Thread for ideas on video evidence in football.

I'm going to post my idea about a possible way to use video technology - feel free to comment on it, and add your own opinions, as I'm sure everybody has had some thought on it. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to Henry and Paris, I've been wondering for a while what form video evidence would take if and when introduced.

What I'd like to see is a 5th official who watches the game on a monitor in the stand. When he feels that the referee on the pitch would like to review a decision (or non-decision) regarding a possible red card (including second yellow leading to red), penalty or goal incident, he communicates with the referee to go to the side of the pitch and watch the incident on a monitor there. The referee watches and either stands by his original decision, reverses it, or makes a decision if he failed to make one in the first place.

In this way the final say is still in the hands of the on-field referee, and the usage is limited to certain situations, which means that it won't be used for every single situation. Also, it means that players can't ask the referee to review decisions, as he can only do so when the 5th official says so (otherwise the players would be moaning at the referee constantly).

Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

What I'd like to see is a 5th official who watches the game on a monitor in the stand. When he feels that the referee on the pitch would like to review a decision (or non-decision) regarding a possible red card (including second yellow leading to red), penalty or goal incident, he communicates with the referee to go to the side of the pitch and watch the incident on a monitor there. The referee watches and either stands by his original decision, reverses it, or makes a decision if he failed to make one in the first place.

---

That's the only way I think it could work. But I wouldn't delay things to ask the ref to have a look. In the same way a linesman can flag for a foul, the fifth official would watch a replay, make his mind up (quickly, obviously) and tell the ref via the earphone. But I'm open to reasons that wouldn't work, as I don't agree with the idea of introducing rugby- or tennis-style delays into football.

FWIW, I also don't really hold with the idea that the great thing about football is that the rules are the same for the World Cup final and for the pub league, so you can't introduce video evidence at the highest level or there'll be a degree of separation. There's no linesmen at pub leve,, and I don't think anyone feels separation because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

That's the only way I think it could work. But I wouldn't delay things to ask the ref to have a look. In the same way a linesman can flag for a foul, the fifth official would watch a replay, make his mind up (quickly, obviously) and tell the ref via the earphone. But I'm open to reasons that wouldn't work, as I don't agree with the idea of introducing rugby- or tennis-style delays into football.

---

The main reason for the delay is that a big reason against the introduction of video evidence seems to be that it undermines the authority of the referee. By having the referee on the field still making the final decision, I'm trying to get around that stumbling block.

I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

The main reason for the delay is the idea that the ref has to stop play so someone can have a look at a telly to see if the decision was correct. Your solution still has the ref stopping play to check the telly. I'm getting around that by having the fifth official take an extra ten seconds to have a look at close calls - while the play is still ongoing - and letting the ref know he's missed something, similar to the linesman flagging for a free. The ref can also ask the fifth official to double-check something for him while play continues. We'd have a few frees called ten seconds after the event, but I don't think that's as bad as stopping play to look at a telly all the time. And there'd be no recourse to appeal from managers, just like there's no recourse to appeal from managers now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

---

What i mean is that from what I've read, one of the reasons against the intro of video technology is that it will undermine the authority of the referee on the field. Your idea, though quicker, will mean the the 5th official is actually the one making the decision, which would probably fall under the definition of undermining the authority of the referee on the field. I'm trying to come up with a way of ensuring it is the referee on the field, not any other official, who makes all decisions (with help from all other officials, obviously).

I'm not sure we'd be looking at a TV all the time, as it would be limited to certain kinds of incidents. But it would slow down the game, that can't be avoided with video evidence.

I think the main things that'd undermine authority is enabling people to challenge the ref and having the ref stop play to go over and have a look at what happened; neither are options in my scheme.

Taking the Henry goal as an example, the fifth official would (let's assume) have immediately spotted the handball (and the offside) on telly and radioed the ref, who'd have awarded a free out. In theory, no-one's the wiser as to who made the call. I don't think that'd undermine the ref any more than a linesman flagging for a free.

3 reasons why I'm against the idea of vid replays and all is...........

