Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Arsenal' started by NorthBank, Apr 18, 2008.
If the USA didn't have instant replay already, i suspect Europe would.
anti, you really have a chip on your shoulder lol
rugby and cricket use instant replays
Rugby only use the replay on very particular incidents like trys.
It's worth remembering that cricket went through a period where the decision making was just so poor (and crooked) that something had to be done.
And it did make a huge difference.
A lot of the decisions in cricket are also near impossible to make with the naked eye in real time, no matter how good of an angle you are viewing it at. Our problem is more that the refs will never have the perfect angle to make the calls they do, but that can be improved upon by adding the goal line officials.
What do you review? The final touch, or the entire build up? If someone dives to get a free kick that they then score from, would that be fine? If so, why bother implementing video replays if we are still going to have game breaking decisions that are incorrect? If not, are you going start reviewing every foul?
The incidents in which video technology is a net positive to the game, are so few and far between, and not worth the trouble when there are other options. Another thing to consider is that not all incidents are as clear cut as the Henry one on video. Even when watching the replay 10 times you can have half the people call it a dive, and half call it a foul.
If we want to bring technology into the game, goal line technology should be it.
edit: Another factor is simply to get more competent referees. Where else can a guy go out and suck at his job week after week without facing any significant consequences? Pay more, get better people, train them more, and hold them to higher standards.
It should only be used during a game for instances inside the penalty box excluding offsides imo. Off the ball fouls like violent conduct should be dealt with retrospectively, it works a treat in Rugby Union.
As for breaking the flow of the game I dont think it would. For example there was a little over 2mins between the Gallas goal and kick-off in the France v Ireland game. 2seconds would have corrected the situation.
Yeah, I'm with you. What do we do about offside calls that are whistled incorrectly? What if someone is allegedly pushed in the box on a goal like Drogba did on Terry's goal against Manchester United? Can Fergie asked for the play to be reviewed upstairs? What about the free kick that led up to that goal that Fergie complained about after the game? Does anyone honestly think that people will limit the use of video technology to certain cases once it is introduced? What about a missed foul in the box? Are the refs going to review the play to see if they got the 'no-call' correct prior to giving the goal kick or corner kick? What if the ball doesn't go straight out of bounds? Is that team just SOL? There are so many questions.
Why not a system modeled after the challenge system in the NFL that puts a limited number (such as one per half for instance) of review demands in the hands of the teams themselves.
It's a good idea, but I doubt that it will keep coaches and fans happy. I think this probably is the most practical idea though.
The need is simply to bring back confidence in the system - not to legislate every decision
It's a question of setting up rules to adjudicate reviews. And that's the problem.
What are you going to review and what are the standards of review?
Referees have discretion to let fouls go. So Scally suggests reviewing fouls in the box. What does that mean? Does that mean literally any time the ball touches someone's hand, it's a foul? Does it remove all discretion from the referee? If so, when the ball goes through the box and it inadvertently touches a defenders hand, the same rule should apply. It touches your arm or hand. Penalty. It won't only apply to Thierry Henry. I prefer allowing the referee to use his/her discretion. It comes down to this, we either allow refs to differentiate between fouls or we create a system of literal interpretation.
If people aren't for the literal interpretation of a hand ball rule, then we're talking about reviewing what? How do you craft a rule that penalizes Henry's handball, but not others? Do you look at intent? How do you craft a rule that adjudicates the intent of a player? And we don't see how problematic it will be to have some guys in a booth making a decision about Henry's intent? People will want transparency into the booth to know who they are and everything about them, because decisions will always disappoint one side.
Replay will definitely change things, but I'm not sure it would be any better.
Why does the issue of intention even need to come into the Henry decision? Would it be a legal play if he didn't intend to touch the ball? It seems to me the call wasn't made on the basis that the ref didn't see it rather than having thought it was unintentional. That's why I take the position that video replay would solve the problem at least in this case. I'm not concerned with punishing Henry. My intentions are to make the correct call regarding the validity of the goal. That's all.
I don't know that it won't help, but I agree with you on where do we start and draw the line? If Henry's handball should be reviewable, what else gets to be reviewed? Every foul? Every dive? Because as much as I would want the refs to get things correct (in every sport), I don't know how many different things you can stop to check. As much as I initially thought replay is needed, I start to wonder how well it could be implemented into soccer. Something like the infamous Roy Carroll "save" seems easy enough, but with Henry's hand ball, which the ref claims he didn't see, how does that play become reviewable? And I worry that players will start having knee-jerk reactions and claiming "hand ball" just for the hell of it in hopes there might have been something illegal going on.
Although I would like to see leagues crack down on dives. Not saying that they should stop to review during the game, but review after the fact and just slap a fine to each player who dives. I think that might be a less invasive but effective way to get diving out of the game. Plus it'd be nice to see a simple little table that lists the players who have been fined the most for dives.
