Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Arsenal' started by NorthBank, Apr 18, 2008.
I agree. Using video replay as big brother doesn't sound like a good idea.
video replay is not gonna happen, the byline refs should make the difference
Why? Is it a huge problem when a ref pays advantage? Why couldn't play run for 15 seconds while they play is reviewed. I also think your exaggerating the number of "controversial calls" in a game. I'd say there might be 3 or 4 incidents a game that deserve a second look, mostly goals and penalty appeals. Why do you think a ref would want to stop the game constantly to review questionable fouls?
The second part seems pretty easy, put the ref in the room with the broadcast crew. My on my TV i can hit a button and rewind a play instantly, for other angles it would take only few more seconds.
Well we definitely disagree about the number. There may be three or four calls that could change the outcome of the game (offisde or penalty kick calls), but there are many controversial calls (free kicks, fouls that should be free kicks, etc) throughout the game. When using replay, I don't see how you avoid looking at those calls as well unless you have a limit like Slo-Gunner has suggested. We can use this game coming up against Standard as an example. No one knows what will happen, but I will count them.
Regarding the second part, speak to people like Jittty about those problems. Many people already think Sky and co. have alternative agendas. You basically are giving them more influence. Plus just because you can rewind at home while the rest of the game continues doesn't mean it is practcial in real time on the field. How many time has Wenger complained about how regular fouls break up the flow of the game to our team's detriment. At the end of the day, you'll always have someone complaining. I am beginning to think that it is human nature.
I had a bad stream for the game that went in and out, so I really couldn't keep count. Maybe I'll try to look at the Chelsea game assuming that it's on TV.
If those calls don't affect the outcome of the game, are they really controversial? I can't see that they are. To me they're discretionary, and watching a replay wouldn't affect it.
I guess i wouldn't be shocked if the FA couldn't figure out how to hook up a DVR, but to me it seems pretty simple. As simple as getting a feed from the cameras filming the playing field, plugging them into one large screen with 4/6/8 views, and having a single button that rewinds the action for 5 seconds then plays it in slow motion. I don't see why the broadcasters would have any influence at all, unless their cameramen have some kind of nefarious agenda.
Some are controversial. Some aren't. It's hard to tell in real time. For example, the free kick that led to Chelsea's goal against Manchester United was very controversial. Fergie and a few Manu players complained about it after the game. At the time, it didn't seem to be a big deal, but Terry ended up scoring off the set piece. How may times have we seen a coach complain about a "no-call" on a foul that has led to a goal? It happens.
Also, there is nothing descretionary about a foul. The player either was kicked or wasn't. Possibly, you are simply willing to allow the refs to use his judgment in this case but not in others?
I see your point. Maybe it could be viewed easily upstairs.
Let me ask you: Gallas fouled a Standard Liege player in the box today when the score was 1-0 (should have been a PK) but the ref decided not to call it. The replay showed it was a clear penalty. The play continued, and by the time we saw the replay, the ball was on the other end. Do you really expect the video official to inform the ref and for the ref to say to the players, "Sorry guys. About fifteen seconds ago there was a foul in the box by Gallas that I missed, so I'm going to stop play now and give them a PK. Let's all reconvene down at the other end."
I don't recall that incident. Did the replay show conclusive evidence that there wasn't a foul?
I want the ref to be able to use his judgement in every case, but with more information. Do you think that every time two players make contact it should be called a foul? It's not like that now, i don't see why that would change.
It seemed to me that the ref had a good view of the incident, and the video replay wasn't conclusive, as it appeared that although there was contact, the Liege player dove. In that case the video official could give his opinion of the play to the ref, who could use his judgement to stick with his initial call or change it. If he did decide to award the penalty and call the players back, would you have felt that to be unfair?
And ask yourself, was the ball on the other end before they could show a replay, or did they delay the replay because play continued?
There was no contact.
All judgment will go out of the window. If there is contact in the box, and there is a dispute, it will show in the replay, and it will be called a PK (the same for any other foul that is disputed). There is no choice unless you honestly think that a field ref would have the audacity to tell the video ref who has the benefit of replays, slow motion and multiple views that what the video ref saw was wrong. I guarantee that video will trump judgment, and with the players and media scritinizing every call, it'll always be that way imo.
the video was conclusive to me. Unfair? No. Disruptive and annoying? Yes. Cesc and Eboue had similar cases on the other side. If it were a bigger game, I'm sure the video ref woulfd have had to look into those incidents (and possibly break up play again) as well.
No idea. I'm not sure it matters. It still would take time for the video ref to rewind the tapes, review the incidents from the various angles and to inform the field ref as to what he/she has seen, so at that point in time, the ball could be anywhere given that the play continued. It doesn't take that long for another play to develop and for everyone to move on with the game.
Anyway, gotta catch a flight. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
My basic assumption is that, given access to video technology, the officials would use it reasonably. You seem to assume the opposite.
I think pressure from the players, the coaches and the media eventually will erode what was initially considered reasonable. I don't see how you could use it for some plays and not for others without someone eventually complaining about it.
