Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Arsenal' started by NorthBank, Apr 18, 2008.
I don't see why an official watching on a video screen would be any different than a linesman. Don't they confer with the ref on what they've seen? Does that lead to a debate on every foul, dive, etc? The video official could simply say "looked like a dive to me" or "looked like a clear penalty" and leave it up to the ref to make the call. The only difference is he would have been able to see a replay of the incident in slow motion.
I think you're missing my point. I never said replay is useless. it is useless for things such as balls crossing lines. And I'm not saying that the Henry call wasn't blown or wouldn't be changed if there was video replay.
I'm saying that replay doesn't get set up to catch one blown call. There are guidelines that are set up to govern whatever replays you want. So what do you plan on telling the people you want to set it up? Just use it to catch blatant errors? That doesn't mean anything. What qualifies as a blatant error? Many might say that Henry's handball was blatant error. Some might say that what others view as an inadvertent hand ball at the end of the game where the ref allows play is blatant error. So at the end of the day, you have to define the behavior you're trying to catch.
I don't want to beat this into the ground (and maybe we already have), but the question isn't whether video would have been helpful -- it would have been, and no one questions that. The question is how would you implement this system. And you can't just say challenges like in American football without recognizing the limitations that a challenge system would bring. So what rule would they be implementing to review Henry's handball?
I'm not saying that appropriate rules can't be drafted. I am saying that I haven't heard anyone express them other than to say that video would have helped catch the call, which we all admit is true. It's just that there's more to it than that.
What rule? How about the one that's implied in the name of the game and states that field players can't touch the ball with their hands.
Yeah, i was kinda figuring that they would just use video to help enforce the current rules.
I see your point, but players can touch the ball with their hands. It happens all the time and the ref decides not to call it. If the rule was that hard, every time the ref sees the ball touch someone's hand, he'd blow the whistle. That's just how the game is played and how refs understand the game. Not every handball is worthy of stopping the game.
Is your point that a video official would be unable to use discretion like any other official?
But that's just the point. The current rule isn't a uniform rule. Maybe it should be, but that's not the way it is in practice. If we want them to enforce the current rules, then every handball should be a handball. Then using video would be pretty easy to incorporate. The ball either touches a hand or it doesn't. But it's problematic as long as refs call some handballs and not others.
As you probably know, there isn't a foul called "handball". The foul is intentional handling, which is why refs don't call it everytime someone gets hit in the arm. A video official would understand and be able to apply the rules just like every other official.
Agreed with the statement that not every handball is worthy of stopping the game for but one that has such a decisive effect on the outcome of a game of such importance warrants a stop in the festivities. That Henry handball should be enforced as a "hard" call every single time. Because there is the possibility that the ref can miss such a call, video replay is there to correct the potential missed call. Sounds like the basic framework of the video replay guidelines already, doesn't it?
Intentional handling is clear. But I could challenge for video replay on any handball and to get a review by other officials. For every Henry call, which I agree is problematic, there are several other calls that are grey. People want to use this system to eliminate the obvious penalty, which is understandable. But the system will be abused and used in every match to gain an advantage.
I'm not sure, and its just my opinion of course, that doing that to the game is worthwhile. It's a simple cost benefit analysis. Is it worth going upstairs to stop the game four times per game for a minute (let's say two challenges per team), if it yield's a reversal in a call every 5 matches? Maybe considering the money at stake these days. I'm just of the opinion that when the question is intent, legislating it going to be difficult whether you're upstairs in a booth or down on the field. And for every TH14, there's going to be countless stoppages where we're asking refs upstairs to make intent decisions that are pretty difficult to determine. At the end of the day, IMO, those stoppages will create more drama and talking points than the way it stands now, where the ref just makes a decision and play continues.
Haha. Damn. The amount of dedication that we give to this nonsense never ceases to amaze me.
Sounds like a good premise. Who triggers the review?
I wouldn't want to see any system of challenges. But i still don't understand why a video official would be any different than a linesman. He could alert the ref if he saw something that he thought the ref missed, and the ref could ask for a second opinion on calls he didn't have a clear view of. But the final decision would be the referees.
