Video Replay

Baloni and I have been talking about how to improve the reffing of games.

I believe that the EPL needs to institute video replay for red cards and
penalty shots. I think if there was just video replay on red
cards and penalty shots it would force refs to pay more attention and
only call what they see, now what they think they saw or what they think
might have happened.

Thoughts?

> Baloni and I have been talking about how to improve the reffing of games.

I think it's useless. I think it's only purpose is to decide whether the
ball crossed the line or not. Many decisions are subjective and we have
often enough heard refs say they did the right thing even after reviewing on
video what everybody else see as an insane decision. The FA already uses
video to assess red cards and they are doing a ridiculous job. Lampard
kicking and hitting out at Reo Coker and his red card is revoked...same week
as Aliadiere gets extra ban. Video does not change anything.

"Ultra Roland Deodorant" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7E638D68747RD@216.196.97.131...

Penalty shots? What are they? Isn't that golf?

I assume you are on the wrong side of the pond.

It's penalty kicks, mate. As for your point, no - video analysis only for
"over the line" decisions, thank you very much.

"Graybags" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]:



very insightful...and you wayed your time typing that shit...why?

Graybags wrote:




Absolutely correct. Those are the only situations where such evidence
would work, but I am not sure that it justifies the expense? No problem
for the big clubs, but installing and servicing this equipment for the
very few ( possibly none) occasions it would be needed in a season might
seem an unrequired expense for the smaller ones. And do we want special
rules for EPL clubs only ? Rules that cannot be applied to football
played by local small clubs?

But it is about time we put this idea to bed. It is one of those not
thought through solutions which sounds fine until you consider how it
would work in practice. I have yet to hear anything sensible from those
who advocate it, about how it would work on the field. Even less on what
it would do to the game. It only takes 2 mins thought to realise what a
disrupting influence it would have and how bloody silly it is.

Seems that " it works in other sports" is enough evidence, without any
regard to how different those sports are, and how video evidence has a
very restricted use in them. They are not used for matters of
interpretation. Only on matters of fact. Very wise too, because we know
how the pundits opinions differ even after studying replays when it
comes to "was it a foul" ?

The main problem is the differences in interpretation by refs. The same
incident will be seen as foul play by some but not by others. Getting
uniformity into refereeing is what is needed rather than giving bad refs
video aids.




LC

lescor laid this down on his screen :

Football is a fast game, played at speed. Decisions should be made in
real time, particularly decisions that involve human interperatation.
As I type, people on Sky are still debating wether the penalties at
Emirates/Anfield are penalties, so you cant win. I believe most
decisions are correct, but we only talk about the ones that are viewed
to be wrong.

The only exception for me, would be goals deemed to be offside. Just
let the goal get scored, and then flag, and then a quick look will tell
us. Theres no debate. It seems every game I watch on sky there are
plays pulled up, where a superb pass to a perfectly timed run has the
flag waving. No one makes a fuss.

My other sport, Rugby League, each week sees painful repeat replays to
see wether downward prssure was applied, and other such rules, and its
impossible to tell in most cases.

Careful what you wish for

"Ultra Roland Deodorant" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7EB256CFE5BRD@216.196.97.131...

Pot, kettle etc.

As for video replays, it's just not an effective way to decide on a foul. As
others have said, one person's view of whether it's a foul or not is very
different from another's. You can only use video evidence in matters of
"fact" - over the line and (possibly) offside.

Other sports that use replays are already stop/start. American football,
Cricket etc. Rugby league and rugby union use it, but only for "was it a
try, or not" decisions - not fouls or penalties. The game is going to be
held up at that point anyway.

In football, offsides should only be given if there is an obvious following
advantage to the attacking side (goal, corner, free kick in dangerous place
etc). At the point at which the ball goes dead, someone will have looked at
the offside and made a decision.

The same goes for "was it a goal or not" over the line decisions. I think it
is worth the investment - even if it's only at the top level (Premiership,
internationals) - that's where incorrect decisions cost the most. If it's a
pub team, it isn't going to matter so much - you can have rules that apply
at the top of the game, but not at grass roots. My son plays Under 13s
football. They have different rules - rolling substitutions (i.e. you can go
off and come back on again) etc.

Graybags

> As for video replays, it's just not an effective way to decide on a foul.

Agreed.


I agree it should only be used to decide whether the ball crossed the line,
but 'intelligent' balls are already being invented/tested. That's a ball
with a chip that will tell if the ball crossed the line or not. Far more
effective if it turns out to be working.

As for offside It's my opinion that play should always go on. If a goal is
scored then the refs can review if there was offside. But I still don't
think it's necessary. Sometimes you will get goals that are offside and
sometimes you will be robbed of a good goal. Might pretty much even out.

Graybags wrote:

I know what you are saying but isn't this one of the problems that has
caused so many problems with the new interpretation of the offside rule.
Before you were either offside or not now it depends on whether you are
interfering with play ... to make it into if you gain an advantage seems
to be making what is a difficult enough job for the ref. all most
impossible. The ref's job should be made as simple as possible not the
other way around.

On Apr 13, 5:08 am, lescor <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

If I may, great points. I read somewhere else that it's 1,000
to 1 to play pro football and 100 to 1 to become a referee.
The standards and training have everything to do with how
a match is going to be judged... and another point was how
the referees are assigned to games and the notice given.

There's all sorts of gambling and thrown games in the US.
Does it happen in England and the rest of Europe?
Within the last year a few NBA referees were caught
rigging games.

Does that play a part in all of this or is it just
constant bad calls?