People will always complain, it's human nature. But i don't think that video would change the game. I suspect you see the way it's used in the NFL and College Football, with too many, overly long reviews and worry it would be the same in soccer. But think of the way it's used in the NBA and MLB. It's hardly used at all, but it helps the refs get it right on important calls like game winning shots and home runs.
I certainly agree with anti, and I even like the way vid replay works in the NFL. It took them a while, but you know, we get the right call 80-90%od the time. It will take some growing pains, sure, but do we think the current system is working so well? I don't. Of course, rules for systematic review of things like dives would be a good first step.
It looks like Blatter may be changing his tune on video assistance.
“When it is accurate, we will accept it,”
Ahhhhh.... this is a welcome trend.
Don't get too excited though.... this guy moves glacially! And he seems to see the use of video review very myopically, e.g. for goal line issues.
But the advantage of video replay encompasses every single aspect of a match, wherever on the pitch it happens, and most importantly whenever the officials didn't get a clear vision of a particular incident.
I have little doubt that someday, hopefully soon, official video review will be a done deal. And everyone, including Blatter, will scratch heads wondering why the long wait.
See Anti, it's this sort of thinking that makes me think that VR eventually will become trouble.
Now that Blatter is out and Infantino is in, FIFA just approved video review trials, which apparently are to be deployed next season in a "non-live" fashion, perhaps in the FA Cup. Music to my ears... thank you Gianni!
And it sounds like it's one step towards kind of broad and quick video review that I've been dreaming of. For the trials they will limit its use to a few "game changing" scenarios: goals, penalties, red cards & mistaken identity.
But when Wenger was asked about it today in his presser, his answer was a little odd I thought...
He said that video should only be used at first only for offside calls.
To me it seems like offside is one of the more challenging calls to get right w/ video because the camera is not always going to be in the ideal position. Unless they can use those imaginary overlaid lines and they are truly accurate and reliable. And if they are, fine, I'm all for video for offside rulings.
But why would he not want video to help with those other key "game changers"? Think of all the times he's been on the short end of the stick in these calls, and complained vehemently, which of course is useless after the referee has made his decision. In-game video review could get the call right in the first place, mitigating erroneous red cards, PK's, etc.
Anyway, IMHO this is great news that after all these years of discussing it, they are finally piloting it.
Because offside calls are less judgment-based than something like a red card or a penalty. They are much more black and white. The issues are technological.
Yeah. He basically said that in his presser. BUT there's judgment in virtually all calls, including offside... what part of the body is offside and does that count, etc.
How I look at things is that any (quick) use of video which helps the ref with that judgment is a good thing. Whether that's a precision thing like offside or a mushier thing like a dive. Obviously Wenger and others may not agree with me. That's OK. I'll be happy to see any experimentation they want to try.
Here's an update, from an article I just noticed in NYTimes:
It seems like it's really starting to happen!
FIFA's term "video assistant referee" is right in line with what I've been imagining.
MLS is going to be one of the trial tournaments using it. And credit is due to MLS & Garber for being very progressive in adopting helpful technology... from the very low-tech but super-impactful magic spray, to state-of-the-art video review.
Here's another article about the test that happened at Red Bull Arena earlier this week.
This describes almost exactly what I've been envisioning and dreaming of:
A Video Ref off-field who's in constant radio contact with the Head Ref. Who, in turn, generally never has to leave the field. And decisions can be made quickly so as to not adversely affect the flow of the game.
At the end it talks about how every fan has the benefit of this technology for every match they watch on TV. And it closes with David Elleray saying "The one man who needs it is the one man who doesn't have it."
Edit: I just checked that this thread is now 8yrs old! And the longing for video help is quite a few years before that. Good things come to those who wait?
IMO, it doesn't have to affect the flow of the game—we just need to follow "advice to referees" that have been around for decades. Specifically, give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Allow, offside call plays to continue (giving attacker benefit of the doubt). If the attacking team scores, there is usually time during celebration to review video. It doesn't take that long anymore to rewind and watch it 2 or 3 times.
It's also a multi-step process, we need to eradicate diving, and I think you can stamp that out with hefty retroactive bans. 1 match ban for diving.
Goal line tech has eliminated the need to review close goals. So really, for me, it's mostly about getting the offside calls correct and diving (which while not instant will also be taken care of by video review).
Here's another article about the test matches (no not cricket!) going on at RBA in the USL, and it clarifies the ultimate timing of a 2018 or 2019 decision on using it in a widespread manner. As long as they work the kinks out sufficiently... it. cannot. come. too. soon.
Things are moving! Latest test was 2 days ago with ITA-FRA friendly.
Cool thing is that the ref actually used it to decide a PK shout. Perfect.
Just heard Howard Webb on BBC 5Live talk about the moment he became a proponent of video help: Henry's handball against Ireland.
Webb was watching it with his 8YO son at home, and within 6 seconds the both of them new it was handball. He had the great urge, right there and then, to ring his mate who was reffing that match and tell him what the video was showing.
For me there's no single moment when I became sold on the idea, but it's been similarly crystal clear for many years now.