I'm not sure I think the challenge system would work well.

Think how annoyed you get when an injury stops play for five minutes when we've got the upper hand. Captains are going to be calling challenges like time outs in the closing stages of critical matches.

Refs might be tempted to take the soft option on decisions if they know they can be challenged.

Game was ruined when they gave the refs whistles. Let's see them try and stop the game over a roaring crowd jeering them with just their two front teeth, that'll surely keep it "flowing."

I'm not listening to an American on this subject, every sport you've come up with has a stoppage every ten seconds.

They banned the back pass to the goalie and tried to introduce all sorts of crazy shit like 4 quarters and bigger goals (their logic was the average height is much more than it was 120 years ago and so it's much harder to score) in the run up to USA 94 just to get Americans interested in the sport, didn't work then won't work now.

Burnwinter wrote:

I'm not listening to an American on this subject, every sport you've come up with has a stoppage every ten seconds.

Seriously, it's totally unwatchable. Can't bear it.

Biggus wrote:

They banned the back pass to the goalie and tried to introduce all sorts of crazy shit like 4 quarters and bigger goals (their logic was the average height is much more than it was 120 years ago and so it's much harder to score) in the run up to USA 94 just to get Americans interested in the sport, didn't work then won't work now.

I think I'm pretty ok with not having backpasses to goalies.

Agree with Burns on the challenges. Teams will start using them tactically.

Best way to use video technology imo, and its what they've discovered in both rugby codes, is to have an 'on report' system. When there has been a big incident and the ref hasn't had a great view he can play on and review it later. Do that or don't use video.

Challenges are one of the worst ideas possible. Its nonsense like that that scares off old fogies who worry the game will be changed beyond recognition when you mention using technology.

I'd take reviewing post match as a start. They should look at diving, dubious tackles and poor sportsmanship as headbutting, elbowing, spitting and the like. Then a panel of independants should decide on consequences.
Next stage should of course be another person in the reffing team in front of tv images to aid the head ref. Remove those pointless penalty box refs.

Burnwinter wrote:

Think how annoyed you get when an injury stops play for five minutes when we've got the upper hand. Captains are going to be calling challenges like time outs in the closing stages of critical matches.

The first and only valid counter argument I've heard/read. That's a fair point. Can't think of a solution that gets around it.

Tennis and cricket are the examples you use where the challenge thing works and both are much more stop - start sports than football. If a red doesn't give a free kick when is the appropriate time to use your appeal? Do you have to wait until the ball goes out or can you stop play? Both systems there would have terrible flaws.

And why only one appeal per game? Most of the time when you need these appeals is when you play serial cheats be they of the Bale/Suarez variety or Barton/Shawcross variety. If I have used my appeal against Liverpool already isn't that going to encourage Suarez and Gerrard to start flailing around the place?

Beyond that I just don't see how this appeal system fits into the game of football. Its too contrived, too removed from the way the game works. Its like suggesting sin bins or special teams. Its just not football.

qs! wrote:

Tennis and cricket are the examples you use where the challenge thing works and both are much more stop - start sports than football. If a red doesn't give a free kick when is the appropriate time to use your appeal? Do you have to wait until the ball goes out or can you stop play? Both systems there would have terrible flaws.

Play the passage of play/ball goes out. That's usually the time players start hounding refs and contest the decision. This would be exactly the same.

And why only one appeal per game? Most of the time when you need these appeals is when you play serial cheats be they of the Bale/Suarez variety or Barton/Shawcross variety. If I have used my appeal against Liverpool already isn't that going to encourage Suarez and Gerrard to start flailing around the place?

For 'why only one' - I've explained...in order to make sure teams only use it when absolutely necessary. When it's a game-changing decision that royally fucks a team over.

I don't see why that'd encourage them any more than now. The referee is still there as always.

Beyond that I just don't see how this appeal system fits into the game of football. Its too contrived, too removed from the way the game works. Its like suggesting sin bins or special teams. Its just not football.

Very, very little would change. You're (maybe) adding on about two mins onto games max...if that...considering players arguing with the ref delays restarts anyway. For a challenge it's stop-start for - what - 30 seconds while the 4th official checks the video screen and almost always sides with the ref unless it's clear as day the ref's being a mong.

To say it's not football is to say we're happy with no accountability for the Clattenberg's who can completely ruin contests. You can still have good and bad refereeing performances, but it's designed to protect against disgusting performances where a fan paying £50 for a ref to destroy the game through stupidity. That's improving football. If it's not football, I'd rather play this new sport.

#Timmeh wrote:

Agree with Burns on the challenges. Teams will start using them tactically.

Best way to use video technology imo, and its what they've discovered in both rugby codes, is to have an 'on report' system. When there has been a big incident and the ref hasn't had a great view he can play on and review it later. Do that or don't use video.

Yea I don't know why people want to give the power to coaches and players. Keep it with the referee, he can decide if we wants to use video or not. Wouldn't help if someone on that earpiece was saying "look old bean, you've got to see this one again" to help him make that choice.

Depressed Rex wrote:

I'd take reviewing post match as a start. They should look at diving, dubious tackles and poor sportsmanship as headbutting, elbowing, spitting and the like. Then a panel of independants should decide on consequences.
Next stage should of course be another person in the reffing team in front of tv images to aid the head ref. Remove those pointless penalty box refs.

And the stage after that?
Dispense with the ref altogether as we can see everything we want from the 100's of cameras everywhere.

Thin-end-of-wedge.

Technology, technology, technology.
Reminds me of the substitutions board not working and the idiot linesman holding back the substitute till the idiot 4th official has figured out which button to press like it makes any difference!

Tis the work O the devil I tells ye Tone.

Can you imagine them trying to sort out a video replay machine that has decided not to work because someone pressed a button the shouldn't have and the manual is in 汉语/漢語 Hànyǔ, 华语/華語 Huáyǔ, or 中文 Zhōngwén!

他妈的这一块狗屎！

Patters wrote:

Play the passage of play/ball goes out. That's usually the time players start hounding refs and contest the decision. This would be exactly the same.

People say that a lot but I think its bullshit. Its not like the players are all just going to stand around and do nothing. They'll still appeal to the ref.

For 'why only one' - I've explained...in order to make sure teams only use it when absolutely necessary. When it's a game-changing decision that royally fucks a team over.

But why so arbitrary? It doesn't make any sense. In some games you could have 4 game changing decisions that fuck you over and in others none.

Beyond that I just don't see how this appeal system fits into the game of football. Its too contrived, too removed from the way the game works. Its like suggesting sin bins or special teams. Its just not football.

To say it's not football is to say we're happy with no accountability for the Clattenberg's who can completely ruin contests. You can still have good and bad refereeing performances, but it's designed to protect against disgusting performances where a fan paying £50 for a ref to destroy the game through stupidity. That's improving football. If it's not football, I'd rather play this new sport.

How is it making Clattenburg any more accountable? Its reviewing one decision per game. It doesn't hold the referee to account at all.