1) The level playing field. The simplicity of the game is the beauty of it - a ball and jumpers for goalposts and all that. Where would you draw the line? Would all teams all over the world have to have this technology to be allowed participate in leagues, what about cup games like the FA cup. Could a team argue that since Boston Fc dont have the tech then they wont/cant play them? Etc

2) The time delay it would cause looking at all the decisions and replays, etc. They always say it works in rugby, etc but does it? I often see games in RU and RL where the decision takes more than 5 minutes.
And as John Motson said last Saturday - where would it stop? For handballs? For diving? for online clearances? for offside decisions? jesus thats a whole game!!!!

3) even with replays people are still undecided. Jesus did Eduardo dive or was it momentum that carried him over? What about the Australian try last week - was it a try or not, - i didnt think it was!!! Many English people still say that the ball in 1966 did cross the line, etc etc etc

As i said before the real way to stam out cheating - is for the authorities to get tough.
As for on the line decisions - thats part of the fun

I'd more or less go along with the above suggestions. I don't know if a 5th official would be necessary, the 4th official could review controversial incidents, I don't think you need a fifth official making constant calls.

It might be an idea to limit teams to 3 appeals to the TV match offical per game, with other appeals at the discretion of the officials. I would definitely limit the use to penalty area incidents, goals and sendings off. All of theses incidents result in a stoppage in play regardless and the 4th official reviewing thwm shouldn't add any significant delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

1) The level playing field. The simplicity of the game is the beauty of it - a ball and jumpers for goalposts and all that. Where would you draw the line? Would all teams all over the world have to have this technology to be allowed participate in leagues, what about cup games like the FA cup. Could a team argue that since Boston Fc dont have the tech then they wont/cant play them? Etc

---

I already covered that earlier in the thread.

One problem with my suggestion, though, is the likes of the penalty against Georgia. Ref is certain it's a penalty - gives a penalty. Video ref tells him he's wrong, but you can't restart play with a hop-ball or something. That said, in that case, it's merely useless, which isn't actually too bad. you'd have to accept that once a ref has made a call to stop play, the only way a video ref could overturn it is with a decision which also stops play (e.g. instead of a goal to France, a free out).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

It might be an idea to limit teams to 3 appeals to the TV match offical per game, with other appeals at the discretion of the officials. I would definitely limit the use to penalty area incidents, goals and sendings off. All of theses incidents result in a stoppage in play regardless and the 4th official reviewing thwm shouldn't add any significant delay.

---

I'm against the idea of a number of appeals per game. Assuming that, if the manager's appeal proves to be justified, keeps his three appeals, then we'd have managers appealing over every little thing, but managing to keep their appeals.

I don't think there should be any appeals. The referee either gets the decision from the 5th official (in Stu's version), or the referee can only consult a TV monitor when the 5th official tells him to (in my version).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

One problem with my suggestion, though, is the likes of the penalty against Georgia. Ref is certain it's a penalty - gives a penalty. Video ref tells him he's wrong, but you can't restart play with a hop-ball or something. That said, in that case, it's merely useless, which isn't actually too bad. you'd have to accept that once a ref has made a call to stop play, the only way a video ref could overturn it is with a decision which also stops play (e.g. instead of a goal to France, a free out).

---

It might lead to a situation where a referee is less likely to blow for a free, feeling it's better that play be stopped on the advice of the 5th official (based on TV evidence, and maybe more likely to be right) rather than to blow for a free, only to find out it's wrong, and having to restart the game in a way which doesn't reflect at all the state of play when he initially blew the whistle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I already covered that earlier in the thread

One problem with my suggestion, though, is the likes of the penalty against Georgia. Ref is certain it's a penalty - gives a penalty. Video ref tells him he's wrong, but you can't restart play with a hop-ball or something. That said, in that case, it's merely useless, which isn't actually too bad. you'd have to accept that once a ref has made a call to stop play, the only way a video ref could overturn it is with a decision which also stops play (e.g. instead of a goal to France, a free out).

---

yeah I noted it, but i did use the example of a non league English team.

You could also use the DDSl, or LSL - same thing, but they use linesmen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I'm against the idea of a number of appeals per game. Assuming that, if the manager's appeal proves to be justified, keeps his three appeals, then we'd have managers appealing over every little thing, but managing to keep their appeals.

