Should instant replay technology be made available to refs in the future?

[TornAndFrayed]

Is there anything you'd suggest to solve the 2nd issue?

There is no perfect solution, the idea is that the game will be fairer. So if a coach demands video, wait until the play is done (foul, out of play, goal, etc.) then proceed. If video upholds the ref's decision, nothing happens. If it contradicts it, than the correct call applies (foul, offside, etc.). If a goal has been scored, then obviously it's cancelled. Of course there are minor issues that will be discussed, like whether or not to cancel subsequent fouls in the same play, but as long as the game is fairer this way, then I'm all for it.

The idea that "the human element must be preserved" (i'm not saying its your idea) is weird. Technology is human too. The less mistakes the better.

 

[Science Kid]

There is no perfect solution, the idea is that the game will be fairer. So if a coach demands video, wait until the play is done (foul, out of play, goal, etc.) then proceed. If video upholds the ref's decision, nothing happens. If it contradicts it, than the correct call applies (foul, offside, etc.). If a goal has been scored, then obviously it's cancelled. Of course there are minor issues that will be discussed, like whether or not to cancel subsequent fouls in the same play, but as long as the game is fairer this way, then I'm all for it.

The idea that "the human element must be preserved" (i'm not saying its your idea) is weird. Technology is human too. The less mistakes the better.

Well that phrase doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Aggression is also a human element but we have a deterrent for it in the form of yellow/red cards. Let's abandon cards altogether for an even more genuine human experience!

What's the deterrent for bad referees? Referee mistakes have ruined a lot of big matches, we literally lost La Liga in the last round because of a non-existent offside call. France went to the World Cup instead of Ireland because the ref was blind, etc...

The only people adamant to preserve some archaic nonsense are those who want the game to still be susceptible to match fixing. Horrendous refereeing has absolutely no consequence and i'd rather have a fair(er) game that's 10 minutes longer than continue to pretend that the human eye can instantly catch two different positions at the same time and make a correct judgement call as is the case of offside ruling.

 

[Yannik]

There is no perfect solution, the idea is that the game will be fairer. So if a coach demands video, wait until the play is done (foul, out of play, goal, etc.) then proceed. If video upholds the ref's decision, nothing happens. If it contradicts it, than the correct call applies (foul, offside, etc.). If a goal has been scored, then obviously it's cancelled. Of course there are minor issues that will be discussed, like whether or not to cancel subsequent fouls in the same play, but as long as the game is fairer this way, then I'm all for it.

The idea that "the human element must be preserved" (i'm not saying its your idea) is weird. Technology is human too. The less mistakes the better.

Well the thing is, what is my motivation as a player to continue with 100% dedication if I know about some correctance before the ref does? Why would I make that backtracking run right now if I'm convinced that I'm getting some previous foul, throw-in etc? Or what if I'm the defender knew he commited that foul? How many goals will fall following out of such miscalculations? How many absolute pointless 1-4min of play are we going to endure before some throw-in gets repeated? You're trying to subtract the human aspect of a single individual just to add those of 22 others.
And I still wouldn't know how a qrong offside call can be "repeated". Is everyone supposed to freeze while the video ref inspects the whole issue? I haven't seen any video ref concept that has fully convinced me. Just vague concepts adding more flaws to the game than those it's trying to solve.

 

[TornAndFrayed]

Well the thing is, what is my motivation as a player to continue with 100% dedication if I know about some correctance before the ref does? Why would I make that backtracking run right now if I'm convinced that I'm getting some previous foul, throw-in etc? Or what if I'm the defender knew he commited that foul? How many goals will fall following out of such miscalculations? How many absolute pointless 1-4min of play are we going to endure before some throw-in gets repeated? You're trying to subtract the human aspect of a single individual just to add those of 22 others.
And I still wouldn't know how a qrong offside call can be "repeated". Is everyone supposed to freeze while the video ref inspects the whole issue? I haven't seen any video ref concept that has fully convinced me. Just vague concepts adding more flaws to the game than those it's trying to solve.

Why would I make that backtracking run right now if I'm convinced that I'm getting some previous foul, throw-in etc?