Let me ask you this, how long does it take you to make a decision when you see a controverisial play? I'd say it takes me 10-15 seconds, less time than it takes to set up a wall or take a corner kick. If used correctly, video wouldn't have any effect on the pace of the game.
Ok, well now we're getting somewhere. In your scenario, there's no difference between the video official. Just an extra set of eyes with access to a rewind button.
I was just responding to challenges mentioned, but was mostly interested in learning about how people think the system could work. I agree about challenges. Too problematic. But a shout down from a ref watching elsewhere saying, "Blatant handball that lead to goal on #14," I can see. I've tended to think of replays as being initiated from the field. As long as they're initiated from above, many of the perceived problems with the system disappear.
When Arsenal plays, any of us will do as far as I'm concerned. When Spoors play, the same.
The Times had a good article about the need for video replays the other day.
It's easy for people in favor of video replay to show how a review of the play would be beneficial once the game has stopped for a goal, corner kick or goal kick, but it gets really difficult if the ball stays in play after a controversial foul/play. I reckon that half of the time, if not more, this is the case. That makes video replay a lot harder to figure out.
Is it that tough to whistle a play dead for an incident that happened a few seconds before? The video official would be able to use his discretion and confer with the ref whether an incident is serious enough to interrupt play. In fact, it could be that the video officials would be former refs past the mandatory retirement age. Would anyone complain if Collina was watching the World Cup from a video replay booth?
The flow of play might not be too severely affected? There could be
less of those little fouls etc. which actually bring better football.
I can't really picture that, but it would be nice if something could stop all the shirt pulling and cheap fouls.
Surely, players will react differently when they know what they did are being digitally
recorded and taken into account in the game. I suppose what I am trying to say is that
we should also take into account the psychological effect of introducing video.
At first glance you might think that. But do you think that in other sports players are less dirty or try to get away with less because others are watching? I don't think that just an additional referee watching will significantly alter player behavior. They'll still stretch the rules and push the limits of what's allowed. They'll still pull on shirts. They'll still mix it up. IMO.
I'm not saying that replay wouldn't help. It would correct calls where there is a blatant dive with no contact for instance. I just don't think that it would fundamentally change how players play. For every blatant dive there are 50 embellished fouls where there was some contact. And that's enough incentive for a player to keep playing and falling when there's an advantage.
But regardless, the prospect of eliminating erroneous calls where there was NO contact is a point for video review. And if it stops even a handful of blatant dives, I'd take that.
It is easy to stop play, although I would hate for that to happen. There are too many controversial calls throughout a game. I don't see how "the video official would be able to use his discretion and confer with the ref whether an incident is serious enough to interrupt play." It would seem to me that the play would have to be stopped before the video official could review it to see whether the call or no-call was correct. What happens if a no-call was correct after review? Do we have a drop ball? Unless the ball goes straight out of bounds, I don't see how video replay would work logistically. What incentive does the ref have not to review every contentious call? The main ref is under enough pressure as it is from the crowd and players to make the right call, and one team will always complain about any call (1 team says foul, the other says dive, etc). The ref would be stupid not to review everything. There is no discretion anymore.
Also, it would take more than a few seconds to see whether the call was correct. Even when watching on TV, it takes the camera crew at least a minute before they usually can show the replay, and sometimes it still is unclear. Do we expect the league to provide camera crews and equipment for all of the games so that they could get good angles for any potential controversial play, or would they rely on the private TV broadcasters? The former would be really expensive, and I am sure that you can see the potential problems with the latter.
You can do the same thing by simply changing the rule to allow the league to restroactively card and fine players for things that weren't seen by the ref during the game. I don't see why you would need to introduce video replay to do that.
Video replay isn't meant to be the solution to change faulty player behavior. The appeal of the video replay is temporal in that it would correct incorrect decisions/results that arise as a result of player behavior. This would serve to minimize the impact of the behavior/incident on the very same game during which it happened. Retroactive punishment of players doesn't have that reach.