Video technology in football- a good thing or not?

grey_til_I_dye

FIFA have confirmed that trial of video technology will begin no later than the 2017/18 season.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/05/football-live-trials-video-technology-referees-gianni-infantino

Just what we needed or too Big Brother?

(Started this thread to house the comments re video reffing from the Palace thread.)

NEoldiron

This is a reader's comment on the Mail's article that claims that SB won't appeal the red card:

"Rugby league has had video referees for years, and stoppjng the game for 60 seconds to get the correct decision does not ruin the game and keeps everybody happy. Why is football so far behind?"

Video referees would make the game must less confrontational between players and referees. If both teams know that the decision is being reviewed then there would be no point in surrounding/jostling the referee. If this was also extended to all contentious issues, e.g. diving, sneaky fouls, the standard of behaviour of players would I believe improve over time.
Just my opinion mind.

;wink

OldCastleSwift

NE ;ok I was watching the opening games of MLB last night and they've introduced video umpires this season for the close calls. A player is called in/out, his team appeals, it's reviewed and the decision upheld/overturned.

It took a few moments, no longer than a minute I'd say, and the correct decision was made each time. If we had a similar system, not based on challenges mind, but an opportunity for a referee to review a decision he's not 100% sure on - or even the 4th official viewing it immediately after and advising the ref - then I think the impact would be significant.

The Everton and Chelsea penalties are the obvious examples; for the sake of a 60 second review the correct decision, i.e. initial contact was outside the box and therefore no penalty, can be made with minimal impact on the game.

Dodger58

NEold, I agree with you about the potential to improve behaviour. The only issue will be whether they have the nerve to keep the 'experiment' going long enough to have the desired effect. The first month many games would probably last an extra 30-60 mins, this would reduce over time (sic) as players and officials got used to the change.

An example from Cricket: when the County League I umpire in first made leg side deliveries automatic wides we regularly had 10 ball overs in the first month, this very quickly reduced to the odd 7 ball over, two years later there are very few. It takes a while for players to get used to changes in regulations - but they can.

Same argument for me on holding/wrestling that is so prevalent today. Start awarding penalties and it will soon stop - may take a month, but it will work.

NEoldiron

OCS
;ok

IronHerb

Thing is I think this would need to be ratified by FIFA and EUFA before we could even trial it. Good Luck!

NEoldiron

Dodger, I disagree about games lasting an extra 30-60mins.
How many incidents are there in a typical game now where the ref is surrounded - definitely less than 10, so allowing 1 minute for a review would add not more than 10 minutes.
;ok

Moojor

OCS ;ok

I don't want the good and bad decisions to be levelled out over a season, I want well informed decisions to be made at the time they happen.

Yeoldhammer

Problem with video refs is it will come down to an interpretation of the rules. For example schweinsteiger taking out Randolph. I have heard people say its not a foul he didnt intentionally block Randolph and momentum caused him to hit Randolph have also heard the opposite that it blocked the keeper attempting to make a save similar to Kevin Nolan impeding a keepers right to challenge at corners.
Some of the rules can come down to interpretation. It could end up having an opposite effect.

MrsGrey

I wouldn't want a sort of 'continuous review' system with someone off the field monitoring everything.

I am in favour of there being the option to the ref to ask for specific calls to be advised on by someone with access to the video, though.

I do think it is important that whatever system is implemented, we don't have one in which players surround the ref pressuring him to go to the video review, though. That's why I favour a limited number of 'challenges' for each team, like they have in tennis. I think that system has the advantage of reducing the constant reviewing/delays which the alternative system would lead to, makes sure the ref doesn't have an incentive to bottle it, and stops players having an incentive to confront the ref urging a review of every little thing (and more delays).

If (say) the captains could challenge 2 calls, they would not sweat the small stuff, but there would be an opportunity to make sure the genuinely game-changing decisions could be got right.

My opinion.

epsom_bubbles

Thinking about time wasted waiting for TV review, how much time wasting is ignored when a team surrounds the ref appealing for him to changes his mind. I think it should be restricted to penalty decisions, and red cards (if it looks contentious). I can't see this prolonging the average game by 5 minutes. ;hmm

NEoldiron

Yeold, the example of Schweinsteiger taking out Adrian has only one interpretation. Intentional or not, the result was the same and the FACT is that Randolph WAS impeded, therefore a foul. (Capitals only used for emphasis ;wink) ;ok

MJ_IRONS

Implementation of video refereeing isn't really that hard. .the 4th official is armed with a tablet which is linked to every camera location, essentialy the data points.

Via headsets information is relayed to Linesman / Referee and outcome delivered to players.
Simple

OldCastleSwift

Mooj ;ok

Yeold. I agree that not every decision can be reviewed, particularly where intent is involved, but where it is something black and white - like whether a foul was inside or outside the box - I can't see what harm it can do.

If we had that in place, we'd have probably beaten Chelsea and there would have been no complaints or ill-feeling.

