Are you suggesting the players are influencing these decisions - even getting them changed? Players will complain and distract for just as long as it is not counter-productive to do so. Adding in the option to go to a video ref will just see players running up to the ref demanding that option be taken in exactly the same way players brandish a fake card after they've been fouled in an attempt to get one issued. Pretending that they won't seems remarkably naive. I can't imagine that a player who thought there was a handball (or might have been a handball) 90 seconds before a goal was scored is going to not try it on afterwards - especially as presumably once that option has been taken you'd have to check the whole passage of play in between - and who knows what a video referee might see in the background - obstruction, holding, shirt pulling etc. And then what? You might think I'm being a bit dramatic here but scarcely a fortnight goes by here in Australia without Rugby League having to deal with this sort of thing*, with an apparently obvious try being overturned because of some minor technical breach that the video ref has deemed to have occurred in the lead up. This has even reached the point where some coaches have called for the system to be abandoned because it has gradually expanded from what they (ie, the coach) thought they were getting (a tool to judge whether a try had been scored correctly) into something that seems to randomly expand or contract its focus to different levels of coverage in scope away from scoring situations. On timing issues, in a similar situation - the Rugby League State of Origin on Wednesday night - it was exactly 3 minutes between the time the referee awarded a try and "the bunker" (video referee committee) over-ruled his initial decision (somewhat controversially). That's no surprise. Once you've taken the view that you are going to use video, you really have to use it to excess. You can't just look at one angle (even if it seems clear cut) because if any other angle brings your call into question then you've stuffed up in a way that a referee could never be accused of. Anyway, it will certainly be interesting to see how decisions tend to be made - viewing anything over and over again (and again, you have to view it over and over again because you cannot make a mistake) tends makes things look different. Even more crucially, slowing things down (which again, will have to be done, you have to be 100% correct here) tends to make all actions look more deliberate than when viewed at normal speed, making lots of natural interactions look like a deliberate attempt to break someone's leg - followed by an attempt to win the Best Actor Oscar (TM). That's not a problem when you are trying to work out if the ball is over the line, but it is going to be crucial in determining all those football fouls which rely on intent (and one whether an action is careless, reckless or dangerous). J * - to be honest, all the things I've said about Rugby League should be taken with a grain of salt - I honestly don't pay much attention to it, but other people at work are always complaining about something. Almango could probably tell you if I'm really wrong.
Your really wrote a lot. All I suggested is that it would save time in some circumstances to have eyes up in the booth watching things instead of relying on a committee/ huddle of refs on the field that is being bombarded by players and their opinions.
Well I would have to disagree on the time point. As I noted above (and believe me, you might think that was obsessively long, but I cut about three other points out) if you have video, you tie yourself to a time-consuming process: The video ref has to be called; the video has to be asked for by the video ref and set up by the technical people; a number of (if not all possible) angles must be looked at; maybe the video ref has to explain the decision (a trend that appears to be becoming a requirement of the process in situations that aren't just in/out); and the decision has to be communicated (a point that might seem obvious, but there have been cases in cricket where a decision was made, and then the wrong button was pressed and the scoreboard flashed up the wrong decision. Oh how we laughed and laughed and didn't laugh at all!). That dictates at least a minute per decision. J
Just because it is time consuming within some circumstances of Cricket or in Rugby does not mean it will be time consuming in every circumstance within futbol. I said in my initial post it may speed things up in some cases. Not all, But some.
It's time consuming in ALL cases in cricket and rugby (the colour points here are really just to point out that even a time consuming process can go spectacularly wrong at times). There is no way for it not to be. My basic point is that if you have video ref then you are tying yourself to at the very least a five step process if it is to be thorough and transparent. That's not a clinching argument against a video ref. But let's not pretend that this can be done both properly and quickly. J
When there are controversial plays in soccer the length is always time consuming. Especially when teams who are known to argue and waste time take advantage of that situation. I believe video technology can be done as quickly as the refs on the field having to rely on their eyes and their memories as they have a conversation on the sidelines in some cases. Also, it can provide clarity in other cases. And in some rare situations the ref will just let play go on cause he had not gotten some sort of buzz from upstairs cause there was no foul at all. I think that is where this can lead to. Just like with goal line technology.
