PDA

View Full Version : Video technology to help referees



Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 07:59 PM
One of the principle arguments against using video evidence is that the game would be too "start/stop".

If each team were allowed a couple of challenges per game, I think it would work. Teams would only challenge crucial, borderline decisions, imo.

How many controversial incidents are there in a game on average anyway?

I'm off to watch the huns game to see if there are any tonight.

It would be interesting if someone would do this for the next couple of our home games too.

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 08:06 PM
Possibly a challenge by Stuttgart after they had a goal from a freekick ruled offside.

Ref's decision would have been upheld though, imo.

H18sry
24-11-2009, 08:19 PM
One of the principle arguments against using video evidence is that the game would be too "start/stop".

If each team were allowed a couple of challenges per game, I think it would work. Teams would only challenge crucial, borderline decisions, imo.

How many controversial incidents are there in a game on average anyway?

I'm off to watch the huns game to see if there are any tonight.

It would be interesting if someone would do this for the next couple of our home games too.


Possibly a challenge by Stuttgart after they had a goal from a freekick ruled offside.

Ref's decision would have been upheld though, imo.

:hmmm::hmmm: .Netter in talking to himself shocker :devil:

hibsboy90
24-11-2009, 08:21 PM
Would also mean that if a player had dived, then the captain would ask them before using a 'challenge' and they may admit to have simulated.

Or maybe that's wishful thinking?

Scooter
24-11-2009, 08:28 PM
I think something like they do in American football. Where you get one challenge per half. If you win your challenge you keep your challenge ( to challenge again) and your time out. Lose your challenge and you lose a time out and the ability to challenge again in that half.

Football could do the same but instead of time out you lose subs. So you can challenge but if you lose your going to lose a sub?


Good idea,no?

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 08:45 PM
Wouldn't work that way. a couple of challenges early on disputed, then a couple later on would bring calls to extend the insanity to 4 challenges, then 6, then 8 then......

Crucial, borderline? the ref is in no doubt but others think it's a borderline decision?

The game isn't that bad that we should try to ruin it.

Opinions eh?

Teams would only challenge crucial decisions. Not fouls or offsides if there wasn't a goal.

They wouldn't be so stupid to challenge a throw in or a corner or else they might use them up before something, like Henry's handball, happened.

I doubt there would have been any challenges in the first half of the Rangers game. so far. Possibly one, but even then Stuttgart seemed to accept the ref's decision.

Most games have no major incidents/controvesial talking points, imo.

sixtwo
24-11-2009, 09:17 PM
I'm a big fan of having an additional 'assistant referee' behind the goal area. I think this is the best solution. I seen it in action in a game on tv, it was a celtic game in the uefa cup this year. I think it worked a treat.

Most replays would be used for penalties and goal line clearances etc. A well placed assistant would be able to call it right and do it quickly.

An additional benefit of this would be cost. If we are going to introduce video technology, it should be the same for everyone. we all know that there is not tv camera at every game. Not every team will be able to afford to install the required technology.

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:21 PM
Teams would only challenge crucial decisions. Not fouls or offsides if there wasn't a goal.

They wouldn't be so stupid to challenge a throw in or a corner or else they might use them up before something, like Henry's handball, happened.

I doubt there would have been any challenges in the first half of the Rangers game. so far. Possibly one, but even then Stuttgart seemed to accept the ref's decision.

Most games have no major incidents/controvesial talking points, imo.

ergo, we don't need to use the technology

We do when there are major controversies.

e.g. Henry's handball. Goals which are disallowed cos the ref thinks it went past the post. Goals which don't cross the line etc.

Why are you opposed to that?

ancient hibee
24-11-2009, 09:27 PM
I think something like they do in American football. Where you get one challenge per half. If you win your challenge you keep your challenge ( to challenge again) and your time out. Lose your challenge and you lose a time out and the ability to challenge again in that half.

Football could do the same but instead of time out you lose subs. So you can challenge but if you lose your going to lose a sub?


Good idea,no?
I agree ,no:greengrin

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:31 PM
I'm a big fan of having an additional 'assistant referee' behind the goal area. I think this is the best solution. I seen it in action in a game on tv, it was a celtic game in the uefa cup this year. I think it worked a treat.

