Goal-line technology and reviews

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Ah, abuse. Always the first resort of the person who's run out of cogent arguments.

It is a pretty ropey argument though. You're assuming it takes ages to get a result in the first place, and you could have exactly the same problem with the delay in a ref giving a decision, or a linesman giving a decision the ref doesn't immediately spot.

You're best argument is it effecting the flow of the game, and its a valid one. Dredging up some spurious crap about what you'd do if a goal is scored at the other end or a player sent off is nonsense.

If the ball crosses the line and the ref doesn't give it not noticing the lino flagging for a goal, and the ball comes back out and then an attacker goes in two footed on a defender trying to win the ball taking him out dangerously and the ref blows for a freekick and a red card. Then the ref notices the lino. Gives a goal, freekick overturned, red card not rescinded.

Exactly the same situation as you're saying mustn't be allowed to happen by introducing video replays. The replays just gives a little extra time window for these things.

Arsenal-Chelsea game this weekend.

Arsenal have a shout for a pen, but the ball breaks up the other end and Torres then has a shout for a pen. Ok, in this instance neither were given, but you can see how stopping the game after the first one could have a massive detrimental effect on the game...... especially as a lot of action happens on the break.

Calling for a review is one sure fire way of a team stopping the other team breaking (and one that would get abused heavily), akin to players staying down to get the game stopped when the other team is breaking

[Platypuss]

Surely not a probem when you can only carry out the review once the ball is dead.

[cmonurz]

Surely not a probem when you can only carry out the review once the ball is dead.

What elements of the play subsequently made before the ball goes dead are wiped out if the review is upheld?

[sheshnu]

Surely if the fourth official (or fifth?) is carrying out the review then play can continue in the meantime anyway.

[cmonurz]

I’m against any sort of ‘review’ system, but my point was if a review is upheld, presumably any goal subsequently scored before that is actioned is wiped out. What about a red card incident that happens in the mean-time? Too many variables – as ridiculous an assertion as Ross Taylor’s (T20 cricket) that Steve Finn’s knee-ing the stumps at the bowlers end should only result in a dead ball if the batsman gets out.

[sheshnu]

If play is brought back after the fourth official's review, then the ball can be considered as 'dead' for the time since the incident in question. You can still be booked and sent off while the ball is dead but you can't score a goal.

Not sure why anybody is that bothered about a game of football but that's the way it would probably have to work.

[creative_username_1]

Maybe we could test it somewhere get some empirical evidence. Put this thread on hold with it's boring
bullshit arguments and see what works. There is a lot of what you think will happen with a few anecdotal
incidents to back up your argument.

You don't know that it will disrupt the game
You don't know what it will lead to in the future

fwiw i'm fully in the 'it's a game (IAG)' camp

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I’m against any sort of ‘review’ system, but my point was if a review is upheld, presumably any goal subsequently scored before that is actioned is wiped out. What about a red card incident that happens in the mean-time? Too many variables – as ridiculous an assertion as Ross Taylor’s (T20 cricket) that Steve Finn’s knee-ing the stumps at the bowlers end should only result in a dead ball if the batsman gets out.

It depends what the red card was for. A professional foul, then yes, it'd be wiped out if the play was brought back for an earlier foul. Violent conduct or abusive language towards the ref, then no.

[Hoop Blah]

Why the distinction though? The red card is for extreme cheating and I'd say it should still be punished (as much as any other ball out of play infringement) as the intent is still the same as if the action was 'live'.

I'm not in favour of reviews. Yes in some cases the decisions could be improved through another look, but in the majority of cases 'experts' can't agree on whats happened and refs are just the same (see the level of inconsistency between one refs decisions and anothers in the same weekend) and this would just make for more pressure and analysis on 'wrong' decisions that are just another persons opinion on what the ref has made a decision on.

There is a much stronger argument, IMO, for matter of fact decisions, such as the ball crossing the line, than there is for the majority of deicisions and I just feel the game will be ruined if the ebb and flow of the game is disrupted.

I'd go so far so to say I'd stop watching leagues with video reviews in place if it were ever brought in.

