I'd rather go to a football match that lasts 100 minutes with correct refereeing decisions than one that lasts 90 with all the wrong ones.
....................
No thanks. Spending 90 mins in Liverpool is 90 mins too long. Don't want to make it even longer in that sheithole
No to tampering with the beautiful game!
It's not rugby, its football.
comment by Park Lane Geezer (U10205)
posted 2 minutes ago
"It's all about cutting out the howlers"
Exactly! Why would anyone be opposed to that aspiration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Human error is part and parcel of the game.
Players make mistakes, managers make mistakes and referees make mistakes
It ain't broke.
Georgi
We've all experienced that gut wrenching feeling leaving a match upset that an obvious mistake by the officials has left us angry and feeling cheated. Has to be addressed somehow.
Refs will just abdicate responsibility, if in doubt go to the video. Whining about decisions is as much part of football as pies and programmes.
Only those with a financial interest or those too emotionally unstable are calling for video refs.
Hector
There was a time when crossbars were made of rope, no substitutes were available, referees didn't use a whistle, players could be kicked black and blue by hatchet men etc etc and there were people who would say "if it ain't broke".
Park lane.
Fair comments but the you're talking about sanitizing football, removing the element of human error, its not for me.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 4 minutes ago
Park lane.
Fair comments but the you're talking about sanitizing football, removing the element of human error, its not for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The human error remains. The players make errors all the time. The officiating should be above error as much as possible - and if that means using advancements in technology so be it.
The errors made by officials are part of the game.
A part that can be significantly reduced.
I don't believe any proponents of introducing video technology are suggesting that it would be used for every decision, that would be ludicrous. As I suggested above as a way to use it both teams would have three challenges and a review would take place and a decision could be overturned or confirmed by the officials. Much like the system used in tennis with the Hawkeye system. Nobody involved in tennis has ever regretted using the technology to ensure correct decision making takes place.
It isn't a relevant part.
It wouldn't be applicable to every level, only some in the TV audience want it.
Sorry, but bad decisions by a neutral party is very relevant.
comment by the black rooney - glory glory man united MUFC In decline since 1995! (U11383)
posted 46 minutes ago
And now hull denied an absolute stone wall penalty, how can refs not spot that????
-----------------------------------------------------------
The same reason the linesman incorrectly flagged Costa offside for his ruled out goal - human error!
Like I said, its part of the game.
Human error.
comment by Manc Python (U17527)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never said it has been the same though have I? Video technology will just dramatically slow the game down
-------------------------------------------------------------
How will it slow the game down?
Don't tell me it's going to take longer to decide an incident than a dozen players surrounding the ref trying to impart their version of events for two minutes or more!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because someone will have to spend a couple of minutes deciding whether it is a foul or not looking at it from numerous different angles to make sure they come to the correct decision because if they come to the wrong decision then there will be even more of an uproar
------------------------------------------------------------------
You think it will take that long!!!!!
Just because "its part of the game" doesn't make it right, and nor does it mean that something to negate human error of the neutral official shouldn't be introduced if possible.
Agree to disagree. The old cliche of things evening themselves out over a season rings true, some you win some you lose, its'part of the game'.
If it can't be introduced to all levels it shouldn't be introduced.
Video technology would be a good addition as an aid to the referee.
Does it slow the game down?
Not if used properly - e.g., only for goal line decisions such as did the ball go over or not.
In fact it is already in use for adjudicating red card appeals.
Some Spurs fans may remember the famous case where a Spurs player (maybe it was Sandro?) lofted the ball from the halfway line into the net and the opposing GK hauled it out and pretended he had saved it from going over the line. Both linesmen were caught at the halfway line and didn't see it. So, no goal was given. But video showed clearly what had happened.
Pedro Mendes.
Against Man Utd, with Roy Carroll in goal.
It was a shocking decision, an error that simply shouldn't happen.
Ted & DJ
I remember that incident very well. It was a horrible decision to accept. The other high profile similar incident that still grates with me was the Frank Lampard goal that never was against the Germans in the World Cup. Thankfully no fan has to endure such unjust errors regarding ball over/not over the line any more. The progressive point of view has seen to that.
Now the additional use of video technology for other matters has to be fought and won. Logic and the demand for fair play will eventually prevail. The only issue is how long will it take before it is introduced.
Lads - We are in agreement!
Careful use, me thinks.
And ... Dj ... I seem to remember that game ended in a draw whereas it should have been a win for spurs.
So, cost us 2 pts.
Two decisions, talked about years after they happened, that's football. Justice and injustice are what helps make it so emotional. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean we should use it, football would lose a little bit of its soul.
It's a game, its not science.
One of the issues with vid tech is this.
City's 2nd goal had Wanyama lose possession, hit the deck and call for a foul, 2 seconds later and Lloris has fumbled City a goal. So what if the video shows a foul on Wanyama ?
Tricky one eh ?
Red card tackles could be one occasion , the ref thinks it's a red card and asks the video ref to confirm before giving marching orders ....but it's all down to human opinions - video ref may not agree with actual ref.
Sign in if you want to comment
Video technology
Page 2 of 4
posted on 22/1/17
I'd rather go to a football match that lasts 100 minutes with correct refereeing decisions than one that lasts 90 with all the wrong ones.
....................
No thanks. Spending 90 mins in Liverpool is 90 mins too long. Don't want to make it even longer in that sheithole
posted on 22/1/17
No to tampering with the beautiful game!