Most replays would be used for penalties and goal line clearances etc. A well placed assistant would be able to call it right and do it quickly.

An additional benefit of this would be cost. If we are going to introduce video technology, it should be the same for everyone. we all know that there is not tv camera at every game. Not every team will be able to afford to install the required technology.

Why does it have to be the same for everyone? Surely we should get things right where we can?

It could be a requirement for the SPL, EPL, World Cup, Euro Championships etc.

There is already different technology in use for these competitions compared to lower leagues. e.g. Injury time/substitution boards, mic'ed up referees, technical areas etc.

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:33 PM
I've watched replay after replay and still heard commentators argue about a decision.
The game is really simple with the man in the middle the one that makes the decisions, right or wrong.
Would the tv help or undermine.
It could erode the game instead of helping it.

I'm just not convinced it'll help, nor am I convinced my opinion will be taken into account.
Not even sure the majority opinion would be taken into account. whatever the tips the scale towards the best bank balance will win the day.

Again an opinion

I'm not taking it into account. :greengrin

LancashireHibby
24-11-2009, 09:35 PM
If it ends in a goal, then the game has stopped anyway. To me, that's the only situation it should be used in, or it'd take hours for a game to finish.

If anything, the only query would be how far back in the play do you go to look for an infringement. The easy enough would be a 'passage of play', but how would you define that?

ancient hibee
24-11-2009, 09:44 PM
I'm musing tonight.

Scenario--

Ball cleared off the line straight down the other end-shot for goal handled on line-penalty and red card-video ref says oops excuse me it's actually a goal from the first incident.Penalty cancelled-does ref recall player red carded as that passage of play never existed?but the player didn't know that when he handled.Meanwhile nobody in the crowd has a scooby as to what's going on.Is it true American football matches last over 3 hours despite the playing time being 1 hour?

Time for my cocoa.

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:44 PM
If it ends in a goal, then the game has stopped anyway. To me, that's the only situation it should be used in, or it'd take hours for a game to finish.

If anything, the only query would be how far back in the play do you go to look for an infringement. The easy enough would be a 'passage of play', but how would you define that?

I agree it should be when the ball goes out of play, as you say, usually when a goal is scored, or disallowed.

Controversial penalty decisions could be looked at their and then too, if challenged.

However, the challenge should be made when the incident occurs.

For example, if a shot is cleared off the line and the attacking team think it was in, they can immediately inform the ref of their intention to challenge.

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:46 PM
I'm musing tonight.

Scenario--

Ball cleared off the line straight down the other end-shot for goal handled on line-penalty and red card-video ref says oops excuse me it's actually a goal from the first incident.Penalty cancelled-does ref recall player red carded as that passage of play never existed?but the player didn't know that when he handled.Meanwhile nobody in the crowd has a scooby as to what's going on.Is it true American football matches last over 3 hours despite the playing time being 1 hour?

Time for my cocoa.

Yes. Goal awarded. No penalty, no red card.

Otherwise the decisions would all be wrong.

But seriously, how often does that happen in a season, in a whole league? Possibly once every few years.

It wouldn't slow the game down at all. In fact, given that the first team would all be chasing the referee and getting booked for their trouble, it would probably speed things up and stop the dissent.

LancashireHibby
24-11-2009, 09:48 PM
I agree it should be when the ball goes out of play, as you say, usually when a goal is scored, or disallowed.

Controversial penalty decisions could be looked at their and then too, if challenged.

However, the challenge should be made when the incident occurs.

For example, if a shot is cleared off the line and the attacking team think it was in, they can immediately inform the ref of their intention to challenge.
I think rather than having a 'challenge', such a situation would require an official to be watching the game on video, and bring the incident to the attention of the referee, who would then stop the game and consult with said official, in the same way that they can stop the game at any point and consult their linesmen when they miss an incident.

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:51 PM
I think rather than having a 'challenge', such a situation would require an official to be watching the game on video, and bring the incident to the attention of the referee, who would then stop the game and consult with said official, in the same way that they can stop the game at any point and consult their linesmen when they miss an incident.

