Premiership Refs - Is it time for video evidence?

Discussion in 'Sports, Adventure Training and Events' started by drain_sniffer, Nov 20, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In the last few weeks, the Refs have been getting plenty of stick - some justified, most not. Is it time to introduce technology as per Rugby, or should the FA tell the whinging managers (this includes Mourinho before you all start) to wind it in and accept that sometimes Refs make mistakes.

    I personally feel that introducing technology is not the way forward, but having 4 linesmen to assist the ref would work.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. if you go down the road of video evidencing, you run the risk that a 90 minute game of football extends to 4 hours whilst every decision gets audited.
     
  3. For penalties, red cards, video technology should be used. As a viewer you can see a replay in less than 10 seconds, 4th official should get the same info no probs, and it takes a lot longer than 10 secs for the ref to get the game restarted, so why not?

    Incidently, i reckon ref's should take another great idea from Rugby, which is that only team captains should approach the ref to discuss decisions, not the 22 man cluster seen several times a match.

    TB

    [edited for mong spelling]
     
  4. I think perhaps football has quite a lot to learn from rugby if those who ran it were big enough to realise they don't always have all the answers.

    Rugby has been far more willing to change the rules to inprove the game for both the players and the spectators. Yes to many footballers see the refereee as some one who can be intimidated, make yellow cards hurt send the blighters off for 10 minutes, team managers will soon start to clean up the game. Use video evidence both at the game and later, give the linesmen more power, and have a post match examination for foul play, especially off the ball, so that those who escape the eye of the ref will still be punished.

    Peter
     
  5. its long overdue - go for it!
     
  6. The rationale behind the reticence to introduce video technology is that the powers that be wish to retain the same conditions for a Sunday morning pub game right up to the World Cup Final. That idea is great in the abstract, but is fundamentally flawed, because they aren't the same. You try hurling abuse at a ref on a Sun AM like the Premiership refs receive and you will be on the receiving end of a 35 day ban and a 60 quid fine. I know....

    So FIFA's argument is flawed and the Premiership should instigate video ref calls for offsides, balls crossing the line, and diving. But only when the ball enters the net. All Premiership grounds have viseo walls. It should be an exception rather than the rule, and they should look at Rugby LEAGUE to see how it should be done.
     
  7. I think with the amount of money riding on champions league places and some games for the clubs video analysis is long overdue. There's a natural break in the game anyway so it wouldn't hold up the game as much as people say it will.
     
  8. Ditto - at least in rugby the ref is treated with respect, plus after just watching the Rovers v Spurs game I'd love to see some video tech. involved when it comes to penalty decisions.... :evil:

    lancslad
     
  9. That's tosh! You don't find rugby games running well over time like that!

    Although you don't get quite as many issues as you would find during a game of "kissball" either! :p
     
  10. If the video ref has the right technology stuff it takes very little time and the descision can be justified so really there is no reason not to do it.

    From the Scotsman

    "The independent match commissioner, Matt Bayliss from England, has until 4.30pm today to cite any players from the game and it would come as no surprise were others to appear alongside Vaki before a discipline panel. His compatriot Nili Latu, the openside flanker, blatantly punched Scottish players on more than one occasion, starting a fight with Allan Jacobsen at one point, while Maama Molitika, the replacement lock, appeared to try to gouge the eyes of Simon Taylor in another incident."

    Another very good use for video technology, creating no hiding place for those who break the rules and are not seen at the time by the referee or linesman.
     
  11. Introducing the ability for the ref to award the moving of a free-kick forward 10 yards, as he can do in rugby, would make a massive difference to players crowding the ref and the dissent that follows the award of contentious free-kicks or decisions against them. It was trialled before for a season with good results at semi-professional levels but not itroduced more widely.

    There is a case for introducing video technology for the ball crossing the line but not for anything else. Similarly, the introduction of additional referees assistants would not make a great deal of difference. What would help considerably is players actually knowing the laws of the game and understanding that the referee is applying them to the game as it's played by both teams. I referee at a decent standard on Saturdays and play on Sundays and, in the majority of cases, it's the players who make the game easier for the referee to officiate.

    The furore regarding Graham Poll and Phil Dowd's sending-off of players in recent games is media-driven- in these cases, the fouls commited by 2 of the players concerned and the abusive, insulting or offensive language used by the 3rd, all warranted a sending-off.
     
  12. This was tried out in the Prem and it can have negative results. For instance, a free kick from 30 yards is ideal for someone like Beckham. Oposition show a little descent, it gets moved forward 10 yards, and suddenly the free kick is not such an easy one. I agree with the idea that only captains should approach the ref. The trouble I have with evidence is that clear guidlines for its use need to be controlled, and ONLY for given situations i.e Goaline, Pen claims and sending off offences. If you start doing replays for every offside etc it will turn into American football. I also believe the introduction of 4 linesmen would assist the ref. Managers also have to take responsability and take a deep breath before they speak to the media. For example, Mark Hughes yesterday said that Phil Dowed was wrong to not give a Pen when Mido "clearly" handballed. Watch the replay and it clearly comes from his chest. Managers should not speak to the media for at least 24hrs following the game to allow them to take a reflective view.
     
  13. This was tried out in the Prem and it can have negative results. For instance, a free kick from 30 yards is ideal for someone like Beckham. Oposition show a little descent, it gets moved forward 10 yards, and suddenly the free kick is not such an easy one. I agree with the idea that only captains should approach the ref. The trouble I have with evidence is that clear guidlines for its use need to be controlled, and ONLY for given situations i.e Goaline, Pen claims and sending off offences. If you start doing replays for every offside etc it will turn into American football. I also believe the introduction of 4 linesmen would assist the ref. Managers also have to take responsability and take a deep breath before they speak to the media. For example, Mark Hughes yesterday said that Phil Dowed was wrong to not give a Pen when Mido "clearly" handballed. Watch the replay and it clearly comes from his chest. Managers should not speak to the media for at least 24hrs following the game to allow them to take a reflective view.[/quote]

    Re emboldened text, that would be the purpose of introducing such a law change. If playere knew that the referee had the facility to punish for them dissent then they would zip it and stop gobbing off. The fact that more players who do gob off are not cautioned for dissent by word or action shows that the referees have a higher tolerance level than imagined and could use and apply a 10 yard rule as appropriate.
     
  14.