I'm referring to blocking, shirt pulling, grasping, etc. All things that are cheating but done in a sly way to both impede the attacking but evade punishment.
So if there's a major decision, would anyone object to the CR going over to the AR and discussing it with him? Of course not. But discussing it quickly with a 5th official that's watching the video monitor? Soccer is ruined!
MLB managers still are arguing calls after video replay. You really don't think whiny soccer players would do the same?
Look at PL where GLT was implemented. Players look at the referee to see if it was a goal and then continue. In other countries where GLT is not implemented they protest and whine
Yes but we don't (well, at least rarely) stop play just to go talk to the AR. So while I can see the benefit of video replay when there is a stoppage I still have yet to hear a good discussion around how to handle it during active play. These decisions aren't easy, even for the most seasoned BS poster. Just look at how long video replay takes in American football and the like. I'm impressed with how the GLT works and doesn't seem to have caused a disruption to the flow of the match. If we can get there with unbiased video being provided and reviewed, perhaps I'll jump on the wagon. Otherwise, I embrace the errors in the match as a flaw that doesn't mar my view that this is still a beautiful game. Sports teach life lessons, after all, and sometimes that lesson is that life ain't fair.
Once you open up someone looking at replay, you open a vast, vast can of worms. Like a can of worms the size of the moon. This has to be acknowledged, even if it doesn't change your opinion.
So what? But many issues are settled after the replays. So the controversy in not completely eradicated? And? It's an improvement. We can't improve stuff now because it doesn't completely eradicate the problem? I am sorry but that is so vague. More specific please. And who says that video replay should be mandatory. As in used for every decision The CR could ask if he isn't unsure. Jesus some people are acting like we are putting skynet in charge and let them run things We want tools that can help the referees not people in dark rooms making shady decisions.
That's a very fair thought. As long as people are willing to be mature enough to accept that there is not some conspiracy involved in what plays are considered obvious eno.. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......whew, sorry. I mean, I generally agree with you.
This seems low to me as well. The studies that I see seem to indicate the time is closer to 30-33 minutes per half. I suspect that there probably are some studies which support 20-25 minutes of play time, but there are still things going on in the time that is not counted. When the ball goes out for a corner kick, the players start jockeying for position long before the ball is ever put back into play. There is plenty of action even when the ball is out of play.
But that's a simple binary decision and therefore a simple implementation (even though the technology is fairly complex, requiring multiple cameras, calibration, triangulation, etc). It's either a goal or it's not. If it's a goal, play stops. If it's not, play continues. That's easy. Even offside is challenging to implement, because while it is a simple 1/0 decision, being in an offside position is not an offense in and of itself. The continuous nature of the game makes implementing instant replay for other decisions very difficult. You're going to have to set out a framework for what can be reviewed; what can't be reviewed; how you handle situations where replay would bring back the play but you had something happen in the meantime - ie, offside incorrectly not given, then DOGSO-F; how far back can you go (see the NFL and teams trying to hurry the next play so the previous one can't be reviewed), which will lead to players surrounding the referee and demanding he go check the replay on any contentious decision, hampering the flow even more (unless referees at the top level finally start tackling dissent, which we've been waiting on forever), and possibly overturning something that happened two minutes after the initial offense; etc etc etc. It's not impossible to implement instant replay, but it's not just a matter of saying "implement instant replay" and POOF! We have instant replay! There would have to be a lot of thought put into it, certainly more than what is needed for American football, baseball, and tennis, given that those sports are a series of discrete events and not two continuous 45 minute periods. Edit: Just an example of what you would have to consider in implementing video review: Team A attacking, Team B defending. Team A plays in a through ball to a player in a close offside position, AR doesn't flag it because he knows he has review to help him. Team A player then loses the ball to a Team B defender. Team B knocks the ball around a bit, turns it over to Team A, who then scores a legit goal. Ball never goes out of play during this sequence, and just for sake of argument, let's say 90 seconds pass between the uncalled offside and the goal. Team B wants the play reviewed and goal disallowed because Team A was originally offside, and had that been called correctly, Team B would have been able to relieve the pressure and not given up the goal. How do you deal with this situation?