Because you're not the ref and your coach would destroy you for taking the risk ? Plus, the side doesn't have unlimited challenges, even if the ref is wrong he may not be challenged. So how many absolute pointless minutes per game ? With such a stupid player on the pitch, maybe 30 seconds. Can't be too long before a ball out of play when a team stops playing. In all other cases, none.

Is everyone supposed to freeze while the video ref inspects the whole issue?

What does that even mean ? Video is super fast most of the times, it wouldn't take much longer than when the ref books a player. If you really think that those non issues are more disruptive to the game than a wrongly called penalty, goal, foul leading to a goal, etc. then that's, well, like, your opinion, man.

 

[snowy]

.. And I still wouldn't know how a qrong offside call can be "repeated". Is everyone supposed to freeze while the video ref inspects the whole issue? ..

well the manager would only issue a challenge to an offside call in case a goal was scored and denied, so it would be after the fact, no need for any1 to freeze lol
and as for slowing down play, like Torn noted, number of challenges would be limited (I like 2 per team). The idea is also compelling as it would open up new avenues of post-game discussions (fans always love it) + managers would get drilled on how judiciously they use their challenges...

 

[Yannik]

Why would I make that backtracking run right now if I'm convinced that I'm getting some previous foul, throw-in etc?

Because you're not the ref and your coach would destroy you for taking the risk ? Plus, the side doesn't have unlimited challenges, even if the ref is wrong he may not be challenged. So how many absolute pointless minutes per game ? With such a stupid player on the pitch, maybe 30 seconds. Can't be too long before a ball out of play when a team stops playing. In all other cases, none.

Is everyone supposed to freeze while the video ref inspects the whole issue?

What does that even mean ? Video is super fast most of the times, it wouldn't take much longer than when the ref books a player. If you really think that those non issues are more disruptive to the game than a wrongly called penalty, goal, foul leading to a goal, etc. then that's, well, like, your opinion, man.

If I am in the 80th minute and my legs are already gone, then many players won't put in the effort just to have some throw in 2mins earlier being repeated. That's annoying for the players and annoying for the fans.
And the main issue is still not resolved, what happens when a foul or offside is called and the repöay shows it was wrong? Who is getting the freekick then? Me? My opponent? What happens to the promising counter attack when it got called off for offside wrongly? Those aren't non-issues, those are the main reasons why we have requests for video refs being rejected for a decade. Everyone likes the idea, it's just not working in reality because it only sounds great in theory.

 

[TornAndFrayed]

If I am in the 80th minute and my legs are already gone, then many players won't put in the effort just to have some throw in 2mins earlier being repeated. That's annoying for the players and annoying for the fans.
And the main issue is still not resolved, what happens when a foul or offside is called and the repöay shows it was wrong? Who is getting the freekick then? Me? My opponent? What happens to the promising counter attack when it got called off for offside wrongly? Those aren't non-issues, those are the main reasons why we have requests for video refs being rejected for a decade. Everyone likes the idea, it's just not working in reality because it only sounds great in theory.

If I am in the 80th minute and my legs are already gone, then many players won't put in the effort just to have some throw in 2mins earlier being repeated. That's annoying for the players and annoying for the fans.

Playing dumb now ? Two challenges per side, they're not to be wasted. And anyway, it's the coaches' decision. Again, if you think players are going to dick around, that's your opinion. But there's no logical basis for it.

hose are the main reasons why we have requests for video refs being rejected for a decade. Everyone likes the idea, it's just not working in reality because it only sounds great in theory.

Well you don't like the idea . And that "it's not there because it sucks" argument is obviously deeply flawed, many things in history and life you get only after a long struggle.

what happens when a foul or offside is called and the repöay shows it was wrong?

There are a number of workable issues like this. I have no time to get into it right now though.

 

[Yannik]

If I am in the 80th minute and my legs are already gone, then many players won't put in the effort just to have some throw in 2mins earlier being repeated. That's annoying for the players and annoying for the fans.

Playing dumb now ? Two challenges per side, they're not to be wasted. And anyway, it's the coaches' decision. Again, if you think players are going to dick around, that's your opinion. But there's no logical basis for it.

hose are the main reasons why we have requests for video refs being rejected for a decade. Everyone likes the idea, it's just not working in reality because it only sounds great in theory.