But how do you come up with the rules in which the play should be reviewed? Yes, we all know it was a hand ball thanks to the replay. But how does the ref go ahead and make the call that the play should be reviewed? Because he had the entire Ireland squad yelling at him? If a ref hands a red card to a player and his teammates mob the ref, should he go back and review to make sure he got the call right? Because if we did replays based on angry mobs, we'd be sitting in front of our tv's or in the stands forever. I think it's definitely important to get things right, but at the same time, there has to be a right way for leagues to do so without ruining the flow of the game to a huge degree.
I know people have said it before, but maybe the NFL challenge system is the best model. And it's interesting that a sport based around constant stop and starts has the system that they do.
Perhaps it should be Ireland's decision to make.
Well that why I've mentioned several times that you give a limited number of replay demands to each team and take the replay decision out of the hands of the referee and into the teams' hands. Not many "challenges".....maybe one or two per match. This is not an issue of making the game perfect but improving it. Would replay in a limited manner improve it? I think it's certainly an option that's worth entertaining the idea of.
I wasn't saying that intention comes into it.
You say video replay would solve it. How does your video replay system work? My point is that it's not just as simple as setting up video replay to make the right call. You have to set up rules to govern replay.
So, again, what rules are you suggesting be in place to govern the Henry situation? Is the rule that someone suggests (perhaps a coach or a captain) that Henry touched the ball with his hand and then someone goes upstairs for video review.
You can't pick a rule to solve a situation in one case. Rules and systems are put into place to govern situations. As a lawyer, I deal with rule consistency all the time. So the rule you'd suggest might be: A captain or player reserves the right to challenge a call or non-call once per half. The challenge must be brought to the attention of the referee or linesman within 30 seconds of the incident.
So the challenge has been made. Now the question comes up, what are they going to review? What types of fouls are on the table? Just considering that you want to tackle handballs, let's just say we are developing a rule for handballs in the box.
The rule might be: Handball challenges will only be considered if they are in the box. A panel of three referees will review the video evidence. They will have 2 minutes to reach a conclusion.
But what conclusion are they reaching? Whether in fact there was a handball? That's easy enough. So they say, yes there was a handball. And in our case, as long as there was a challenge, Henry's goal gets called off. Pretty simple. Your concerns about the validity of the goal are taken care of.
But here's my point about rules. If we go by the rules set forth above, they don't just apply to Thierry Henry, or attacking players. They just apply to handballs in the box. So unless you somehow can come up with language to differentiate handballs in the box, we're still left with the following scenario. There's an equally important match. The ball is being played out of the back. The keeper distributes the ball to a defender and the ball inadvertently hits the defender's hand. The defender is still in the box. The referee sees it (or not) and let's play continue. Inadvertent handball. The opposing captain challenges. According to the rules set forth above. The same rules that we'd use to capture Henry, we'd have a panel review the play and determine that there was a handball. No more discretion by the ref because the same rule that was drafted to get Henry is the same rule that will be used in other situations. Drafting rules are complicated in the same way drafting legislation is complicated. You don't make laws to combat one criminal, you make laws that generally apply and prosecute individuals according to the rules that have been set forth.
So again, what's the rule you want to set forth other than generally saying video replay solves this problem? Because generally, yeah, I watched it on tv and saw a handball as well. But logistically, that's not how systems work. We could define a handball literally every time the ball touches another player's hand. Or we could try to differentiate between handballs, which is complicated and will ultimately get into intent. Both of those prospects don't work IMO. Or we do nothing but add more eyes. That's the best solution, but its not perfect.
The reason replay works in football is because they are reviewing hard lines. Whether a foot was in or out. Easy. Football/soccer IS DIFFERENT because a ball can touch someone's hand, but referees have the discretion to ignore that handball. Futbol doesn't treat handballs like football treats two feet in bounds.
It is complicated and that's why people are divided on the issue. Replay is valuable not because it can solve any/all incidents and those you mention above are example of it's limitations. However that doesn't render it useless either. Consider the Henry incident as an example and think why it's been such a hot topic. It's precisely for incidents such as this that the video replay is probably most useful: an utter missed/blown call on the field in a high impact setting. If replay was applied to the France-Ireland incident, would the goal really have stood? I don't think it would have. It can't resolve the gray areas but it can when applied to the outliers which are what irk the people most.
I can obviously only speculate as to whether or not Henry intentionally handled the ball but the replay shows that he handled the ball regardless whether it was due to instinct or intention (as opposed to, and I hate the phrase myself, ball-to-hand) and as such I personally would conclude that it was enough to invalidate the goal.
Im sure video evidence, 6 referees and all sorts will be discussed in a couple of weeks.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter has called an extraordinary meeting
Extraordinary meeting...Cape Town...December...can I come with?
My bet is that the bureaucrats wanted a quick trip to Cape Town before it got too cold.
Dammit, Rewinder. You beat me to it again.
Can't hit the beaches in June as it is winter in SA. One of the disadvantages of a June-July WC in the Southern Hemisphere.
Blat is probably calling it extraordinary on the basis that he's going to be there himself:
"Blatter was elected president of the World Society of Friends of Suspenders, an organisation who tried to stop women replacing suspender belts with pantyhose."
lol...did someone say Christmas partaaayyyy???
/\ Blatter + Platini /\
a meeting where they will plot their next ref screw up and hand out some bungs