PDA

View Full Version : Video Evidence



GlesgaeHibby
23-11-2010, 12:51 PM
Given the situation we currently face with a referee's strike on saturday, surely it is about time those running our game look to move football into the 21st century and start using video evidence.

We can all agree that referees do a difficult job and under pressure when forced to make a decision in a split second, can get it wrong. Instead of constantly having clubs (especially Celtc FC) having a go at referees and questioning their personal integrity, why can't we just introduce technology that will aid their decision making?

SPL Clubs and Managers (especially Celtic with their 'everyone is against us' mentality) have been vocal in their criticism of referees, and it could be argued that they have caused this. The real culprits, IMO, are UEFA and the footballing bodies who continue to aggressively oppose video evidence technology to aid our referees in doing a difficult job. Video evidence would make the sport we love much fairer, and ease this incessant pressure and scrutiny of referees.

Part/Time Supporter
23-11-2010, 12:53 PM
It won't help.

You will still get Celtc coaches / players / fans insisting they should have had this or that decision after watching a replay umpteen times, even in the face of that evidence.

eg1 Gary Hooper stated during his mad rant that they should have had a penalty for the challenge by Pernis in the game at Tannadice.

eg2 Lennon insisting that Joe Ledley shouldn't have been sent off v Hearts (even though he didn't appeal it!).

Stevie Reid
23-11-2010, 01:21 PM
I'm up for goal line technology but nothing else - goals decide games, and are the most important thing in football.

A contentious decision will still be a contentious decision if it is made after the referee views a video replay. Plus, how far do you want to take it? Celtic's winning goal in the 1989 SC Final came when the referee awarded a throw in to Rangers and Roy Aitken just went ahead and took it anyway - do we analyse every throw in and corner decison? The wrong decision can still lead to a goal.

Dashing Bob S
23-11-2010, 01:24 PM
I'm against it. If they'd allowed video evidence back in the day, Steve Fulton would have continually been booked for being ugly, and he'd never have enjoyed a career.

Video evidence would have shown Gary MacKay up to be a c***, and I don't even want to think what would have happened to Jim Jefferies and Gary Locke.

HibeeMassive
23-11-2010, 01:33 PM
It's an interesting one ...

I think that referees have been making mistakes for decades now, and that for me is part and parcel of the game. It generates talking points, sometimes for you, sometimes against but that is all part of the addiction that is football.

On the other hand, when you've got a ball which has clearly crossed the line and for whatever reason is missed by the officials it can have a major impact financially, especially in the modern game, on the teams involved.

I would now like to see something brought in along the lines of what ice hockey do with the goal light. Not sure if this is even done with technology, or just someone with a button, but along those lines.
The ball can be fitted with a sensor, and if it crosses the line a light lights up for the referee/assistant referee to see. The chip in ball technology has already been developed and showcased, by the people who do the Hawkeye for tennis, to FIFA but they chose not to accept it.

I just don't see where this could have a negative impact on the game. No time required to review replays, no conversations required with other officials, just a straight forward decision.

I would hate to see it get to the stage where the referee is afraid of making a decision, and refers everything to a video review - the game could become a farce, particularly in more meaningful games, because the ref would be crapping himself to make a 50/50 decision.

Thats just my take on it, but I do think that something technological is just around the corner for football - I just hope its not to the detriment of the game in the long run.

MrSmith
23-11-2010, 01:41 PM
Definitely for cheating players! Divers and con men need sorted! We would have less of this simulation nonsense!

stoneyburn hibs
23-11-2010, 01:52 PM
only goal-line tech is a must for me too, dinnae want it turning into something like american fitba, and could you imagine the time-line involved if we were playing the sellick, kick off on a saturday wouldnt finish until about 8pm

Hibs Class
23-11-2010, 01:53 PM
I think there are strict limits as to what the SFA/SPL could do unilaterally, as was seen IIRC when Gordon Smith tried to address diving. We could potentially get approval for a pilot scheme but if FIFA don't approve video evidence in principle then I doubt Scotland would be allowed to go ahead with it.