SuzanneClaret

Like the rugby line judge ;ok

Yeoldhammer

NEoldiron said:

Yeold, the example of Schweinsteiger taking out Adrian has only one interpretation. Intentional or not, the result was the same and the FACT is that Randolph WAS impeded, therefore a foul. (Capitals only used for emphasis ;wink) ;ok

But when a player blasts a ball at someone in the box and they handball it unintentionally its still handball but not given as a pen because its deemed they were doing everything in their power to not move their hand in the way to block the ball. Again its interpretation of whether they intentionally did or didn't.

NEoldiron

Yeold, apples and oranges.

Two things have to be considered re. handball,
1.did the ball strike the hand/arm,
2.was the arm in a unnatural position

In the first case, did the ball strike the hand/arm or not, is a matter of fact not interpretation.
The interpretation (or more accurately the judgement) only applies to whether the position of the arm was natural or not.

Swissiron

I've not seen recently any clear examples in the EPL of refs exerciseing their current prerogative which is to stop play before making a decision and walking over to the linesman to talk with him before making the decision. I think it may be a macho thing. Some of our older readers may recall a famous incident fifty years ago that took over a minute while everybody waited to hear (no dissimilr to curent Rugby waiting time): England's third and Hurst's second goal in extra time of the World Cup Final 1966. I will always remember watching Geoff with his hands on his hips waiting for the Russian officials to agree what had happened.

SuzanneClaret

I'm quite happy to man woman the monitor during our home games and let the ref know were he has gone wrong.

IronHerb

2nd half will be interesting after a couple of ;redwine ;biggrin

eskimoking

Yeoldhammer said:

NEoldiron said:

Yeold, the example of Schweinsteiger taking out Adrian has only one interpretation. Intentional or not, the result was the same and the FACT is that Randolph WAS impeded, therefore a foul. (Capitals only used for emphasis ;wink) ;ok

But when a player blasts a ball at someone in the box and they handball it unintentionally its still handball but not given as a pen because its deemed they were doing everything in their power to not move their hand in the way to block the ball. Again its interpretation of whether they intentionally did or didn't.

Intentional or not can also be deemed irrelevant if a player has gained a clear advantage.

I.e. those times when a player is hit by a ball (say the knee) bounces onto their arm then lands perfectly in front of them. Can't be intentional due to lack of reaction time, but will always be given as a free kick.

grey_til_I_dye

eski

But that is an inconsistency (which irritates me, tbh) that refs give those kind of things as handball outside the area, but not in.

The position of the arm/hand is secondary; the criteria is whether, in the opinion of the officials, the handball was intentional.

They can take into account the position of the arm to try to help them to gauge intention.

I don't think you could use video evidence for handball (apart from 'no, it didn't touch his arm/hand') as there is necessarily an element of interpretation.

Take yesterday's Leicester game - a number of people thought there should have been a pen, whilst others were equally clear it never was one.

If I was reffing I'd have given it, as I thought it was intentional, whereas Luke wouldn't, as he didn't.

MrsGrey

NE - you've misinterpreted the handball rule.

The judgement was if it was intentional.

The position of the arm is only one of the factors a ref can use to reach the judgement but it is not the only one. The arm might be in an unnatural position but it could still be adjudged not intentional handball.

MrsGrey

re that Leicester example from yesterday (Simpson) for me it looked like he moved his arm towards the ball.

Then the ball and arm met.

For me, I'd always give 'intentional handball' if the hand/arm moved towards the ball.

There are also cases where I would judge it (and the rules provide for it to be judged) intentional EVEN IF the arm didn't move towards the ball.

whupathman

You forget the main issue Mrs G are Leicester going to stop Manure getting in to Europe, nope then no pen ;whistle

MrsGrey

;doh What was I thinking.

SuzanneClaret

IronHerb said:

2nd half will be interesting after a couple of ;redwine ;biggrin

interesting is one word for it ;lol

NEoldiron

Mrs.G
I haven't misinterpreted the rule but I admit I didn't state it clearly.
I agree that there must be an element of intent and as your other half said, that the position of the arm is one of the factors taken into consideration, possibly the most convincing factor.
What other things are taken into account - moving the hand/arm towards the ball. This would result in the hand/arm being in an unnatural position.

Having said that, in every case that I've seen where the hand/arm is in an unnatural position and the ball has struck it then it has been adjudged intentional handball with the obvious exception of it being Manure. ;biggrin

MrsGrey

NE ;ok

MrsGrey

Article here.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/05/football-live-trials-video-technology-referees-gianni-infantino

The trials will involve pictures from a set number of multiple cameras being analysed by video referees. The match official will then be free either to take the advice of the video technician or analyse the incident himself via an iPad-type device on the halfway line.

Also, in the trials, the video stuff will relate only to four defined “game-changing” scenarios: when a goal has been scored, penalty decisions, sendings off and possible cases of mistaken identity

They've ruled out the 'manager challenge' type scenario.

MrsGrey

Oops, didn't see that you'd added in a link to the OP, grey.

Ignore my above post ;doh