Printable View
Just occurred during Wellington Phoenix v Sydney FC in Australian A League.
Ref missed clear handball by Phoenix defender, and was subsequently advised by VAR that it was a penalty.
He got the message 56 seconds after the handball occurred, having allowed play to go on.
Before anyone asks had the Phoenix scored in that 56 seconds, the goal would have been disallowed.
No doubt you will see coverage on the telly, but the video ref did its job.
1-1 draw by the way.
I'm all for improving the game but this has the potential to go so badly wrong. As you said if the other team scored it would be disallowed which could easily happen in just under a minute. Carnage waiting to happen if this reaches big games.
Just imagine the above scenario in a Rangers/Celtic game. If a goal IS scored and then disallowed to go back for a penalty. It would be utter carnage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
Dunno what exactly is a 'big' game...this game was an officially sanctioned FIFA game in a country's main competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugz
Not a trial..trial period is over.
I would imagine that FIFA will seek to roll it out worldwide soon.
Couldn't give a flying fig about old firm. More worried how it would affect us with referee decisions we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by mim
Personally, I wouldcLOVE to see that :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by mim
If a goal is disallowed because the game is called back to reverse an incorrect decision then surely that's a good thing?
I always think referees in rugby bottle a decision and refer to the video referees too often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mim
Leigh Griffiths disallowed free kick against Hearts would have been given a few years ago....Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Apologies I wasn't meaning to sound demeaning to the game, I just meant like a derby match or a cup final etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
It's a good thing of course it's just how fans will react to it. There's no reasoning with some fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Why would it be carnage?Quote:
Originally Posted by mim
What would happen if someone was booked or sent off in the 56 seconds? Is that deemed to have not happened or would it still stand?
56 seconds is a long time to relay a message given you said it was a clear hand ball.
It depends what you consider to be carnage.
Domestic violence spikes and the media degenerate into a frothing mess every time there's an Old Firm anyway. If there's a contentious decision then these things increase.
I think the potential for carnage would be reduced if there was greater chance of arriving at the correct decisions, and if everyone knew in advance that theoretical situation described above was a possibility.
Knowing Scottish refs, they'd probably view video evidence in an Old Firm game and decide to send of Marvin Bartley for Hibs anyway.
Reckon it would expose them for the incompetents / cheats that they are! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
To be fair, in rugby there are often loads of bodies over the ball etc. Video referral seems well established, although it should also be said that the game is less fluid and free flowing than football.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Video ref would gave saved us three sendings off this season.
I watched the game and it was farcical. I guarantee the majority of fans will not like it.
Not that you are biased at all....:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
But it was a penalty and the ref missed it.
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I agree, and I think the time taken will no doubt improve as it goes along.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Basically it was a cross with a few players going for it and the Phoenix defender had his hand above his head and hand balled it.
I imagine the assistant video hug replayed it to confirm it WA/ what he thought he saw and that's what took the time....dunno though.
All part of the game IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
It does not fit in football.
Funnily enough the rules as they stand don't allow the VAR to review a red card situation, but do allow it to be used for a yellow card situation, including the second yellow, which would obviously lead to a red.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I think they need to look at this.
On the subject of the Old Firm, I remember when the no pass back to the keeper rule came in and a Hibs player headed the ball back to our keeper resulting in the Huns supporters having near apoplexy...the commentator pointed out that they obviously didn't understand the rule as you were allowed to head the ball back..
It will take them a while to come to terms with any rule change I reckon....
The France Spain friendly had a video ref. France had a goal correctly ruled off at what would have been 1-1 and Spain correctly had an "offside" goal overruled to make it 2-0 so it did it's job. It does kill the excitement of scoring so they need to make it better by having a scoreboard that says Goal or No Goal like in Rugby League
I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you, but think it is inevitable that it will be introduced world wide, subject to TV resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
In a league where Hibs have played without a fourth official being able to be supplied, don't see how it could come down to the Championship in Scotland to be honest.
Surely when the handball happened their was a massive appeal for handball? And if so the referee should stop the games if he's not sure and go upstairs. I don't think a game should be pulled back 1 minute to something the ref missed.
Works well in rugby league and cricket. I like the idea of the video ref just watching the game and if he sees something stops it and awards the correct decision.
No one can complain if the correct outcome is reached?
