages:

• It adds - what - 2 mins? Big deal. It might even same time overall given that teams won't bother hounding the referee which delays the restarts anyway.

Come on, have a go - what on earth is wrong with this? It's gold and it's common sense and it should be implemented ASAP. I call it the Patters 3000.

I think it is rubbish. Too tired to explain why, but trust me on this - RUBBISH.

Depressed Rex wrote:

I think it is rubbish. Too tired to explain why, but trust me on this - RUBBISH.

No worries, I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat for a explanation when you're ready.

Good. As long as you abandon this rubbish idea in the meantime.

Coombs wrote:

The referee is at once asked to be better at his job, while being denied every opportunity to do so. Why is the linesman allowed to flag for a foul? It's a suggestion. No reason why a "video assistant" can't be introdu
ced. It wouldn't affect the flow any more than a linesman waving his flag and the ref waving "play on" because he's having none of it, or pulling it back because he wasn't in a position to see the incident and trusts his assistant.

Goal line technology is whatever. You don't even really need it if you have a video camera. If the viewers on the other side of the tele know something the ref doesn't, then the game is broken. Severely broken.

Dunno who is suggesting "in game video reviews". Who said there has to be a review by the ref on the pitch? What "ceremony" is necessary? It'd be the same as a linesman...or should we get rid of those,

Well that's the logical conclusion if in game video review is ever introduced, no need for linesmen or indeed a ref on the pitch- No more human mistakes no arguments no appeal and no mercy.
Lucky I won't be alive to see it.

@ Patters- it is rubbish, the Kid was laughed at when he suggested similar.
It's an idea that belongs in stupid boring sports like cricket and all those American ones.

Biggus wrote:

@ Patters- it is rubbish, the Kid was laughed at when he suggested similar.
It's an idea that belongs in stupid boring sports like cricket and all those American ones.

You're being hysterical. The good thing about it is that it really doesn't change a lot and doesn't create a stop-start pattern of play. It's sufficiently constrained to allow only the major refereeing screw-ups on key decisions like penalties to be analysed (if even that). Most games might not even see a challenge.

I want there to be human error and I want controversy, I want to go to games and hear 'the referee's a wanker' chants. But at a time when the sport is being reduced to which billionnaire buys the biggest penis extension, I also want the sport to be as fair as possible while retaining as much tradition as possible. This is the only way to allow for that.

But I guess it depends on your aversion to referees completely screwing up matches.

But how long before the argument begins about extending it to 2 challenges, or 3 challenges or more? That's the can of worms I'd rather see avoided.