I'm ok with that too.

LancashireHibby
24-11-2009, 09:53 PM
I'm ok with that too.

Would just need an alternative to the linesman waving his flag. How about a taser?

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:55 PM
Would just need an alternative to the linesman waving his flag. How about a taser?

Tempting, but a microphone might suffice.

LancashireHibby
24-11-2009, 09:57 PM
Tempting, but a microphone might suffice.

Would be useless then competing against the defeaning roar of the PBS :wink:

Hibbyradge
24-11-2009, 09:58 PM
Would be useless then competing against the defeaning roar of the PBS :wink:

We should all be issued with tasers for those games. :greengrin

Hibs7
25-11-2009, 11:06 AM
4 firkin linesmen with a quarter of the pitch each, simples really.:thumbsup:

Hibbyradge
25-11-2009, 11:13 AM
4 firkin linesmen with a quarter of the pitch each, simples really.:thumbsup:

Cameras are much cheaper.

And less bribeable. Romanov, V. 2004 - 2009

dangermouse
25-11-2009, 11:50 AM
IIRC goal-line technology was trialled by FIFA at a youth tournament some years ago which informed a referee if the ball had gone out of play over any touchline.

This seems the most simple and cost effective way of helping a referee with decisions as was it/wasn't it over the line are the ones that ultimately decide matches. It would also have made all the Huns sit down and shut up when Ross Chisholm cleared the ball off the line last season :devil:

Hibs7
25-11-2009, 12:07 PM
Cameras are much cheaper.

And less bribeable. Romanov, V. 2004 - 2009

Nothing wrong with creating employment in these difficult times. :greengrin

hibhib7
25-11-2009, 12:15 PM
Years ago, in the Drybrough Cup, they experimented with extending the 18-yard line to the touchline - anywhere between the lines was onside, regardless. It resulted in Arthur Duncan running back and forward along the line with Sandy Jardine chasing him. Totally farcical, and the experiment was scrapped. Before we start making changes to laws we should try a mini-tournament (doesn't have to be SPL teams) with all the video evidence, that some people are advocating, used. I'm pretty sure it would prove unworkable - refs, or fourth officials, or whoever, would still have to decide when to order replays etc and when not. It would, in my opinion, be more controversial than the present system.

LancashireHibby
25-11-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm pretty sure it would prove unworkable - refs, or fourth officials, or whoever, would still have to decide when to order replays etc and when not. It would, in my opinion, be more controversial than the present system.
It'd be no different to the linesman flagging for an offence and the referee consulting them, except they'd be watching a replay rather than discussing the incident with their assistant.

cwilliamson85
25-11-2009, 01:26 PM
I feel it should only be able to challenge if it changes the game.

A goal
A sending off

That’s.3 challenges a game.

Also who would cover the challenges? Sky TV or will each club have to get cameras on goal posts and at key points on the field?

hibhib7
25-11-2009, 02:32 PM
It'd be no different to the linesman flagging for an offence and the referee consulting them, except they'd be watching a replay rather than discussing the incident with their assistant.Who would order the replay and what happens if he doesn't and it subsequently turns out that he should have? The whole situation would get really messy. But, like I said earlier, why not set up a pre-season mini-tournament and see what it throws up?

LancashireHibby
25-11-2009, 02:57 PM
Who would order the replay and what happens if he doesn't and it subsequently turns out that he should have? The whole situation would get really messy. But, like I said earlier, why not set up a pre-season mini-tournament and see what it throws up?
Either the referee decides that he wants another look at it, or a video official signals to the referee that an offence has occured, in the same way that the linesman would.

Andy74
25-11-2009, 03:49 PM
I've no interest in any of this stuff coming in. football has survived this long with us knowing that some decisions were wrong but that's life.

I know different levels of football have different levels of equipment, sometimes only one official, no nets quite often, but really the principle of how you play and who makes the final decisions is much about the same at all levels and that should continue.

We've probably been on the end of decisions that should have gone for us but equally the knowledge that Jimmy Sandison got a penalty given against him unjustly back in the league cup semi v Dunfermline has given me years of joy.