I don't think there should be any appeals. The referee either gets the decision from the 5th official (in Stu's version), or the referee can only consult a TV monitor when the 5th official tells him to (in my version).

---

It would be limited regardless of the outcome otherwise I agree it could be farcical. I'd like to see it trialled in a few different guises to see what works.

The biggest problem with video refs in rugby is that referees come to rely on them too much. From the little rugby league that I watch, it seems that 90% of tries have to be confirmed by the video ref, often taking a minute or more over obvious calls; it really breaks the moment. The idea of a video linesman who can tell the ref he's made a bad decision and to go back and fix it would be an improvement but you'd still have 10 seconds or so of uncertainty where the video ref might or might not overturn a goal.

If it was to apply to red cards too, there'd be the danger of the ref's authority being undermined. If he sends a player off but the video ref overturns it, the player won't take the ref as seriously for the rest of the game.

It wouldn't really apply to football but there are also video decisions to not award a try because the ball isn't visible in the replays but an unassisted ref would have given the try to no complaints from anyone because the player 'must have scored' even if the ball isn't visible. I can't think of a similar situation in football but a decision based on a video replay isn't necessarily better than one the ref makes on his own.

I don't think managers should be allowed to appeal decisions as that would just be chaotic. You couldn't stop the game whenever a manager wants to check a decision as it would be abused and it could be 2 or 3 minutes before the ball goes out.

The whole "would disrupt the flow of the game" argument doesn't wash with me.
BBC did an experiment a few months ago. They had a ref in the studio monitoring a live game. Any time there was a contentious decision (offside, goal line clearance, etc) they showed him an instant replay, and he gave his verdict.
In all but one case, he was able to deliver a verdict before the game had kicked off again.

I was surprised it didn't get more coverage at the time.

Interestingly,

The one at Celtic Park last night missed a definite corner that was captured on cameras (albeit I think it would have been hard enough to call - hit a guy in the wall from a freekick)

Also the one at Evertons game in Athens missed a blatant corner. Keeper made a finger tip save.

Hodgson has come out and said based on his experience in the Europa Cup this season, he doesnt think it adds anything having the extra officials (obviously based on the few well documented mistakes/decisions not made by them in Fulhams games).

For me the key issue for these extra goal line officials is whether they will step up to the plate and call the decisions they see. In much the same why that linesmen (referees assistants - not) have not stepped up to the mark imo, I doubt somehow whether these guys will either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

In all but one case, he was able to deliver a verdict before the game had kicked off again.

---

What about contentious issues where the game doesn't stop though?

You could clear up the corners alright, but what if, say, someone in the wall for a free kick handles the ball, the ref misses is and play breaks the far end of the pitch. Do we call play back for the handball? What about a foul which takes place (maybe a professional foul) between the handball incident and the decision?

Also, what if the ref gives a penalty, but the video shows it was accidental. What then? Do you restart with a hop ball? Bit harsh on the team that had the free kick. Restart with the free? Do you always restart at the place the ball last went out of play?

Too many problems, I think.

So the goal line technology is to be introduced at last. However, important though it is, it is usually only called upon a few times a season. However, it is the first step on the road to technology. I would like to see techology for offside decisions resulting in goals where the manager can make one challenge with the crossed hand decision within 5 seconds.

I would also like to see a second yellow card being a 10 minute in the box rather than sent off.

First time reading this thread. All for Goal line technology but the only way I would support video evidence is similar to what Owlsfan say each manager get one decision challenge per game for offside, penalties where they think simulation(diving) may have been involved, and maybe sending offs. Wouldn't support anything more than as going to a video ref several times every game will ruin matches.

Not sure about your sin bin idea though

Also think video evidence should be used after game to try and stamp out simulation(diving). Managers can lodge complaints and obvious divers get one or two warnings at first then, fines & bans

Giving managers one appeal would soon turn into three, five and then seven. Dead against that.

Was reading some papers in New Zealand the last week, and one of the things that came up was how referees still get decisions wrong even with a TV ref. Technology's not a panacea. Some decisions will be wrong - but relatively very, very few - and we should just live with that.

If instant goalline technology is coming in, I assume that means referees 4 and 5 are being dropped?