C'mon when I post something like that I'm talking to people with common sense. You are one of them. Even the best refs in the world make mistakes. For me personally I enjoy watching different types of referees and how they influence the game. A "play on" signal could result to a very important goal. A yellow card instead of a red could change a club's history forever. The fact that those things happen all the time are such a turn-on. I love it.
Of course, a ref will still have the same style as before, and have the same decision-making process as before. And they will still make mistakes. The decision-making PROCESS will remain the same, and the ref will still be in as much control of the game as he was previously. Some refs will still let the game flow, some will still stop it for every single little thing. But with technology, the ref will have a better grasp of the underlying FACTS which feed into his decision-making process. The styles won't change much. And I bet if you asked the ref "Which decision would you prefer to make - the right one, or the most exciting one?", all the non-Norwegian refs would say "The right one".
So to sum it up, you think the fact that a referee, who is supposed to moderate the game can decide it, is a turn on? Maybe i should manipulate the discussion as a moderator right here, and you can tell me how much of a turn-on you'd think that would be?
Look, how much more entertaining would it have been if this guy [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6kBEAax8Pg&feature=player_embedded#at=16"]YouTube - El árbitro cobró el "foul" en el Sub20[/ame] got sent off or carded there and then for simulation?
Where do you draw the line though? Are we going to have players appealing for everything? I think it would be pretty controversial to just introduce it for goal-line technology and not everything else, but it could become just far too time-consuming. It's frustrating enough watching a game being constantly disrupted for time-wasting so if it were to come into effect then you'd need to introduce the clock being stopped when the ref whistles for the first time.
I think there are several problems ailing the game and each should be solved using the appropriate method. Technology should be used to solve some, but is not a silver bullet. Some thots 1. Goal line technology - I think it is simple and effective enough and would not harm the flow of the game. It is often difficult for the assist refs to get to the baseline to get the proper angle and even then human ability and judgment is still crucial. using it will take some responsibility off the officials so they can focus on other parts of the game that are less cut and dry. 2. Instant video replay -this has no place in the game unless you want to ruin the flow and kill the game. We have to manage with the next best thing which is post game review. 3. Diving - I think this is one of the bigger problems today and think the punishment has to be modified to curb it. Firstly, someone diving should bear an commensurate risk to his gain. A yellow card might be sufficient for diving outside the box, but, giving that, if successful, a dive in the box can earn the diver a penalty and a red card for the defender, diving in the box should warrant a red card as well. That way you would think twice before going to ground. Secondly, just like for other serious fouls, there needs to be post game reviewing of diving. Even if the ref missed it during the game, that should not mean the diver gets off free. 4. Quality of officiating - At times it is clear that the problem was not that the call was difficult to make, but that the official failed to do his job e.g. assistant ref not parallel with the line of defense, ref too far from the ball etc. I think the game needs professional refs, and not part timers, and the pay structure adjusted to attract the best of the best. We get to see the best footballers because there is a lot of money to be made for them, and should be willing to pay more to get the best officiating with it.
If the offside law was just that being in an offside position was 'offside' then this would be the case. However it isn't. You are only offside if "in the opinion of the referee" you are gaining an advantage. This is something technology can't do. Generally I'm not in favour of video technology, though I think a strong case can be made for goal-line technology. Where it is back or white I can see the advantage... unfortunately not many laws are. This is an example of why I don't see a great advantage. We have all seen the replays, and yet we all have different views. The referee has to make a decision and a second official would have to do the same. In one game the referee could give the penalty and see it over-ruled, while the same weekend another referee could ignore the penalty claims and also be over-ruled. Imagine the fun the media would have with that. I would not like to see anything more than technology to say yes or no the ball crossed the goal-line, touchline etc. The only other thing I could see working (at a push), would be allowing the ref to ask a specific question in reviewing an incident because he was unsighted. For example, "Was the hand in contact with the ball?" Here the ref will decide himself if it was deliberate or not, he just wants to be sure it was the hand/arm rather than say the players chest. Or "when the original ball comes in, was player A in an offside position" Here the ref will still decide whether the player is interfering with play. In other words, a fourth official can only give factual information if the ref asks for it, and must not interperet that information... that still has to be the ref. My 2 cents.
Goal line and offside line technology would do it for me with the addition of the referee being able to watch a replay of an incident that wasn't in his sight of view. I'd like to add so much more but i am afraid it would ruin the flow of the game so i'd be pretty happy with the above. p.s i know it's not gonna happen though
i dont think technology is required for offside calls, as we often seen great calls by well positioned asst refs. Poor calls usually stem from the asst ref being out of position imo. More importantly, the subject part of it cannot be automated. Any technology that does not require the game to be interrupted to apply it would not change the flow of the game e.g. a goal line technology could buzz into the refs earpiece to confirm a goal, which would be not too different from current practice of the ref looking to his assts for confirmation I think the aim should be to improve the game and not to make officiating perfect.
Personally I think goal line technology is a must. I read a while back that they were working on one which sends a message/buzz to the ref after the whole of the ball crosses the whole of the line. imo this seems like the best option. On the video replay subject, I say we take the tennis route and give each team 3 chances to challenge the refs decision. Then, there is a fourth official who will look at the replays and decide in favor or against, depending on the evidence. This way we wont get every decision being scrutinized, and when the players start moaning to the ref, he can just say to them to challenge the call. I also doubt it'll be time consuming, how many times we see an incident replayed on tv, and then they go back to the pitch and play hasn't restarted yet. With the ref having a head set, which is connected to the video referee he will know the decision straight away. Just my thoughts on the subject.
The problem with allowing team to make challenges is that it will disrupt the flow of the game, and can be used to gain/deny advantage e.g. a player loses the ball at one end, the opposition is on the counter, and I then decide to challenge the ref for not calling a foul, hereby denying them the opposition advantage. People who make references to the American football, basketball or tennis, should keep in mind that these game are inherently littered with break and flow is often maintained for only a short period e.g. for a snap in NFL, a basket in basketball, and a point in tennis. Football is built on flow that must be preserved as much as possible e.g. like is done with playing the advantage despite a foul.
That happens now with players time wasting for the last 15-20 mins of the game. Just look back at some of our games this season and you'll see.
Very valid points, especially the buzzer, i do remember that was talked about during 2006 world cup, and it is the most sensible option as it will quickly buzz the ref and he will just give the decision. The tennis version is very efficient and knowing you have a limit will reduce the time wasted with players squaring up to the referee, furthermore it will also reduce the unnecessary yellow (even red cards in some instances) for dissent, all i know is debacles such as the CL Chelsea V Barca games won't happen again with such technology. I think it will all benefit the game, as with it disrupting the flow, thats a weak argument against as players of their own accord decide to quarrel with each other and the ref, along with time wasting antics which are all to disrupt the flow. It will work and i don't see any reason to not implement it, after all there is nothing to lose by trying it out at least. Suffice to say, video/goal line technology is imperative in the modern game today, not only will it serve for the increase in fairness but it will also help develop the game and reduce controversy. I concur with Kasoul on this but feel free to disagree
Spot on. Would I find it funny if we scored a hand of god goal against Barcelona to claim the league win? Yes I would. Would I find it funny if the opposite happend? No, but I would have yet another reason to hate Barcelona and we would be able to point at em and say they're cheating **********.
I would find it funnier if Barcelona would do it, and would still end up losing the League, like it happened when we won it under Capello. Spotting a fecking hand goal should be a basic requirement for a linesman and/or referee in the first place though, and that Messi handball was painfully obvious.
You can't do this when a lot of the calls are subjective... is he interfering? was it deliberate? ungentlemanly conduct or serious foul play? You are just swapping one person's opinion for another. Other than something crossing a line or not, I really don't think you gain anything.
Those calls would be tactical exploited. The other team starting to put on the gas pedal? Do a worthless challenge and ruin their game.
Have you ever reffed a game? Honestly while all the crowd are following the ball, the officials can be trying to look at 3 or 4 other things at the same time. I accept that there are some awful decisions, some very dubious ones and of course there are dreadful referees. Sometimes they just get it wrong. To err is to be human.
The idea of team challenges is a non starter for me. What I do think is that refs should be more open after games, perhaps explaining decisions, and 'shock horror' admitting when they get it wrong. I think increasing transparency in this way would quickly expose below par refs and perhaps reduce pressure on them as a whole.
Yeah I defo agree with you on that one and I think what Serie A is doing is wise. Using TV images to punish dives which had a direct effect on the game or other unsporting nature. While it won't change the match result it'll still work as a (ehh I forgot the word for it. When you know your going to get caught and punished, something with d. ) and probably help root the problem long term. I think refs should be more notice the general behaviour of the players as well. I hate that kind of refs who, even if the opposition team is heading back to their own half, and the home team is acting like it's a goal kick - calls for a corner kick. I mean obviously your call is wrong.
Years ago, watching Wednesday away at Forest, Alan Harper (That'll tell you how long ago!) miscontrolled the ball while attacking towards the Wednesday fans, and being challenged by a defender. Despite the obvious goal kick, the Wednesday fans as one jumped up and shouted 'corner'... the ref gave it. I'd hate to see that disappear from the game.
The point was that the game should be made to flow as much as possible. That there are things that cause a break in flow already should not be used as an excuse to cause more breaks. Efforts should be to reduce them. BTW time wasting in of itself doesnt disrupt the flow of the game, as there has to be a break in play before you can try to waste time. Even if you pretend to be injured when you are not, the referee can let play continue. There is a system in place to punish time wasting tactics. Its up to the ref to apply it accordingly.
IMO, I think allowing a coach to have a limited number of challenges is acceptable. I would propose one per game or per half if I'm feeling generous. In the aforementioned sports who have challenges and replays, there is also a time limit. In American football, the challenge must be made before the next snap. In tennis, a player has to stop play to make a challenge. Alma, you mentioned the diving/faking crap that also drives me nuts. Imagine this scenario: You are Mourinho and one of your players has just gone down inside the penalty box under a challenge and is raising his arms begging for a PK. You notify the 4th official immediately that you want to challenge the call. Unfortunately for the cheater, it shows that the referee made the correct decision. There probably won't be much need for UEFA or whatever governing body to step in to discipline the player because the coach just wasted a challenge. I think the idea of video technology has its merits, but only in limited circumstances. Unlimited challenges would cause delays, certainly. My question is this: Would it cause more delay than there is currently due to diving, feigning injury, and protesting? If video technology puts a stop to that type of behavior, I'm all for it.
In the NFL, the challenge comes during a normal break in play i.e. between snaps, while in tennis it is same i.e. between serves. Also note the effect on clock management as in the NFL a the failed challenge leads to a loss of timeout, while tennis has no time limit. How do we then deal with a failed challenge in football? In football, allowing the challenge to stop play would ruin the game and could be used to gain an unfair advantage, while waiting till there is a normal break in play would often render the challenge moot. The way forward imo, is to focus on helping refs make better decisions on the fly.
They are doing that for years. I wouldn't mind 5-10 mins of interruptions per game if it would mean better refereeing. Stop the timer, see the challenge, make a decision, start the timer again.