None. Once the referee goes under the hood they are on a 60 second timer to make a decision given the angles available. There are no multiple minute reviews in the NFL.
Define "quickly", because most people seem to be saying "Oh yeah it'll be instantaneous!" when in reality this will only happen in a few cases. The majority of calls will take much longer than 5 seconds. If it takes 40 seconds to review a call and it's a 50/50 where most referees are split on it, what's the point in the review? And when they come back and change the call (when the original call is also correct), how does that serve the game?
Right and the whole review process never takes longer than a minute. I have no official data around this but even when the ref jogs over to the replay booth and jogs back, I would imagine several minutes are burned on a tough review. Which brings up an interesting point -- although there is input from other officials, I believe the final decision is up to the head guy in NFL games. So if we were to implement reviews in soccer, I'm assuming we would need to have the CR review as to not usurp their authority. So now what, as far as flow goes? Or do we change the fundamental piece of Law 5 regarding authority?
Aaron Gordon of Sports on Earth hand-timed 48 replay stoppages in the NFL this season, and they averaged 2:08.
Personally, I am sick of the sport being catered more and more to fat slobs watching the match from 10,000km away on their sofas with a bowl of nachos in their laps and endless slow-motion replays at their convenience -- and meanwhile anything that happens on the pitch and viewed in the stands in real-time is considered less-and-less relevant and important. Sure, that's clearly where the money is all coming from, but it is gutting the traditions of the sport. Worse for me is this mythical belief that said fat slobs in front of TVs have privileged access to the mother-of-all-views of the indisputable truth ... or even that any singular view of the indisputable truth exists and can merely be broken down with microscopic detail and sub-millisecond precision. And meanwhile, all it takes is a dodgy offsides call, a questionable second yellow card, a goal kick decision instead of a corner kick to upend all of those false beliefs in being able to technology down our way to the absolute truth. It's farcical theater of the mind.
Oh booo hoo people are trying to make something more fair. Boo hoo the good old days Jesus this is not for us. This is for the players. For the f****g players to not feel that their work is going down the toilet because of a bad decision This is about making life easier for everyone from referees to players. We fat slobs already see the replays why not use them to help them? You know what..... forget it ..... screw progress. Oh and BTW players want this so isn't this catering to them? Or do you prefer catering to you, the oh my gawd the good old days were so good http://www.fifpro.org/en/news/fifpro-calls-fifa-to-stop-ignoring-technology But it's all about being catered more and more to fat slobs watching the match from 10,000km away no?
My problem with the replay is the re-start. Attacker is tripped on a breakaway, possible dogso, and it's called. Replay shows there was no contact. No foul. Restart? There is no call made, but the play continues till when? Goal scored during continued play, before the review, erased? What about fouls committed during the ongoing play, ignored? Advantages given? What about SFP? Does it become Violent Condict, because play wasn't "really" continuing after the missed handball that prevented a goal? The confusing scenarios are infinite.
I think replay could be useful for some close offside position questions. It would work like this. When a goal is scored the immediately preceding play can be reviewed using whatever camera angles are available. If there is clear evidence that the last or second-last (or some other reasonable limit) attacker to touch the ball before the goal had been in an offside position at the relevant moment, the referee would be informed and the goal disallowed. Otherwise I cannot think of how video review could be implemented for referee judgement calls. This is mostly the case in sports that actually have video review. They are mostly used to review facts. Offside position and ball in-and-out-of-play (especially for goals) are the main facts that are disputed on a regular enough basis.
The pro-video folks in this thread have expressed nothing more than tears and emotion to back up their view. Their plan seems to be: 1. Tears shed. 2. Replay. 3 ??? 4. Tears wiped away and fairness restored. Please, tell us how this would actually work in practice. I'm serious. Fill in that ??? for me. I don't see how replay would work on most judgement calls because I've been the referee and I know how people are and I can't see how it would work. But that could be a failure of my imagination. Pick three pure judgement calls in these WC Finals and walk us through how video review would have worked in those cases to come up with results that, say, pretty much any neutral observer would have agreed with was a more fair outcome.