It's not rugby, its football.
posted on 22/1/17
comment by Park Lane Geezer (U10205)
posted 2 minutes ago
"It's all about cutting out the howlers"
Exactly! Why would anyone be opposed to that aspiration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Human error is part and parcel of the game.
Players make mistakes, managers make mistakes and referees make mistakes
It ain't broke.
posted on 22/1/17
Georgi
We've all experienced that gut wrenching feeling leaving a match upset that an obvious mistake by the officials has left us angry and feeling cheated. Has to be addressed somehow.
posted on 22/1/17
Refs will just abdicate responsibility, if in doubt go to the video. Whining about decisions is as much part of football as pies and programmes.
Only those with a financial interest or those too emotionally unstable are calling for video refs.
posted on 22/1/17
Hector
There was a time when crossbars were made of rope, no substitutes were available, referees didn't use a whistle, players could be kicked black and blue by hatchet men etc etc and there were people who would say "if it ain't broke".
posted on 22/1/17
Park lane.
Fair comments but the you're talking about sanitizing football, removing the element of human error, its not for me.
posted on 22/1/17
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 4 minutes ago
Park lane.
Fair comments but the you're talking about sanitizing football, removing the element of human error, its not for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The human error remains. The players make errors all the time. The officiating should be above error as much as possible - and if that means using advancements in technology so be it.
posted on 22/1/17
The errors made by officials are part of the game.
posted on 22/1/17
A part that can be significantly reduced.
posted on 22/1/17
I don't believe any proponents of introducing video technology are suggesting that it would be used for every decision, that would be ludicrous. As I suggested above as a way to use it both teams would have three challenges and a review would take place and a decision could be overturned or confirmed by the officials. Much like the system used in tennis with the Hawkeye system. Nobody involved in tennis has ever regretted using the technology to ensure correct decision making takes place.
posted on 22/1/17
It isn't a relevant part.
It wouldn't be applicable to every level, only some in the TV audience want it.
posted on 22/1/17
Sorry, but bad decisions by a neutral party is very relevant.
posted on 22/1/17
comment by the black rooney - glory glory man united MUFC In decline since 1995! (U11383)
posted 46 minutes ago
And now hull denied an absolute stone wall penalty, how can refs not spot that????
-----------------------------------------------------------
The same reason the linesman incorrectly flagged Costa offside for his ruled out goal - human error!
posted on 22/1/17
Like I said, its part of the game.
Human error.
posted on 22/1/17
comment by Manc Python (U17527)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never said it has been the same though have I? Video technology will just dramatically slow the game down
-------------------------------------------------------------
How will it slow the game down?
Don't tell me it's going to take longer to decide an incident than a dozen players surrounding the ref trying to impart their version of events for two minutes or more!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because someone will have to spend a couple of minutes deciding whether it is a foul or not looking at it from numerous different angles to make sure they come to the correct decision because if they come to the wrong decision then there will be even more of an uproar
------------------------------------------------------------------
You think it will take that long!!!!!
posted on 22/1/17
Just because "its part of the game" doesn't make it right, and nor does it mean that something to negate human error of the neutral official shouldn't be introduced if possible.
posted on 22/1/17
Agree to disagree. The old cliche of things evening themselves out over a season rings true, some you win some you lose, its'part of the game'.
If it can't be introduced to all levels it shouldn't be introduced.
posted on 22/1/17
Video technology would be a good addition as an aid to the referee.
Does it slow the game down?
Not if used properly - e.g., only for goal line decisions such as did the ball go over or not.
In fact it is already in use for adjudicating red card appeals.
Some Spurs fans may remember the famous case where a Spurs player (maybe it was Sandro?) lofted the ball from the halfway line into the net and the opposing GK hauled it out and pretended he had saved it from going over the line. Both linesmen were caught at the halfway line and didn't see it. So, no goal was given. But video showed clearly what had happened.
posted on 22/1/17
Pedro Mendes.
Against Man Utd, with Roy Carroll in goal.
It was a shocking decision, an error that simply shouldn't happen.
posted on 22/1/17
Ted & DJ
I remember that incident very well. It was a horrible decision to accept. The other high profile similar incident that still grates with me was the Frank Lampard goal that never was against the Germans in the World Cup. Thankfully no fan has to endure such unjust errors regarding ball over/not over the line any more. The progressive point of view has seen to that.
Now the additional use of video technology for other matters has to be fought and won. Logic and the demand for fair play will eventually prevail. The only issue is how long will it take before it is introduced.
posted on 22/1/17
Lads - We are in agreement!
Careful use, me thinks.
And ... Dj ... I seem to remember that game ended in a draw whereas it should have been a win for spurs.
So, cost us 2 pts.
posted on 22/1/17
Two decisions, talked about years after they happened, that's football. Justice and injustice are what helps make it so emotional. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean we should use it, football would lose a little bit of its soul.
It's a game, its not science.
posted on 23/1/17
One of the issues with vid tech is this.
City's 2nd goal had Wanyama lose possession, hit the deck and call for a foul, 2 seconds later and Lloris has fumbled City a goal. So what if the video shows a foul on Wanyama ?
Tricky one eh ?
posted on 23/1/17
Red card tackles could be one occasion , the ref thinks it's a red card and asks the video ref to confirm before giving marching orders ....but it's all down to human opinions - video ref may not agree with actual ref.
Page 2 of 4