Leave it alone.

hibhib7
25-11-2009, 04:22 PM
I've no interest in any of this stuff coming in. football has survived this long with us knowing that some decisions were wrong but that's life.

I know different levels of football have different levels of equipment, sometimes only one official, no nets quite often, but really the principle of how you play and who makes the final decisions is much about the same at all levels and that should continue.

We've probably been on the end of decisions that should have gone for us but equally the knowledge that Jimmy Sandison got a penalty given against him unjustly back in the league cup semi v Dunfermline has given me years of joy.

Leave it alone.My sentiments exactly. Trouble is; a lot of people (including so-called experts) won't be satisfied until video evidence is introduced, so let's have a trial so they can see how ludicrous it all is, and we can kick it into touch . . . . oh no, I've brought the egg-shaped ball into it.

blackpoolhibs
25-11-2009, 04:37 PM
I've no interest in any of this stuff coming in. football has survived this long with us knowing that some decisions were wrong but that's life.

I know different levels of football have different levels of equipment, sometimes only one official, no nets quite often, but really the principle of how you play and who makes the final decisions is much about the same at all levels and that should continue.

We've probably been on the end of decisions that should have gone for us but equally the knowledge that Jimmy Sandison got a penalty given against him unjustly back in the league cup semi v Dunfermline has given me years of joy.

Leave it alone.

Cup final, colin campbell fouled in the last minute, stonewall penalty. If cameras had been in then, we would not have this 107 year crap. :grr:

ancient hibee
25-11-2009, 05:37 PM
Cup final, colin campbell fouled in the last minute, stonewall penalty. If cameras had been in then, we would not have this 107 year crap. :grr:
If the ref wouldn't give a stonewaller what on earth makes you think his fellow lodge member on the video would be any different.(Colin should really have scored anyway).

HibbiesandtheBaddies
25-11-2009, 08:18 PM
I’m all for technology in the game / extra officials around the penalty area, however challenges are an absolutely ludicrous idea :bitchy:
Our game does not lend itself to this in the same way as American Football.

I reckon we should use the natural pauses in our game at goals / penalty decisions / sendings off (initially in high focus games, CL/ World Cup) to allow a panel of 3 referees to quickly review the evidence on tape while the ball is spotted/centred. IF a unanimous decision can be arrived at they advise the on-pitch referee via his earpiece that the decision is overturned, if they cant agree the decision stands. No extra pauses in the game required.

The Henry incident could easily have been cleared up before the ball was centred, Referee makes a very quick announcement over the stadium tannoy as in American Football that Henry had handled the ball, ball is kicked back to the keeper for a free kick on the goal line and no harm done.

heretoday
25-11-2009, 08:37 PM
The challenge idea is a good one. However, if Ireland had used up their challenges for that half they would still have been at the mercy of the ref's eye view for Henry's handball.

I say to hell with technology. Or dress the refs up as roborefs with the ability to see through obstacles such as Richard Dunne's bulky frame and exact harsh punishment on the spot.

hibhib7
26-11-2009, 10:09 AM
I’m all for technology in the game / extra officials around the penalty area, however challenges are an absolutely ludicrous idea :bitchy:
Our game does not lend itself to this in the same way as American Football.

I reckon we should use the natural pauses in our game at goals / penalty decisions / sendings off (initially in high focus games, CL/ World Cup) to allow a panel of 3 referees to quickly review the evidence on tape while the ball is spotted/centred. IF a unanimous decision can be arrived at they advise the on-pitch referee via his earpiece that the decision is overturned, if they cant agree the decision stands. No extra pauses in the game required.

The Henry incident could easily have been cleared up before the ball was centred, Referee makes a very quick announcement over the stadium tannoy as in American Football that Henry had handled the ball, ball is kicked back to the keeper for a free kick on the goal line and no harm done.What happens if a ref turns down a penalty claim, the other team goes up the park and scores, someone is booked, sent off, etc before the natural pause and then the original penalty claim is given? Does that mean none of these incidents happened?

JUST LEAVE THE WHOLE THING ALONE!