[moondog]

We've seen two ridiculous decisions in one game, one that could have a direct impact on the title. It's time now to move into the 21st century and allow for
video review of specific incidents.

- the NHL has a central office panel of officials that reviews every game to ensure that goals/non goals are judged correctly.

- the NFL allows coaches a fixed number of challenges (one per half) on most refereeing decisions made.

IMO, football (at least at the highest levels - EPL etc.) must adopt both of these initiatives to rid the game of such ridiculous moments. While it might impact the flow of the game on occasion, the technology available is becoming much easier to manage.

There is no excuse for not getting these key decisions right.

 

[Sownak27]

I agree but the problem, to which I agree to some extent, is that it hinders a bit of the fluidity of the game.

Football is known as the beautiful game also because of how simple and elegant it is , but most officials feel that introducing video reviewing affects the beauty.

Continuously stopping to check every decision breaks down the game, something I am sure the fans don't want to see. Though I am sure, fans also want to see correct refereeing decisions being made.

Its a tough decision but for the moment it doesn't look as though video reference will come into the picture any time soon, as this issue has been put forth a number of times. Maybe sometime in the future, FIFA and the FA and what not will be unable to deny that some decisions cannot be made without technology.

Perhaps wrong and controversial decisions also make the game more interesting.. Except when they go against your team

 

[moondog]

...Continuously stopping to check every decision breaks down the game, something I am sure the fans don't want to see. Though I am sure, fans also want to see correct refereeing decisions being made....

I'm not suggesting that, no sport wants that.

If they adopted the NFL model, the maximum number of times the game would be disrupted is twice a half (one challenge per team). And you wouldn't allow everything to be challenge-able. But decisions like penalties, red cards, and disputed goals should be reviewed.

 

[Fiat Cunto]

i watches the Superbowl on Sunday(not that i had a scoby doo what was goin on though )but anyway the way they have it is the right way and i don't think it would effect the game at all i think you only get to use it twice per game(could be wrong) and after that your not aloud use it again so you choose your decisions wisely and it keeps the tempo of the game up

 

[Cappy]

It absolutely would disrupt the flow of the game, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. American football has natural stoppages, after every play so it can work well.

First off, the NFL and college football review procedures aren't as greand as people make it out to be. They can still get it wrong on the review. Plus it slows play down with nothing going on on the pitch.

Let's look at the review from the Chelsea Liverpool game. They still did not punish Boswinga for his actions in the corner, but they did clear Lampard's red.

So is it really worth to slow down the game for 50/50 accuracy?

 

[piazza]

To be honest, if one was implemented, it had best not be the one they use in the NHL. Its agonizingly slow, and usually the first replay they look at proves its a goal or not, yet it still takes 10 minutes to review, due to the fact that everything is run out of that hub in Toronto.

 

[hdcantona]

Well i've always said that video tech should come in, i know ref's don't want it but that Lampard Sending off could have cost Chelski the title (if somehow we didn't manage to win it) so it's all very well and good rescinding it and saying oops but that could seriously damage their title aspirations, people say that's football but it doesn't have to be, although i don't want to get to the point where every time theres a pen the gaffa challenges or if the player dives it will go to the booth blah blah and end up with 10 mins added time - so although i can see why ref's and officials dont want it, it would benefit everybody if it was done properley

 

[Jay007]

I'm a bit undecided on this.

It does sound good, and getting to the right decisions sounds good. But the thing is, football is a game played by humans and human error is part of the game. Also, bringing in technology will result in managers/players/supporters wanting a snowball effect. When they bring it in for one thing, people will start asking "Why can it be used for that and not this?"

However, it would be good if something was looked into to see how it works out.

 

[moondog]

It absolutely would disrupt the flow of the game, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. American football has natural stoppages, after every play so it can work well.

You're right - but how much disruption are we really talking about? Twice a half - max. And there are natural times in football where this could be accomodated - anytime the ball goes into touch, for example.

First off, the NFL and college football review procedures aren't as greand as people make it out to be. They can still get it wrong on the review. Plus it slows play down with nothing going on on the pitch.

You're right again, but nothings absolutely perfect or foolproof.

Let's look at the review from the Chelsea Liverpool game. They still did not punish Boswinga for his actions in the corner, but they did clear Lampard's red.

The lack of action in the Bosingwa incident is because of a ridiculous FA rule that says: if the ref sees it, and does nothing, the FA can take no further action. That is one of the situations that could easily be rectified with replay.

So is it really worth to slow down the game for 50/50 accuracy?

You'd have to look at the amount of challenges permitted, and what can be challenged - but I hope it will come, eventually.

 

[Jay007]

The lack of action in the Bosingwa incident is because of a ridiculous FA rule that says: if the ref sees it, and does nothing, the FA can take no further action. That is one of the situations that could easily be rectified with replay.

I'm not sure about that.

The FA can't do anything about it if the ref has dealt with it, and it's in his report. But if the ref doesn't do anything then I'm pretty sure the FA is allowed to do something about it.

 

[moondog]

I'm not sure about that.

The FA can't do anything about it if the ref has dealt with it, and it's in his report. But if the ref doesn't do anything then I'm pretty sure the FA is allowed to do something about it.

Just saw 'football matters' on Setanta - they have a retired ref (Graham Poll?) on regularly. He said that if the ref sees it, put's it in the report and does nothing, the FA's hand are tied.

 

[Jay007]

Just saw 'football matters' on Setanta - they have a retired ref (Graham Poll?) on regularly. He said that if the ref sees it, put's it in the report and does nothing, the FA's hand are tied.

Yeah, I thought that if it was in the report they couldn't do anything.

But, if the FA felt the need to come out and say that no disciplinary action is being taken, surely that means Mike Riley must NOT have put it in his report?

If he did, then they wouldn't have needed to come out and say it I presume.