[Ian Royal]

Ah, abuse. Always the first resort of the person who's run out of cogent arguments.

It is a pretty ropey argument though. You're assuming it takes ages to get a result in the first place, and you could have exactly the same problem with the delay in a ref giving a decision, or a linesman giving a decision the ref doesn't immediately spot.

You're best argument is it effecting the flow of the game, and its a valid one. Dredging up some spurious crap about what you'd do if a goal is scored at the other end or a player sent off is nonsense.

If the ball crosses the line and the ref doesn't give it not noticing the lino flagging for a goal, and the ball comes back out and then an attacker goes in two footed on a defender trying to win the ball taking him out dangerously and the ref blows for a freekick and a red card. Then the ref notices the lino. Gives a goal, freekick overturned, red card not rescinded.

Exactly the same situation as you're saying mustn't be allowed to happen by introducing video replays. The replays just gives a little extra time window for these things.

Arsenal-Chelsea game this weekend.

Arsenal have a shout for a pen, but the ball breaks up the other end and Torres then has a shout for a pen. Ok, in this instance neither were given, but you can see how stopping the game after the first one could have a massive detrimental effect on the game...... especially as a lot of action happens on the break.

Calling for a review is one sure fire way of a team stopping the other team breaking (and one that would get abused heavily), akin to players staying down to get the game stopped when the other team is breaking

Not much of an issue if you can only do it once a game IMO. And you could punish obviously spurious reviews, similarly to obviously spurious red card appeals get punished.

[cmonurz]

It's absolutely an issue. Arsenal are 1-0 up in injury time and Chelsea break with 4 on 3. Review time!

Football simply doesn't lend itself to a review system

[Ian Royal]

It's absolutely an issue. Arsenal are 1-0 up in injury time and Chelsea break with 4 on 3. Review time!

Football simply doesn't lend itself to a review system

Depends what sort of review system we're talking about. If it's the sort where a team can ask for X reviews a game it'd have to be claimed immediately and then you'd have to stop the game. In which case there's virtually no time for that sort of situation to develop. Even in the best of circumstances it takes 8 or 9 seconds to get up the other end of the pitch.

We'd be talking about the most unlikely of circumstances, and I don't think you can really make decisions on things like this based solely on things that may happen extremely rarely.

No one wants to see football have time outs every 10 minutes. That would be horrific. But there's a bit of a kneejerk dismissive reaction to even the possibility of a system to allow particularly contentious decisions to be looked on rare occasions, without even considering how it could be implemented.

[Platypuss]

Surely not a probem when you can only carry out the review once the ball is dead.

What elements of the play subsequently made before the ball goes dead are wiped out if the review is upheld?

Could you explain what you mean by that a bit more?

[cmonurz]

Essentially what I'm suggesting is it's a fundamental change to the laws of the game. You create a game within a game - presumably goals whilst a review is made and then upheld would be scrubbed off, but what about red cards, or bookings?

[John Madejski's Wallet]

It's absolutely an issue. Arsenal are 1-0 up in injury time and Chelsea break with 4 on 3. Review time!

Football simply doesn't lend itself to a review system

Depends what sort of review system we're talking about. If it's the sort where a team can ask for X reviews a game it'd have to be claimed immediately and then you'd have to stop the game. In which case there's virtually no time for that sort of situation to develop. Even in the best of circumstances it takes 8 or 9 seconds to get up the other end of the pitch.

We'd be talking about the most unlikely of circumstances, and I don't think you can really make decisions on things like this based solely on things that may happen extremely rarely.

No one wants to see football have time outs every 10 minutes. That would be horrific. But there's a bit of a kneejerk dismissive reaction to even the possibility of a system to allow particularly contentious decisions to be looked on rare occasions, without even considering how it could be implemented.

The problem, and why some of us react with horror to any kind of review system, is that we dont even have goal line technology yet.

For years the debate was about whether to use goal line tech, and its gone forward under the proviso that it should ONLY be used for that and that anything else would ruin football. (thats how those pushing for it got it through). We now have an agreement to use it, but before it implemented, people are already talking about the next step.