If I was going to make any changes to the Rules of the Game, it would be to take steps to make the PK/no-PK decisions less high-stake and controversial. #1 - reduce the size of the penalty box, so that there are less PK's in general #2 - move the penalty spot back so that fewer PK's are converted The reason such decisions are generally so controversial is because they are tantamount to awarding a team a almost certain goal. If you take steps to reduce the conversion rate from 80-90% to 50% (such as moving the penalty spot back), then the decisions themselves are not going to be quite as high-stakes. Likewise, if you made the penalty box 12yds wide from each goalpost instead of 18 yds and 12yds from the goal line instead of 18yds, the area in which a foul would result in a penalty kick would be reduced significantly, thus leading to fewer high-stakes decisions.
And if so, those fouls would result in free kicks from very dangerous areas, many of which would result in goals...
Nah. We really don't need more cynical plays from defenders. FK goals are nice and all, but open play goals are so much better.
I think you both are right. On balance I wouldn't support the change, but I'd be ok with a trial in a minor league somewhere.
We also don't need games being decided via high stakes call by refs, who then get surrounded and yelled at by every player on the defending team. The problem is when PK's are awarded, the punishment (i.e. an almost certain goal against) rarely fits the crime (a challenge that may/may not be a foul, a handball which may/may not be intentional, etc., often on plays which were relatively unlikely to lead to a goal). In many cases a direct free kick from a dangerous position (which let's say has a 20-30% chance of leading to a goal) would also be a much more proportional and fair punishment vis-a-vis the severity/position/nature of the foul.
It depends on the offence. I think straight reds for violent conduct deserve a suspension, and those for two cautionable events in a game may not deserve more than the remainder of the game. Its the one rule for all reds that needs looking at.
It depends. If you take someone out to stop a possible goal in the 89th minute, it's not harsh at all.
True. Plus missing one match out of some 50 that a club will play in a season is not much time. On the other hand, missing the biggest match of your life (e.g. semifinal of a European championship) because you picked up two yellows in 5 matches does seem overly harsh. Poor Aaron Ramsey.
No more draws. Before each match, let's have a penalty shootout. If a team scores more goals than the other, they get 4 and 0 points. If they score the same number of goals, the winner of the penalty shootout gets 3 points and the loser gets 1 point. With this rule, the difference between winning and losing is one goal, not two.
I believe yellow cards got wiped after the group stage. Ramsey got banned for getting booked in both the R16 an QF rounds. With tournaments seeming to get less interesting over time (or at least seeming to have fewer good games) I think they should look again at what constitutes a foul. I think the current way of handling things, where any contact made before a player goes does been normally seen as a foul, is ruining creativity in the game. That may seem counter intuitive, in that stopping fouling should see more attacking moves, but I think far too many players now play for the foul rather than looking to get past the man. It's resulting in a big drop in standards of attacking play, because attacking players have lost their focus in getting through a defence, because they are more interested in drawing the foul. I wouldn't want to see a return to 70s style play, where defenders hack players down and suffer no more than a free kick - dangerous play should be punished just as much as now - but if a player is running towards goal, I want to see him trying to get a shooting opportunity, not look to brush against the defender's leg so he can go down and win a free kick.
While the Ramsey point is true, the cards weren't wiped after the group stage. For example, Ben Davies (also Wales) was suspended from the semi-final after getting booked against England (Matchday 2) and the in quarter-final against Belgium. Similarly, Thiago Motta was suspended from the quarter finals after bookings in Matchday 1 against Belgium and in the round of 16 against Spain. J
The video-assistant-referee (VAR) to be used in the game between the Red Bulls 2/II/B -v- Orlando City 2/II/B squads today; all remaining RB2 games the rest of the season: http://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/678615?referrer_id=2333971 general article, saying it is to test the communication between the VAR and field refs: http://www.theifab.com/#!/news/further-live-trials-with-vars-in-new-jersey
They got wiped after the quarter final. It's five games to avoid two bookings just so no-one misses the final. I would prefer after the groups and then after the semi finals for resets giving two blocks of three (although this wouldn't have impacted Ramsey). Ben Davies was booked against England and then again in the quarter final for his suspension.
Saw a few vid's of goalkeepers giving the ball away on outlet passes, leading to the ball in the back of their net. I would like to force this in all cases with goalies; no more passes by the goalies that go past the mid-field line. If the pass goes past the mid-stripe, the other team gets an indirect kick from the center line. Force the goalies / defenders to make plays.