Well you don't like the idea . And that "it's not there because it sucks" argument is obviously deeply flawed, many things in history and life you get only after a long struggle.

what happens when a foul or offside is called and the repöay shows it was wrong?

There are a number of workable issues like this. I have no time to get into it right now though.

I just hear about "workable issues", what's the actual solution to that? You are just throwing grey theory around but you also appear hesitant to how this is solvable. I like the idea of video refereing, but my OP is arguing with the poll option that it should be made availabe for all possible calls. I gave reason to why this isn't possible. If it was as easy as you make it out to be, then why is it not yet implemented? All we have as of now is a test phase in which an additional team reviews some fouls and helps the ref with how to choose cards. But if a call has been missed or when it has been wrongly given, then video technology CAN'T turn back time and correct it, you get me?

 

[PhilS]

No, this action on the field can never stop to review plays. It would ruin the sport to stop play all the time. Goal line technology should be used in all the big leagues, it works instantaneously. The league should review tapes after the game for conduct issues only, like they do in the Premier League.

 

[TornAndFrayed]

I just hear about "workable issues", what's the actual solution to that? You are just throwing grey theory around but you also appear hesitant to how this is solvable. I like the idea of video refereing, but my OP is arguing with the poll option that it should be made availabe for all possible calls. I gave reason to why this isn't possible. If it was as easy as you make it out to be, then why is it not yet implemented? All we have as of now is a test phase in which an additional team reviews some fouls and helps the ref with how to choose cards. But if a call has been missed or when it has been wrongly given, then video technology CAN'T turn back time and correct it, you get me?

Dude if I'm gonna write a comprehensive system i'm gonna trademark it, right ? I'm not hesitant at all actually, some of your arguments are totally hollow and easily dismissed, but other issues are problematic, like what to do with cards that were given after video invalidates the current play, what to do with incorrect offsides (direct/indirect fk ?), etc.

Don't know where you got the idea that its an easy fix, but its unquestionable to me that the game would be fairer for it.

I never argued in favor of unlimited calls, but a limited number of challenges work.

And I don't know why you seem to think that video can't be used to turn back incorrect decisions. Some player fouls another and foul is not called, then his team scores in the same play, video is called, foul is reinstated, goal is cancelled, and back to the original offense. What's so impossible about that ?

 

[Yannik]

And I don't know why you seem to think that video can't be used to turn back incorrect decisions. Some player fouls another and foul is not called, then his team scores in the same play, video is called, foul is reinstated, goal is cancelled, and back to the original offense. What's so impossible about that ?

That is just one of a couple of example of sonething that CAN be corrected standing in contrast to a large amount of calls that can't. The example you made is also nothing new, it's plain normal that a decision can be reconsidered after the ball is in goal if the incident happened DIRECTLY before that. Refs however aren't allowed to reconsider a decision in the same play if it is has already happened 2 minutes ago and the ball did not go out of play when the incident has happened. I doubt anyone would want that anyway.

The sport is so arbitary, video asdistance isn't just gonna kill that. It's for example not possible to just resume play after a wrong call. A goal that has been disallowed wrongly because of offside can't be corrected if the ref has already blown his whistle before the ball entered the line. A false pen can't be corrected if the ref has called it. Not to mention, that if it's not a correct penalty, what is it then? Goalkick for the defending team? Freekick for the attacking team? Who is favored by the ref after he made a bad call on a harmless foul where neither the attacker, nor the defender did any wrong?

And THOSE are really the game deciding decisions that piss everyone off. The video ref isn't useful here. All it can do is reconsider a decision that happened like 10 seconds ago, and only if the ref has called those while the ball was already out of play. This is also what the current tests during some friendlies or in the Eredivisie are doing, they can support the ref to a certain extend, but they can't do his job for him.

Truth is that video assistance as it is right now is a nice asset, indeed helpful in certain situations, like when a ref asks them to analyse a foul before giving a card, or when the ref asks them to inspect a potential offensive foul before a goal from a corner kick. There is nothing speaking against video assistance in such cases, but that's also the point where it has reached it's limits. And even video refs aren't gonna make a decision everyone agrees with, some rules are just blurry. Handballs for example. I bet my ass we'd be just running into another shitstorm from "incompetent refs" to "incompetent video refs" just for the sake of constant self victimization.

