Video Ref!!!!!

**liam88** · 11/12/2003, 6:55 PM

I'm a Celtic fan so I'm going to have to use them as an example, but don't worry about which team it is the point I want to make is:

Celtic lost the CIS cup final and a place in the Champions league final 16 on 2 bad calls. We NEED a video ref introduced to football.

So you may say-the CIS cup, it's between 2 teams, no big loss, but then let's remember Sapin in the World cup Quaters with 2 goals dissalowed which would have won them the game. Anyone can watch those replays and see that they were liget.

It would only take a couple of seconds to make descisions and after all, wouldn't you rather a slightly slower game than an unfair game?

We've all heard the "it's part of football" but if it happens to us in a world-cup semi for example think of sitting at home watching replays where we are obviously onside.

That's my case.

**Slash/ED** · 11/12/2003, 7:42 PM

I presume you're talking about Baldes handball? The ref got it right, in my opinion.

**Junior** · 11/12/2003, 9:18 PM

Originally posted by Slash/ED
I presume you're talking about Baldes handball? The ref got it right, in my opinion.

Agreed. It was a soft penalty, but that was Bobo's fault not the refs.

As for a '3rd eye' I'd definitely like to see it trialled in some way, perhaps in a underage tournament of some description

**Jon'o** · 11/12/2003, 9:21 PM

it would help so called smaller clubs who often have dodgy decisions go against them when playing big teams.

You can often see refs take the easy option when faced with 60,000 mancs and a mad scots man.

While the idea is a good one it is very subjective and if introduced there would still prob be cr@p decisions made by the video refs plus there would be the question of who has the final say.

**NigeSausagepump** · 12/12/2003, 8:00 AM

It came in for a hell of a lot of criticism in the rugby world cup recently. Refs were slated for turning to the video ref when they had even the slightest doubt in their mind about a try decision. It really ruined the flow of several of the games. Doing that to football would be absolutely criminal.

An even more extreme case is American football. In my opinion it is appalling as a spectacle, due in no small measure to the legions of tecnhical refereeing decisions which accompany games. Bringing in new technology runs the risks of refs giving up their responsibilities to alleviate pressure on themselves.

**pineapple stu** · 12/12/2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by NigeSausagepump
It came in for a hell of a lot of criticism in the rugby world cup recently. Refs were slated for turning to the video ref when they had even the slightest doubt in their mind about a try decision. It really ruined the flow of several of the games. Doing that to football would be absolutely criminal.

Think that's the main argument against alright - and who'd call the replays? Can you imagine Ferguson or Wenger demanding replays every two minutes and then not accepting them? They'd be an absolute joke in football, particularly because managers'/commentators'/fans' knowledge of refereeing is so poor that they still wouldn't accept them anyway.

And I agree, definite penalty for Lyon. Unfortunate, but a penalty.

**Schumi** · 12/12/2003, 12:50 PM

The best way to work it IMO would be to have the video ref bring things to the attention of the referee in much the same way that linesmen do (or are supposed to anyway).

**pineapple stu** · 12/12/2003, 2:07 PM

Sure how is he supposed to stop the play? Automatically? And what if he turns out to be wrong? Or does he wait until he's certain that he's right, by which time there could have been a goal scored or a red card offence which would have to be overruled because of the video evidence of an incident two minutes previously?

Video replays just won't work for football. They don't work for other sports already. They don't eliminate controversy and slow the game down hugely.

The best thing to do is make more use of trial by video - if a match is reviewed after and someone is seen to dive to win a penalty, suspend and fine him. If someone makes a nasty challenge, do the same. If it turns out that the ref made an honest mistake - tough! That's football! But referees don't make as many mistakes as people think, because any decision that's even remotely controversial is lambasted by the opposition until people believe that the ref has just committed the ultimate sin!

**A face** · 12/12/2003, 2:48 PM

This is probably straying from the point but .......

Sell-Thick are cr�p and I am glad they lost !!

**Ref** · 12/12/2003, 2:50 PM

Balde handled it deliberately.

No to video ref for loads of reasons. no time to reply in full now.

Anyway what would the game be like withour controversey??

**Footie_Fan** · 12/12/2003, 3:38 PM

Originally posted by liam88
a place in the Champions league final 16 on 2 bad calls. We NEED a video ref introduced to football.

That was a clear penalty for Lyon on Wednesday. It's a lot easier to blame the referee then take a look at yourself and analyse why you lost the game.

A video referee would dilute a game completely and the game would loose some of its quick nature etc. It would become similar to some American sports which stop every couple of seconds.

**Junior** · 12/12/2003, 5:54 PM

Originally posted by A face
This is probably straying from the point but .......

Sell-Thick are cr�p and I am glad they lost !!

Surperb contribution from the extremely educated and articulate Cork City fan.

**liam88** · 12/12/2003, 6:39 PM

Originally posted by A face

Sell-Thick are cr�p and I am glad they lost !!

When I was in City over the summer the general population seemed to say otherwise

Saw at least 200 hoops a day, drunk in a Celtic pub and people didn't even look at my Celtic shirt and go "hey you support Celtic to!"
It was taken for granted

**lopez** · 13/12/2003, 7:08 PM

Originally posted by liam88
We NEED a video ref introduced to football.

NO NO NO NO NO!!!! For starters what happens when the video ref says a dive is clearly a penalty. Course it will happen. We've all seen referees make stupid decisions where the incident happened in front of their eyes. And as for the likes of Turderson and Arsehole L*nger, exactly.

But there is a fundamental reason behind this. Maradona's goal against the scum wouldn't have counted and I would not have had eighteen joyfull years of 'how we woz robbed' by the Tans if there had been a video ref.

The c*nts couldn't even beat Morocco.

Originally posted by A face
This is probably straying from the point but .......

Sell-Thick are cr�p and I am glad they lost !!

T� t� amad�n.

**A face** · 14/12/2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by lopez
T� t� amad�n.

N�l br�n orm !!

**tiktok** · 14/12/2003, 9:15 PM

It was a penalty, Balde screwed up in a big game again and proved why Celtic managed to get him on a free, his temperment and composure when under the cosh is questionable.

video evidence is already used to a degree when reviewing incidents (Mills will be pulled for his stamp on DiCanio by the FA) but it would take from the flow of the game (as it did in the Rugby WC) and anyway, if we left at the end of a game knowing every decision was correct our post match pints wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

A face, surely you'd have wanted Celtic to go through if only so that Liam Miller would be tested against better opposition to help his development for the national team.

**DolansWaistcoat** · 15/12/2003, 8:41 AM

I think having video evidence just for goal line clearances that might have crossed the line wouldn't slow the game down that much.How often does it happen,a few times a season when the ball smacks the crossbar hits the line and comes back out and the linesman gives a goal.

As for video evidence for penalty decisions,maybe,it might cut out a lot of the diving that is going on if the ref can see the dive and book the player every time they do it.It would slow the game though because there are too many penalty box incidents in matchs.

Unlucky Celtic!