There's always a next step. You say start with one review. All it takes is a controversial decision in a big game when all reviews have been used, and the then we'll have 2 review. And then 3.

Its an unpredictable game at times and thats what I love about it.

[ZacNaloen]

It's absolutely an issue. Arsenal are 1-0 up in injury time and Chelsea break with 4 on 3. Review time!

Football simply doesn't lend itself to a review system

You can avoid that simply by making it a 1 review a game ploy.

If you use it to disrupt the opposition and then you have a major call you wanted reviewing later on, tough titties you wasted it earlier you idiot.

[ZacNaloen]

The problem, and why some of us react with horror to any kind of review system, is that we dont even have goal line technology yet.

For years the debate was about whether to use goal line tech, and its gone forward under the proviso that it should ONLY be used for that and that anything else would ruin football. (thats how those pushing for it got it through). We now have an agreement to use it, but before it implemented, people are already talking about the next step.

There's always a next step. You say start with one review. All it takes is a controversial decision in a big game when all reviews have been used, and the then we'll have 2 review. And then 3.

Its an unpredictable game at times and thats what I love about it.

Unfortunately the human element of referee error is what I absolutely hate about it.

Football has so much money it shouldn't be stuck in the dark ages.


Referees deserve all the help they need, technological or otherwise to make the correct call.

[cmonurz]

I just don’t think a review system fits football. It works in rugby to decide if a try has been scored (has the ball been put down over the line, or not); it works in cricket for run outs (is the batsman over the line, or not) and lbws (is the batsman hit in line, or not) – how would it be used in football?

Is it a penalty or not? Is it handball or not? A video doesn’t tell you if a handball was deliberate; a video doesn’t show you conclusively whether a player was looking for a foul, going down too easily, making the most of minor contact etc. Technology works for yes/no decisions, that’s it, which is why I support goal-line technology (did the ball go in the goal, or not), but not an artificial system that breaks up play and allows team to review situations with many variables.

[Ian Royal]

It's absolutely an issue. Arsenal are 1-0 up in injury time and Chelsea break with 4 on 3. Review time!

Football simply doesn't lend itself to a review system

Depends what sort of review system we're talking about. If it's the sort where a team can ask for X reviews a game it'd have to be claimed immediately and then you'd have to stop the game. In which case there's virtually no time for that sort of situation to develop. Even in the best of circumstances it takes 8 or 9 seconds to get up the other end of the pitch.

We'd be talking about the most unlikely of circumstances, and I don't think you can really make decisions on things like this based solely on things that may happen extremely rarely.

No one wants to see football have time outs every 10 minutes. That would be horrific. But there's a bit of a kneejerk dismissive reaction to even the possibility of a system to allow particularly contentious decisions to be looked on rare occasions, without even considering how it could be implemented.

The problem, and why some of us react with horror to any kind of review system, is that we dont even have goal line technology yet.

For years the debate was about whether to use goal line tech, and its gone forward under the proviso that it should ONLY be used for that and that anything else would ruin football. (thats how those pushing for it got it through). We now have an agreement to use it, but before it implemented, people are already talking about the next step.

There's always a next step. You say start with one review. All it takes is a controversial decision in a big game when all reviews have been used, and the then we'll have 2 review. And then 3.

Its an unpredictable game at times and thats what I love about it.

Nothing wrong with talking about it, it's a discussion forum afterall. And the basic principle still applies, football must not have the flow of the game significantly altered. In fact I think it should be improved by doing more about player's feigning injury to slow the game down and time wasting. You can keep to that principle with a limited review system. It's been shown to work in other similar team sports.

I'm not sold on a review system, but it certainly seems worthy of something to consider. I'd be absolutely against unlimited, or large numbers of video reviews going on "in game" though.

GL tech deals with one glaring problem that should have been dealt with a decade ago. But it isn't the only problem so it makes sense to continue to look at how technology can improve football. And it is about imprpvoing it. So anything that signficantly slows the game down isn't and improvement.

[cmonurz]

I’d sooner the laws were changed to allow video to be used to retrospectively punish players for cheating or reckless play.