Kaiser1962
23-11-2010, 02:46 PM
only goal-line tech is a must for me too, dinnae want it turning into something like american fitba, and could you imagine the time-line involved if we were playing the sellick, kick off on a saturday wouldnt finish until about 8pm

The most high profile non goal in recent times was the England Germany world cup game when the ball clearly crossed the line and wasnt given. Fair enough so far. The next night (i think) Argentina played Mexico and Tevez was the proverbial mile (at least a yard) offside when he headed in. I cant for the life of me see why we should use it for one thing and not another. Either use it or not.
If Lennon didnt think Ledley deserved a red card (or that Hooper dived) then you achieve nothing with TV evidence except shift the source of blame from the guy on the field to the guy at the monitor. What I would use it for would be mandatory, utterley draconian punishments for cheating. If a player (Hooper, Eduardo) blatantly dives during a game the club should be hammered by fines or point deduction and the player banned for months, not two games. If a player tries to get another player sent off (McGregor) or succeeds (Lafferty) then again fine, points deduction and a seasons ban for the player. If the game has a cancer it needs serious measures to help it survive.

In most cases it would help but the individuals concerned have to be rational in the first place and that does not apply here.

Stevie Reid
23-11-2010, 02:50 PM
The most high profile non goal in recent times was the England Germany world cup game when the ball clearly crossed the line and wasnt given. Fair enough so far. The next night (i think) Argentina played Mexico and Tevez was the proverbial mile (at least a yard) offside when he headed in. I cant for the life of me see why we should use it for one thing and not another. Either use it or not.


Goal line technology doesn't involve video replays.

Kaiser1962
23-11-2010, 02:53 PM
Goal line technology doesn't involve video replays.

But my argument is still valid Stevie. The England goal would have stood because of the use of technology whereas the Argentina goal would have stood despite the use of technology. Playing devil's advocate a bit I know.

Stevie Reid
23-11-2010, 03:07 PM
But my argument is still valid Stevie. The England goal would have stood because of the use of technology whereas the Argentina goal would have stood despite the use of technology. Playing devil's advocate a bit I know.

I appreciate that - but I'm up for goal line technology as goals are the most important thing in football and as the Pedro Mendes 'goal' at Old Trafford showed a few years ago, goals can be missed without the officials being at fault. Goal line technology can remove this flaw and will not slow the game down.

No matter what happens with video evidence, human error will always play a part in football. As I previously stated, a throw in or corner going the wrong way can lead to a goal, and there are some decisions that will not be easier to make no matter how many times they are watched over (wrestling at corner kicks for example). You could not possibly consult a video screen every time there is a contentious decision, and some will become no less contentious after repeated views of replays.

Also, there is the classic argument about lower league football - with the multiple camera angles required to re-assess an incident that the referee didn't get a clear view of from his position, how would lower league teams be accommodated? Goal line technology can be impleneted at all levels of football with no discrimination.

HibsMax
23-11-2010, 03:21 PM
I like the idea of video technology but it has to be well thought out. It's OK in American Football because the game is so fragmented anyway.....but it does work and it does assist the referees. For those of you who do not know HOW it works, here's how.

1. The officials make a decision.
2. Coach A object to said decision and throws a red flag on the field to challenge the call. He can do this twice in a game (three times if he uses both challenges and wins them both).
3. The official reviews the play using multiple video angles and then decides whether or not there is enough evidence to overturn the original call. If there is then the call is reversed, otherwise the coach loses the challenge.
4. When you get within the last two minutes of the half (or maybe the game) all contentious looking calls can be reviewed by the booth i.e., neither coach needs to make a challenge.

Each challenge takes a couple of minutes.

I would like to see a system like this used in football. I like the idea of each team getting two challenges because it stops the game being broken up too much. Of course with only two challenges per team there are still plenty of opportunities for blown calls.

But there's another HUGE difference. The number of officials on the field of play. In football we have ONE with two helpers on either sideline. In American Football there are seven (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_officials_are_on_the_field_during_an_NFL_ game). I think having that many pairs of eyes on the field at once has to help. But I don't see that happening in football.