As are biased referees who deliberately cheat, diving players and those who feign being elbowed and head butted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Not only will referees decisions be improved by video technology, much of the above will stop too.
It's a perfect fit for football.
There was a massive appeal by the Sydney FC players, as you would expect whether there was a video ref or no video ref.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibbysam
Rules mean that players cannot request it be referred to the video ref and if they do, they'll get a yellow card.
Didn't stop them though..although nobody got booked.
I guess the ref WAS sure...as I say he just missed it and waved play on.....until he got the advice over his earpiece .
What would have happened if Sydney had scored?Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
Common sense with handballs if there is a massive players appeal at the time then going upstairs would be justified. I get it if the ref actually seen it and said no and they kept going then book them, but you can normally tell when something has happened and when you have that help then you should be using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
Correction...it CAN be used for red card situations, but not on second yellows that may lead to a red card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
The original interpretation was mistakenly reported.
For starters it'll save us the time and expense currently wasted in appealing and winning the wrong decisions that've been given against us. But the BIG winner for us is the 'Retrospecive Red-Card' (rrc)scenario. To the best of my memory, RRC's have been issued to Jambo-players on 5 separate occasions. All that means is that those players missed a game for them so we got no benefit from it at all. Now, if the ref (for argument's sake, let's say Craig Thomson .....) contrives to 'miss' the red-card offence, using video-evidence we could prove the red-card is merited, they're down to 10-men and WE benefit from it there and then - winner !Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Overall, I believe video-evidence will make already biased referees (think of games when we play either of the OF ....) think twice about giving wrong/unfair decisions - for me video-evidence will be great for the game.
What if the Video ref is biased? In my view, there was a foul on the player before he handled the ball, so it's already proven it's not perfect after one use!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I LOVE that last sentence
Brill 😂
No yellow tinted glasses there at all....😉Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Its not the first ever video decision :confused:. As already stated in the thread, it was used recently in Spain's game against France and to be fair, it worked out pretty well to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
I probably should have added"...................īn a "'country's main domestic league competition"'Quote:
Originally Posted by DH1875
As I understand it, the Spain v France game was a friendly.
apologies for my impreciseness...
I remember read the match report for the Spain v France match:
Now, does that not sound like the dullest, most sterile match report ever written?Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC Sport
In my opinion the controversial moments are some of the real talking points and what sets football apart as an exciting entity.
Like any rule change or addition, everyone, players managers and fans alike would have to deal with it. There would be an adjustment period and a lot of hot air about these decisions in the early days but at the end of the day rules are rules and it surely will prove positive in the long run.
Players tend to redact to injustices (take yesterday as an example when Darren made no reaction to the ken as he knew it was) I think if a wrong call or no call when it should have been made situation then like in tennis the team captain should be allowed to challenge it. The captain should be allowed 3 challenges per game so it's not stopping the flow of it too much or contesting every offside decision for example. The only other time the video ref should get involved would be if the ref wasn't sure enough to make a decision and asked himself.
And if the original decision is upheld, award a free kick to the other team. If the original decision is a penalty which is then scored, the scoring team get the kick off.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
I'd also make it two challenges rather then three.
Then the video evidence will prove they are corrupt!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
If the ref gives a dodgy decision he can say he never seen it or his view was blocked, a video ref can't say the same thing as we all get to see it from different angles on TV!!!!
And Forster's header against them at ER. IIRC the point from that game would have kept us up that year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forza Fred
That's what I thought? It should be pretty instantaneous? Unless the boy was getting a cuppaQuote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spot on. :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Anything which cuts out and/or reduces the amount of refereeing "mistakes" is to be welcomed.
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by BlackSheep
How "Scottish football" would it be for the players to be milling about the pitch for 15 minutes because the video ref had gone for a dump?Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthNorfolkHFC
"Sorry boys. Thought I could fart my way out of that one, or at least get to half time but needs must. Right, where are we? In a rush? F** it, penalty Rangers then."
I remember being thrilled when Colin Campbell was brought down in the box in the 1979 cup final and when Leigh Griffith's goal wasn't given against hertz, I was beside myself with excitement. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinho
15 minutes for a dump? You need to up the fibre in your diet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I was thinking more of Bobby Madden sitting there having been relegated to video ref duties after hitting the Tennents lager too hard the night before, reading the Daily Record from cover to cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge