Page 2 of 3
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:36 pmby J*o*n*D*o*e
For goal line decisions we deffo need it, as for anything else leave it to the ref and his assistants or you`ll just end up with referees passing the buck on big decisions and before long for any decision.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:48 pmby Bad Bob
Not a fan of the idea, TBH. First off, there aren't really that many goal-line controversies to justify a new approach...we just remember them more because they are so celebrated when they do happen.
Nope, the real area of controversy would be offsides. Now, given the murkiness of the active/passive rule and given that, sometimes, it's still hard to decide on borderline decisions even after seeing them replayed a few times on telly, I think throwing video technology into the mix would be a time-wasting nightmare.
I prefer to let the lads who run the lines make the calls. Sure, they feck it up frequently but it generally evens itself out over time.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:59 pmby bigmick
It's an interesting one and while I'm slightly "pro" on this issue (well I'm anti everything else so why not 
) I can understand peoples reservations. I do like and have long advocated the "divers" panel which should sit every Tuesday in the Premier League. Every game should be reviewed, all questionable incidents looked at and any diving, stimulating injury or off the ball incidents should be looked at and dealt with accordingly (about a three match ban would be right).
The goal line cameras are a given, but I still think there is room for even maybe one challenge per half to question an offside or a penalty. A panel of three blokes in a booth ought to be able to decifde within thirty seconds or so that Finnan didn't foul Malouda, or that Lescott had a claim. It's worth a shot I think.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:04 pmby Leonmc0708
bigmick wrote:It's an interesting one and while I'm slightly "pro" on this issue (well I'm anti everything else so why not ) I can understand peoples reservations. I do like and have long advocated the "divers" panel which should sit every Tuesday in the Premier League. Every game should be reviewed, all questionable incidents looked at and any diving, stimulating injury or off the ball incidents should be looked at and dealt with accordingly (about a three match ban would be right).
The goal line cameras are a given, but I still think there is room for even maybe one challenge per half to question an offside or a penalty. A panel of three blokes in a booth ought to be able to decifde within thirty seconds or so that Finnan didn't foul Malouda, or that Lescott had a claim. It's worth a shot I think.
what happens when the team uses their one claim and theres a blatant one not given ? Back to square one, so its been introduced for no reason then surely ?
Also, it cant be used to over rule decisions by referees or linesmen, otherwise they will all pack in before long.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:04 pmby The Manhattan Project
Should really only be used for goal-line decisions, and perhaps penalties.
The match would be watched by a video ref. If the pitch ref was in doubt, he would pull out a green card and the video ref would look at the decision, then radio it back to the pitch ref.
Manhattan would also limit games to sixty minutes and stop the match clock whenever the ball went out of play, when an injury occurs, when a sub is made, or when players are preparing for a set piece. The ref would have the final say on when the match ends.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:12 pmby LFC2007
bigmick wrote:The goal line cameras are a given, but I still think there is room for even maybe one challenge per half to question an offside or a penalty. A panel of three blokes in a booth ought to be able to decifde within thirty seconds or so that Finnan didn't foul Malouda, or that Lescott had a claim. It's worth a shot I think.
I don't think this would have a cat in hell's chance of succeeding, it would stoke up even more controversy IMO.
In games where there are numerous decisions to make, one challenge may not be enough, teams may expend their challenge in one half, up pops another crucial and ambiguous decision and they'd be raving. Who lodges the challenge? How long would it take overall? How long do managers have to consider challenging the decision? Then they'd have to signal the challenge, the footage be analysed, then a decision taken and a decision signalled. I don't like the idea at all, it's not in the spirit of the game.
I don't think goal line cameras are a given either. Managers would complain that crucial offside decisions should merit the same standard of inportance as goal line cameras, particularly when it's an offside concerning a disallowed goal.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:21 pmby bigmick
LFC2007 wrote:In games where there are numerous decisions to make, one challenge may not be enough, teams may expend their challenge in one half, up pops another crucial and ambiguous decision and they'd be raving. Who lodges the challenge? How long would it take overall? How long do managers have to consider challenging the decision? Then they'd have to signal the challenge, the footage be analysed, then a decision taken and a decision signalled.
Yeah but apart from all that it'd be straight forward enough
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:51 pmby Bad Bob
I do like the diver's panel idea. I think reviewing every minute of every game after the fact and taking swift action if a blatant infraction was missed by the match ref would put a stop to an awful lot of nonsense that goes on during a match. If players had sense that Big Brother would be reviewing the match, I think we'd see a cleaner game.
But, on the matter of stopping a match to send it up to the guys in the booth, I'm just not a fan. Coming from the frustratingly stop-start world of N. American sports I'm against anything that breaks up the natural ebb and flow of a football match.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:02 pmby LFC2007
Bad Bob wrote:Coming from the frustratingly stop-start world of N. American sports I'm against anything that breaks up the natural ebb and flow of a football match.
I have images of the FA cup final turning into a spectacle that resembles the superbowl, not pretty.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:07 pmby Bad Bob
LFC2007 wrote:Bad Bob wrote:Coming from the frustratingly stop-start world of N. American sports I'm against anything that breaks up the natural ebb and flow of a football match.
I have images of the FA cup final turning into a spectacle that resembles superbowl, not pretty.
Can you picture footy refs micced up and expected to announce to the crowd what the decision was, a la American football?: "Upon further review, Gary Neville has been red carded for being a t.wat. Liverpool free kick." 
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:09 pmby LFC2007
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:17 pmby Kharhaz
Maybe more strict regulations as to becoming a referee could help. This debate is arising a lot simply because referees are making simple basic mistakes. The goal at old trafford was shocking and the linesman at least should have seen it. More regulations for becoming a referee would, at least id like to think so, create more consistent referees.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:26 pmby europian-kings
i am for it totaly. In rugby when they have it the players dont argue because they know that it is the correct dicision. i also think the time should stop when doing this similar to rugby again. This way there will be no arguing on the stopage time (like so many players and managers do when they have lost), no arguing on the dicisions. think back to the united v spurs game when mendez hat that shot which was about 2 feet over the line but it wasnt given. if the play was in then it would have been given, united couldn't do anything about it as they would see it for themselves. instead the talk about this incident was on going for months on end.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:58 pmby tubby
Leonmc0708 wrote:bigmick wrote:It's an interesting one and while I'm slightly "pro" on this issue (well I'm anti everything else so why not
) I can understand peoples reservations. I do like and have long advocated the "divers" panel which should sit every Tuesday in the Premier League. Every game should be reviewed, all questionable incidents looked at and any diving, stimulating injury or off the ball incidents should be looked at and dealt with accordingly (about a three match ban would be right).
The goal line cameras are a given, but I still think there is room for even maybe one challenge per half to question an offside or a penalty. A panel of three blokes in a booth ought to be able to decifde within thirty seconds or so that Finnan didn't foul Malouda, or that Lescott had a claim. It's worth a shot I think.
what happens when the team uses their one claim and theres a blatant one not given ? Back to square one, so its been introduced for no reason then surely ?
Also, it cant be used to over rule decisions by referees or linesmen, otherwise they will all pack in before long.
Team makes a claim? Give me an example? I would have thought that with use of such technology in use there would be no need for either team to make any claim. Infact I hope they employ the same tactic they do for Rugby where by no players hassle the ref ever!!!!
As for pros and cons as far as im concenred there are no cons. Tennis and rugby have benefitted from added use of technology as why not football. As its the biggest generator of revenue in the country I would have thought this would be the first sport in which they employ such technology.
Posted:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:01 pmby LFC2007
bavlondon wrote:Leonmc0708 wrote:bigmick wrote:It's an interesting one and while I'm slightly "pro" on this issue (well I'm anti everything else so why not
) I can understand peoples reservations. I do like and have long advocated the "divers" panel which should sit every Tuesday in the Premier League. Every game should be reviewed, all questionable incidents looked at and any diving, stimulating injury or off the ball incidents should be looked at and dealt with accordingly (about a three match ban would be right).
The goal line cameras are a given, but I still think there is room for even maybe one challenge per half to question an offside or a penalty. A panel of three blokes in a booth ought to be able to decifde within thirty seconds or so that Finnan didn't foul Malouda, or that Lescott had a claim. It's worth a shot I think.
what happens when the team uses their one claim and theres a blatant one not given ? Back to square one, so its been introduced for no reason then surely ?
Also, it cant be used to over rule decisions by referees or linesmen, otherwise they will all pack in before long.
Team makes a claim? Give me an example? I would have thought that with use of such technology in use there would be no need for either team to make any claim.
I think you have either misread the post, or not read the post quoted by Leon.