The game has its flaws and we generally accept them but when a team wins or loses because of an officiating mistake it's a bitter pill to swallow. Does it balance out over the long-run? I have no clue.

I don't have a suggestion but I would love to see a change made to the offside rule because it's so difficult to get right all the time. The distances between two players can be miniscule at times. I don't blame the refs / assistants for getting it wrong. Maybe something like they use in ice hockey i.e., when the puck / ball leaves a certain area, everyone has to get back out of that area before the ball can re-enter. That might sound a bit frantic but it works in hockey and that's a pretty fast game. That's not my final answer, just a suggestion to get the collective juices flowing. :)

Chuck Rhoades
23-11-2010, 05:09 PM
Video evidence will kill football.

basehibby
23-11-2010, 05:49 PM
Video evidence will kill football.

Why????

It's not killed Rugby(League or Union), Cricket, Aussie Rules, Formula 1, tennis or a plethora of sports such as horse racing, sprinting etc. where photographic evidence has been used for many decades to help ensure that the correct decisions are made.
So what makes football so different such that the introduction of a bit of technology to help officiate in major decisions will suddenly make the most popular sport in the world drop stone dead?!?

Football is different to many of these sports though - it's different in that so many people are interested and the stakes are often so massively high that IMO it is utterly RIDICULOUS that 10 years into the 21st century - in an age when you could quite easily stick a video camera up your japs eye if you had a mind to - that the ludites that rule the beautiful game still stubornly refuse to countenance the use of available technology to maximise fairness and take pressure off the men in the middle who shoulder that responsibility on a weekly basis.

sahib
23-11-2010, 06:24 PM
Why????

It's not killed Rugby(League or Union), Cricket, Aussie Rules, Formula 1, tennis or a plethora of sports such as horse racing, sprinting etc. where photographic evidence has been used for many decades to help ensure that the correct decisions are made.
So what makes football so different such that the introduction of a bit of technology to help officiate in major decisions will suddenly make the most popular sport in the world drop stone dead?!?

Football is different to many of these sports though - it's different in that so many people are interested and the stakes are often so massively high that IMO it is utterly RIDICULOUS that 10 years into the 21st century - in an age when you could quite easily stick a video camera up your japs eye if you had a mind to - that the ludites that rule the beautiful game still stubornly refuse to countenance the use of available technology to maximise fairness and take pressure off the men in the middle who shoulder that responsibility on a weekly basis.

How about taking offside decisions away from the linesman. A computer and sensors in the jerseys and the ball could automatically indicate offside.

dave62
23-11-2010, 07:52 PM
How about taking offside decisions away from the linesman. A computer and sensors in the jerseys and the ball could automatically indicate offside.

Because simply being in an offside position is not in itself an offence. The player must also, in the opinion of the referee, be involved in active play, so this requires a judgement call by the official and I am not sure what you suggest would help in this instance.

On the wider point of video evidence, I'd be in favour of goal line technology because the the ball is either over the line or it isn't. It's not like using it to decide whether a player has dived or not because you are asking the referee - or video official - to read the player's mind, only he knows for certain whether he's dived or not and video replays won't neccesarily help you. The player may claim that he felt contact but how much contact is required for it to be a foul.

Also I've seen video replays in other sports; they wait for the video referee or whoever and then they still can't get the decision correct. Those who think that video technology will be some kind of panacea are going to be disappointed.

HibsMax
23-11-2010, 10:12 PM
Those who think that video technology will be some kind of panacea are going to be disappointed.
Video evidence is not snake oil but it can certainly help. I'm basing my opinion purely on the NFL and I have to say it's very rare that they get the decision wrong twice.

When it comes to subjective decisions, there is no fix because it's all about opinion.

There is no excuse for a good goal to be chopped off. None. Video replays are almost instant these days and there's nothing wrong with stopping play to ensure that the correct decision was made. Obviously stoppages are a distraction and one that I could do without. One thing I love about football is how fluid it is. But is that more important than making the correct decision? I don't think so.

That said, after watching the NFL for a number of years I truly have a totally different appreciation for the sport. Coach's challenges don't upset me in the least because as I said before, the game is already broken up into many small chunks.

Allowing teams to challenge a decision, even just once per match, can't hurt / kill the game. In the NFL the cost of a bad challenge is the loss of a timeout so obviously a different deterrent needs to be found for the beautiful game. Or maybe teams aren't punished for bad challenges.

I want to keep the game of football as pure as possible but when there exists the technology to improve it, I say we embrace it rather than repel it.

The main problem is money. Not all games will have the same number of cameras at the ground (if any at all) so it would be tough to make it balanced.

dave62
24-11-2010, 12:43 PM
Hi HibsMax,

I agree with pretty much all you say. I'm an NFL fan too and I think that the coach's challenges have improved the game and in tennis hawkeye and player's having three challenges per set is the best thing to happen to that game since the tie break. In those games it more or less just works as there are natural breaks in the game where these challenges can happen without disrupting the flow of the game.

It could be argue that in football when a goal is scored then a similar break has occurred and using video technology to make sure that the goal has been correctly awarded or disallowed would also not break the game up. A problem could occur when a penalty is claimed but not given by the on field officials, challenged by the attacking team but as play rages on the defending team break away up the other end and score. If the video judge then rules it was a penalty you would then chalk off a legitimately scored goal by one team to award a penalty to another. Can you image this happening in a World Cup final or even an Old Firm game. Perhaps a way around this would be that any challenge instantly stops play, but this is also open to abuse. Maybe someone will come up with some sort of solution that I can't think of.

I do think that you're correct that to get the correct decision made more often is more important than keeping the game flowing.

Regarding money and the fact that not all grounds would have this new technology, I personally don't think that this matters so much. Not every tennis tournament has hawkeye nor does every cricket ground but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used by those that do. Just because Albion Rovers wouldn't have it, it doesn't mean that Easter Road couldn't, although I agree that some people would argue that in the name of the purity of the game.

DCI Gene Hunt
24-11-2010, 12:48 PM
Good idea, would help stop divers and Smelltic contstantly whinging about how everything's a conspriacy against them. :chop:

Guv

Part/Time Supporter
26-11-2010, 06:34 AM
Video evidence used (retrospectively), yet Celtc still moaned about the outcome.

It wouldn't help at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/8542760.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/8550145.stm

Barney McGrew
26-11-2010, 06:53 AM
So what makes football so different such that the introduction of a bit of technology to help officiate in major decisions will suddenly make the most popular sport in the world drop stone dead?

IMO the reason football is the most popular game in the world is because no matter where you are in the world, if you have a ball you can play exactly the same version of the game as the superstars do. As soon as technology starts to get involved, then it creates a two tier game.

Where does the line get drawn as well? I'm guessing that second or third division teams wouldn't have the money to bring it in, so do we just accept that they would have to do without? What would then happen if they get a home draw against a higher division team in a cup competition?

And how many times do you see studio 'experts' watch an incident from umpteen different angles and then still not agree? Even with video replays, you'd still get people moaning about decisions - as soon as their own team is involved, fans tend to put on the blinkers and argue black is white (see Neil Lennon or any radio football phone in as examples).

It won't work. Leave the game as it is and accept that referees will make mistakes from time to time. That's part of what the game is all about.

heretoday
26-11-2010, 09:17 AM
It's got to the stage where refs are under unreasonable pressure from press, fans and managers and I do think we should use video evidence but only in narrowly prescribed areas.

Penalty decisions go upstairs to the TV ref. He/she does not even need to be in the stadium.

All goals scored go upstairs automatically. In the vast majority of cases no action will be required.

I don't think the game would be held up for too long in either of those scenarios.

Let's face it - the game is frequently held up anyway with players feigning injury etc.

Caversham Green
26-11-2010, 09:51 AM
IMO the reason football is the most popular game in the world is because no matter where you are in the world, if you have a ball you can play exactly the same version of the game as the superstars do. As soon as technology starts to get involved, then it creates a two tier game.

Where does the line get drawn as well? I'm guessing that second or third division teams wouldn't have the money to bring it in, so do we just accept that they would have to do without? What would then happen if they get a home draw against a higher division team in a cup competition?

And how many times do you see studio 'experts' watch an incident from umpteen different angles and then still not agree? Even with video replays, you'd still get people moaning about decisions - as soon as their own team is involved, fans tend to put on the blinkers and argue black is white (see Neil Lennon or any radio football phone in as examples).

It won't work. Leave the game as it is and accept that referees will make mistakes from time to time. That's part of what the game is all about.

There's already a two-tier game developing though. Games in European competition have six officials, UK professional games have four, others have three - that doesn't seem much different from higher level games having technology while others don't.

There was an incident down here a couple of seasons ago that highlights the problem quite well. Reading v Sunderland, the ball flies across the Sunderland goal about chest height, Plooky hooks it out, but the lino says the ball crossed the line and a goal is given (I had a good view of it and I would not have given it). That night the BBc and Sky both ran their technology, one side said it was over the line the other said it wasn't.

The irony was that 'sensor in the ball' technology was being trialled at the Mad in reserve/practice games, so assuming it worked, they had the wherewithal to get an immediate and correct answer. Unfortunately it was switched off because they're not allowed to use it in competitive games.

IWasThere2016
26-11-2010, 10:02 AM
I watched how it should be done earlier this morning during the Ashes.

The batsman calls for a review after been given out - few runs of the tape and message to the umpire by headset and decision correctly reversed.

Took 30-40 secs. Sorted.

Time for the beautiful game to get with it :agree:

Caversham Green
26-11-2010, 02:00 PM
I watched how it should be done earlier this morning during the Ashes.

The batsman calls for a review after been given out - few runs of the tape and message to the umpire by headset and decision correctly reversed.

Took 30-40 secs. Sorted.

Time for the beautiful game to get with it :agree:

The problem is that cricket is a game of single "plays" followed by natural breaks so there is an opportunity to review the tape without stopping play. It also goes on for days so a 30 second break has no great relevance.

Consider if the goal I mentioned hadn't been given and Sunderland started an attack. At what point would the game be stopped to consider the tape? What if they broke and scored at the other end - their goal would presumably be disallowed if the Reading one was deemed to have crossed the line.

I think football is better for having instant decisions made by the ref on the pitch. Technology should be used to help him but not to overrule him.

Kaiser1962
26-11-2010, 06:15 PM
I watched how it should be done earlier this morning during the Ashes.

The batsman calls for a review after been given out - few runs of the tape and message to the umpire by headset and decision correctly reversed.

Took 30-40 secs. Sorted.

Time for the beautiful game to get with it :agree:

The problem I have, and its been amplified on this board many times, is that people looking at an incident do not necessarily see the same thing. Whether a cricket ball is going to hit the stumps or not is no longer a matter of opinion, it can be more or less proved, as could a ball crossing a line quite easily be evidenced if there was the will to do it. When a player falls over after minimum contact then there will be different opinions from penalty! to diving cheating *******! depending on your perspective.

Part/Time Supporter
27-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Exactly... 30secs and it's sorted. A surrounding the ref scenario takes much longer than 30 secs!....AND... I've never seen a situation in any sport where the decision after video evidence is questioned. They accept it and get on with the game:agree:

That's probably because its never been tried with the OF.

:wink:

jonty
27-11-2010, 09:54 AM
Take away the pressure on referees and they might feel more inclined to call decisions instead of second guessing.

Hammer whinging, moaning, bullying players, managers and clubs with points deduction (forget the money aspect unless we're talking hundreds of thousands). Bans for managers are pointless.

Reviews when goals have been scored would have less impact on the playing time. Like it matters anyway - the average game has around 20 mins of football in a 90 minute period (read somewhere but might be complete nonsense :greengrin)