Video Ref?

Discussion in 'Sports, Adventure Training and Events' started by foodie, Aug 27, 2009.

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. Having just watched the news, for once I have to find myself agreeing with something in the World according to Sky News.

    I refer to the argument on Video Refs in Football! Having seen Eduardo go down quicker than Monica Lewinsky on a free diary day, I must ask the question of why the hell are they not in Football yet?

    We have seen hawk eye put to great effect in Tennis and Cricket, Video Refs in Rugby and Cricket. Yet Football just seems to be stuck in the past! Maybe the players would welcome it as it would give them a chance to preen their hair or actually do something usefull as apposed to arguing fruitlessley with the Ref. 2 Clips of the Eduardo event last night showed that the keeper did nothing wrong and that it was just a goal kick. All in the space of 30 seconds! Considering we normally have a 2 min stop in play if another played is brushed by a butterfly and concequently rolls around on the floor as if he has been hit by a sledge hammer! That sponge must be really majic as low and behold he is back up and sprinting to the next opportunity to cheat as soon as he is on his feet!

    WHY OH WHY OH WHY?

    These players are role models to millions of people who watch them cheat and lie their way to success? No sport is devoid of this I'm not trying to say that. But Football has such a mass following and more cash than most countries that surely it can afford to pay another bloke to watch the game on the telly and make a decision if required.

    As you can probably tell this really grips my sh*t. Am I barking up the wrong tree or does action need taking?
     
  2. Like you say it works perfectly well in other sports. I never saw the wendyball incident but surely if an incident has happened like you say and play has stopped, then give it to the 4th official/TMO to have a quick look. As they are all commed up, penalty or free kick and booking for being a cheating git, job jobbed.
     
  3. I totally agree with you. Think there should at least be a goal-line camera to actually see whether one of the overpaid pricks has got it in the net. Or a camera that see's the likes of Ronaldo and Eduardo dive to the floor quicker than a benefit cheat when realised he's being watched.

    I think UEFA/FIFA/FA should get their heads out of their arses and install at least SOME technology into the game, then maybe we could catch the diving twat's in the act and make them earn their money by issuing apologies to the other team before taking a public flogging. :twisted:
     
  4. Football is in the main run by chaps who's grasp of business and economics makes Gordon Brown look like a genius so expecting a sensible solution is hardly likely.

    With large screens in the stadia 50,000 fans can see what has happened, the referee can see what happened, but he has to pretend he hasn't. No wonder the fans start riots.

    The could take two things from other sports:

    1. Post match citing of players for infringements and diving and impose meaningful penalties, e.g.. four week suspension for diving.
    2. Television Match Official to respond to the referee's queries when he is unsighted especially in the goal area.
     
  5. It is the rampant cheating that has put me off football. A video ref could drastically reduce the diving and prancing to give us back a sport worth watching.
     
  6. The goal line camera is allready there as it gives the gits commonly known as pundits a chance to look at it a million times after the match! Put a screen in the dugout that the 4th offical can quickly check and bobs your uncle!
     
  7. the trouble with the video ref in rugby is that its only used at televised matches so they can use BBC/Sky sports technology.On any other day its still down to the Ref and 2 touch judges and if your lucky a fourth official.I have been a touch judge a few times now in rugby and you still get the refs totally ignoring you if you stick the flag up for whatever reason but not alot you can do.
     
  8. Ok but all the matches are recorded so that Match of the Day and all manner of other sporting shows can watch all the goals and dodgy decisions! Even down to the lower leagues are recorded for this purpose. Hop on the bandwagon.

    Just seen on the news that UEFA is going to implement another 2 refs on each goal line. You only needed 1 more bloke with a telly!
     
  9. For premiership games the linesmen and referee are all wired for sound and I guess that's the level we're really talking about. The linesmen are also full-blown referees in their own right.
     
  10. I'm reviving this rather than start a new thread.

    Over the last two seasons I have seen two Champions league semis greatly influenced by two referees both of whom, it could be argued, determined the result.
    The first was Chelsea - Barça when the ref obviously had decided not to be swayed by the home crowd, and whereas it could be argued that all four penalty calls were harsh, one probably would have expected at least one to be given.
    The second was Inter-Barça when the ref went the other way and refused to give anything at all to the away team. The decisive last goal stemmed directly from a blatant but ungiven foul on Messi and a goal that had the scorer been any further offside he would have been in the crowd.