 

[TornAndFrayed]

And yet the game would be fairer for it.

I've used this lone example to disprove your idea that its impossible to go back on a wrongly given call.

Your post is pretty much about how video can't do everything, but i never said it did. Sure there are limits, and instances where video doesn't work, and others where there's no perfect solution. It's ok though.

Refs however aren't allowed to reconsider a decision in the same play if it is has already happened 2 minutes ago and the ball did not go out of play when the incident has happened.

didn't catch that part

A false pen can't be corrected if the ref has called it. Not to mention, that if it's not a correct penalty, what is it then? Goalkick for the defending team?

1) Why not ? 2) If it's not a penalty, it's a dive, so yea goal kick

 

[Yannik]

And yet the game would be fairer for it.

I've used this lone example to disprove your idea that its impossible to go back on a wrongly given call.

Your post is pretty much about how video can't do everything, but i never said it did. Sure there are limits, and instances where video doesn't work, and others where there's no perfect solution. It's ok though.

Well then we can agree with that.

didn't catch that part

Unfortunately I don't have a flipchart with me. Let's just put it this way: How often have you seen a ref giving a call for an incident that happened 30seconds - 2minutes or longer ago?

1) Why not ? 2) If it's not a penalty, it's a dive, so yea goal kick

1.) because the basic concept is that when the ref blows his whistle then it is because one team did something wrong and as a result the other team is awarded possession (freekick, penalty, throw-in, corner, goalkick).
But if noone did anything wrong then you can't award the other with possession. Neither can you continue the play because you already blowed the whistle and the attack is dead.
2.) No? Of course not. If it's not a pen then it can be a falsely called handball or a challenge that wasn't foul worthy but brought the opponent off balance. If it would be a dive then the ref gives a yellow card, and that's not the case most of the time.

 

[TornAndFrayed]

Unfortunately I don't have a flipchart with me. Let's just put it this way: How often have you seen a ref giving a call for an incident that happened 30seconds - 2minutes or longer ago?

Proper English works too . Never ? Where are you going with this ? Obviously you can't challenge a ref's decision while play is still ongoing, so yea it will happen some time after the incident...

1.) because the basic concept is that when the ref blows his whistle then it is because one team did something wrong and as a result the other team is awarded possession (freekick, penalty, throw-in, corner, goalkick).
But if noone did anything wrong then you can't award the other with possession. Neither can you continue the play because you already blowed the whistle and the attack is dead.

Are any of these cases more unfair than an unjust penalty ? Nope ? Do it.

2.) No? Of course not. If it's not a pen then it can be a falsely called handball or a challenge that wasn't foul worthy but brought the opponent off balance. If it would be a dive then the ref gives a yellow card, and that's not the case most of the time.

That's true. So what though ? I don't give a crap if there are 1-2 instances per game where, say, a non existent penalty is cancelled and the ball is given back to the opposing team in midfield, or whatever. It hurts the attacking team much less than the penalty hurt the defending team, so it's no problem, especially considering it comes at the cost of one challenge.

Putting this to rest now. Video helps in many instances and should be used as long as it helps, and it helps in more cases than you think like the examples that you or i provided. There will never be perfect refereeing, video decisions won't be 100% "clean" all the time, and that's ok.

 

[Yannik]

I'm sorry if my english isn't always ze yellow from ze egg, I'm appealing for reason here. Video refereeing as it is now in it's test phase is the best we can get. More than that isn't working. A call that happened during play can't impossibly be withdrawn. Penalties are just an example. I can only imagine how quick people are gonna turn onto this if an important goal scoring chance in a finals dying minute will be called off and reverted back to midfield just because the ref was too quick on a call. Instead of the defending team being fucked over, it'll be the attacking team. By doing so you'd be just shifting the disadvantage from one team to the other. Not much better, all you achieved is just making the whole thing a lot weirder to pretty much everyones annoyance. And that's just penalties. Legal and illegal challenges happen anywhere on the pitch. Some are crucial, some not. Those add up to a lot more than 1-2 incidents. No thanks, let's just agree to disagree to that.