People say that goals, penalty incidents and other in-game happenings would become clearer with video technology - a quick glance at a monitor by the fourth official and ten seconds later, a verdict is relayed to the referee, and the case is settled.
Here's a really good example of why video technology is needed in the football world -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgH3wzMHQLs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Callum Mcmanaman should never have stayed on the field after this - it's the clearest red card you'll never see. Absolutely baffled as to why Halsey didn't give him his marching orders. Sure, he might get a retroactive ban, but think of the game - he goes off, Wigan go down to ten, and maybe Newcastle claw something back. All they needed was a replay available to the fourth official and suddenly the game changes.
I know I harp on about it all the time, but football has changed. The money has changed, the ethic has changed, the very fabric of the game has changed over time. Surely technology has to change too.
The real case for video technology
posted on 18/3/13
KPPR -
I understand the FA wanting to protect its referees. But I don't agree with it. If you protect someone who makes mistakes but don't address the issue or improve the situation (which can't be done in this case, as humans are fallible and refs are about as good now as they ever will be), then the pattern will repeat itself.
I've fallen foul of referees before - last season, the goalie for my Sunday team was knocked out cold by an elbow to the head during a corner. The ref gave no foul, let the goal stand and even the lino - himself a qualified ref - saw the incident from further away. But as he was a young, fast tracked ref, the local FA protected him at all costs and our complaints fell on deaf ears while our keeper recovered over the next few weeks. So I have a personal beef with the overprotection offered to match officials.
The powers that be seem to want more and more revenue in the sport, but they don't want to be able to make the decisions that would keep it fair and accurate. That's like buying an expensive car but then not paying to maintain it. It will end in tears.
posted on 18/3/13
I say no to video technology.
There would have been nothing to talk about today had McManaman been sent off.
Football is great the way it is, no need to ruin it.
posted on 18/3/13
give the refs the help they need, no much coaching is going to improve things.
video please
posted on 18/3/13
I understand the FA wanting to protect its referees. But I don't agree with it. If you protect someone who makes mistakes but don't address the issue or improve the situation (which can't be done in this case, as humans are fallible and refs are about as good now as they ever will be), then the pattern will repeat itself.
I've fallen foul of referees before - last season, the goalie for my Sunday team was knocked out cold by an elbow to the head during a corner. The ref gave no foul, let the goal stand and even the lino - himself a qualified ref - saw the incident from further away. But as he was a young, fast tracked ref, the local FA protected him at all costs and our complaints fell on deaf ears while our keeper recovered over the next few weeks. So I have a personal beef with the overprotection offered to match officials.
============
i agree completely - i think the worst part is that referees have less excuses for their mistakes than before.
up until the nineties, they were amateurs who did other jobs, so there was less uproar about their gaffes. but now, they're paid to referee games professionally, and yet the standard of refereeing actually appears to be going backwards. what do these clowns do all week between games? surely they could find time to work on their own knowledge of the game to ensure consistency in their decisions? or maybe watch the way the best referees handle games to improve themselves?
posted on 18/3/13
Give the refs Google Glasses. On TV we see replays almost instantly, there is no reason why the referee should not have access to these instant replays. With Google Glasses he can watch the game and the replay at the same time, and call play back if needs be.
There is no need to stop the game whilst they wactch the replay or anything, if he feels the need to pull play back, then that is fine. If not, then the game carry's on as normal.
If that is too hard for them, then just give the 4th official a tablet and he can just tell the ref over the radio.
posted on 18/3/13
comment by RonAlvinho (U6117)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
I say no to video technology.
There would have been nothing to talk about today had McManaman been sent off.
Football is great the way it is, no need to ruin it.
----------------
So for you the only interesting talking point in a Football match is the referee? For you it's about the referee's performance over the players?
This is exactly why Football doesn't move forward
posted on 18/3/13
Let the ref decide when to confer with the 4th official and let the 4th official have access to replays. No slowing down of the game, no lessening of referee control, just more correct decisions.
posted on 19/3/13
No Fergie, don't be stupid. What i like about football is the unpredictability. One week you get all the luck, the next you think the world is on a personal vendetta against your team.
Video technology will take some of that unpredictability away. What would once have left you venting for weeks will be over in a couple of seconds and what would have caught you counting your lucky stars will disappear in an instance.
That's who rugby and tennis is so boring. Nothing can go wrong.
posted on 19/3/13
"To keep up with progress in the world, you must buy this new thing or you are a tottering old fool who is left behind" - that stick has been used for ages by door-to-door salesmen to sell overpriced, crappy wares.
My main objection to video technology is that it would lead to more stoppages of play. You have only to look at US sports like basketball to see the catastrophic consequences.
The benefits of video technology, however, are smaller than you think. The incidences where a clearly wrong decision was made which lead to a goal or a dismissal are few and far between - I would guess about once per 5 matches. The other "wrong" decisions are either inconsequential or are still a matter of opinion even after extensive review of the video replay.
It is the media who lead the push for video technology because it would give them the opportunity to cram more advertising in. Don't let yourself be fooled by their propaganda.
posted on 19/3/13
It is the media who lead the push for video technology because it would give them the opportunity to cram more advertising in. Don't let yourself be fooled by their propaganda.
nail........hit.........on.........head