    Now I am not arguing that the refs won or lost the matches (both Barça and Chelsea should have made sure of the games outside the polemic) but correctable decisions could have changed things greatly. With all this technology surely one could have a video ref available to advise the ref on the ground. I realise that the argument is that football unlike rugby is more fluid and that to break up the flow is unrealistic on occasions. But surely when a ref has blown for a goal or stoppage then there is room for the video ref to advise on the rights and wrongs of the decision. Bearing in mind the fact that controversial decisions are going to be examined in detail on tv surely there is a vital need for it.
    Your thoughts gents.

    I would prefer not to get into the rights and wrongs of particular incidents and a 'we wuz robbed rant' but can you see a space for it?
     
  11. my bold, there lies the answer.

    how the feck are the bookies supposed to fix matches if there's a video ref?
     

  12. My first bold - fair play to him then!

    My second bold - penalties are not awarded on the basis of if you appeal a lot you'll eventually get one. They're awarded on the basis of the opinion of the referee regarding the law that's been infringed. If he doesn't think it's a penalty based on what he has seen then he will not award it. In these instances the referee obviously did not feel any of the incidents that raised appeals were worthy of a penalty being awarded.

    My third bold - if it was that blatant the referee would have awarded a freekick. What you might see in the stands or on TV may be very different to what the referee will see in front of him. Perhaps he saw the foul and played advantage or saw the incident, decided it was not a foul and played on? As for the offside decision (or not), perhaps the player you thought was offside was actually inactive so the assistant referee did not flag in accordance with pre-match instructions given to him by the referee.

    The argument for video replays is valid but the various national and international bodies are keen, as far as i can tell, for the game to remain the same at grass-roots, semi-professional and professional football and at what level would such technology be introduced and who would fund it?
     
  13. Like I say, I'm not trying to get into an argument about individual incidents, nor claiming for a wrong to be righted, I simply used an example. I agree with what you say about what refs see and appeals. However the goal I am referring to was clearly seen by a very partial (naturally) crowd of around 50,000, and a TV audience of probably millions. Those millions could clearly and easily see, thanks to tv angles and replays, that the ref had made a clear mistake.
    In this particular case as he had blown for stoppage I could see a case of a video ref immediately bleeping him to indicate doubt. The ref could then indicate a consultation to be followed by confirmation or annullment as the case merits.

    I see that the national and international bodies want to keep the grass roots level, but in this day and age of massive worldwide tv audiences I think that is short-sighted. One is not playing to a single stadium anymore but to a sofa-bound or pub-bound crowd who get a very different take on the match.

    What level of technology and who would fund it is precisely what I am asking.
    Personally I would tie it into the television present and all top level matches asking stadiums to provide comms between video ref and grass ref with a link to tv to pass decision onto the audience. This should be relatively inexpensive and easily provided by the clubs.
    At lower levels I see it being unecessary outside the top levels which are subject to a wide audience. Same as rugby really.
     
  14. Since my last post back in August I have attended another course for reffing Rugby League and during that course we started to do training on video reffing. IMHO the top level refs are getting lazy due to the fact they have this technology to refer to instead of using the 2 touch judges and the refs own experiance to say if a try has been scored or not. In Australia they even have 2 refs on the pitch plus 2 touch judges, an interchange official and a video ref( televised matches only). I know Sky sports want to add to the excitment and tension by using these guys but sometimes its so obvious you dont need it to say if its a try or not. I feel i can make the call myself without using them.
     
  15. My bold - the Laws of Association Football are the same at grassroots level as they are in the professional game, and the game itself is not played to a sofa or pub bound crowd though i agree the audience at the top level is wide. Perhaps we should revert to accepting that the referee's decision is final and play the game to the laws that govern it. The beauty of the game is that, in esence, it's 11 v 11 wherever you go in the world and whatever level you play or referee at.

    Additionally, given that many clubs are in dire financial straits, the costs of this technology may well be prohibitive to them. As such, i doubt they would support its introduction.