Liverpool FC Forum

by **KennyisGod....still** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:11 pm

Can you imagine how long a games gonna last at Old Trafford if the scum are losin??? Jeez, dunno 'bout burgers and pies, be a bloody 5 course meal with coffee and bikkies to get u thru!! Fergie's gonna need a new watch that registers more than 97 minutes

by **kenco** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:04 pm

I'd like to see it,only for dodgey penalty decisions for ball over the goal line disputes.

by **murphy0151** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:48 am

I firmly believe it’s time for video technology to help eliminate not only mistakes by the officials, but clear bias shown towards specific teams….

Specifically, Manchester United.

by **Leonmc0708** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:14 pm

If video evidence was around, games would be on for three hours with all the stoppages and boring. And if all controversial decisions where sorted and corrected on the spot then life would be boring.

No more baiting "Bez" the delivery driver who comes in the office about the theatre of penalties or Mike Riley's Manc wallpaper in the living room.

I do not ever want video evidence during a game, we have enough of the gang of idiots who do it after the results. I mean Rooney banned for three games for something that happens every game. It is getting stupid.

by **stu the red** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:58 pm

Its still all ****** though.

No way should video technology be brought in. How can clubs in administration afford this? How can sunday league sides afford this? Can you imagine? Scoring a "goal" like Mendes did then the ref disallowing it, then you calling for your sunday league ref to ask for a video replay on the big screen? Whats more, the ball stays in play, then the other team run down the other end and score a superb goal.

Video technology should be at ALL levels including kids or none at all. Once video technology comes in you are changing the game and the rules to much so that it can't be implimented at lower levels which in my opinion will start the death of the game. If this happens, i will simply stop loving football at the highest level.

by **Leonmc0708** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:08 pm

Stu, thats another reason why it should NEVER be brought in. If we have different standards at different levels, the game bacomes a joke.

by **L-type** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:13 pm

i must say i am FOR video ref's.

Video refs tho should only be used for 3 calls -

Offsides
Ball Crossing the line
Penalties

Therefore the game stays in action untill a potentially game changing call is missed and looked at by the ref watching the monitor. You don't need to stop the game but you need to have a good way to restart play.

by **stu the red** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:23 pm

i must say i am FOR video ref's.

Video refs tho should only be used for 3 calls -

Offsides
Ball Crossing the line
Penalties

Therefore the game stays in action untill a potentially game changing call is missed and looked at by the ref watching the monitor. You don't need to stop the game but you need to have a good way to restart play.

Right,

1. So everytime a player is offside they have to use a video ref? Sorry, no. This happens on average 20 times a game. Now, say for example its that close you can't decide. One person has one opinion, one has another, then what do you do?

What about if a player is through on goal, he WAS NOT offside, but it is given by the official who makes a mistake? Then what? do you have a drop ball? Hardly fair if the player was through on goal.

What about if the keeper makes a great reflex save from a striker who is offside, it falls to a defender who plays a long ball upfield to a striker who controls it then fires into the top corner. Then what do you do?

Pathetic idea if you ask me.

2. Ball crossing the line, what if the ball doesn't cross the line and the ball was to stay in play, the team who didn't conceed went up the other end and rattled one in, what would happen there? Would you stop play and then bring play back? How ****** do you want this game to get? Also, what happens at sunday league level when there is a decision like this? Do you change the rules specifically for the professionals? Pro rules and amatuer rules? Brilliant, i love your mode of thought.

3. Your last one is an opinion. I disagree with people all the time about this. It won't solve a ****** thing.

You people really p!55 me off. Go and support another boring sport where there are no talking points, the best sides ALWAYS win etc etc.

The other good thing about football, how many would want video refs is Exeter were to go to Man Utd, win 1-0 and score via a goal that never was?

Its ****** rediculous.

I can't believe you idiots want to ruin this game. I was quite calm when i started this post, now i just feel like punching someone. :angry:

Another plus point is as someone just made, refs will become to scared to make ANY decision on there own. ITS A ****** DISCRACE!!! :angry:

by **L-type** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:43 pm

First of all this would employ a new ref that can halt play at any given time, and just because its close doesn't mean you strip all authority from the Ar's.

What I'm sayin is the refs should follow a "if it's not broken don't fix it" policy, so you don't stop play to review offsides untill the ref who is watchin the monitors decides it's a bad call.

For your great reflex save by the keeper question the simple answer is a rule called ADVANTAGE you ******. If the man was offsides and the goal was scored it would have been revoked after it was reviewed in the time it took for the restart to play, but if he blocks it off and his team go on a break you continue play because stopping the play would be to a detriment of the victim.

To the ball that didnt cross the line? If it didnt cross the line then it's not a goal..... I don't know what else there is to that question.

Yes penalty kicks is a personal opinion but i feel that it could be administered effectively by refs if indeed a penalty is given it can be reviewed by the ref watchin the monitor that can see if the player dove, whether a yellow/red card should be awards, or if the foul occured outside the box.

Why would refs be scared to make calls because of this? They are already scared to make calls. The FA doesnt punish refs and if they are wrong they are wrong, but at least there is redemption in this system.

by **L-type** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:14 am

did you read anything i have said throughout the thread? I said that the idea of restarting it so it would be fair would be difficult, I conceded that fact but now to get to the hert of your message

I meant the new ref that is watching the monitor, not a second ref on the pitch and if he sees something wrong he can signal to the ref using the earpieces they already use.

The Center Referee will not be watching the monitors, you designate an extra referee or the 4th official (as all he does is talk to the coaches anyways) will be watching them so play does not need to be stopped unless the ref can conclude that an infringement upon the laws of the game has occurred. And yes soccer is broken; the speed of the game has gown at a pace greater than the refs can handle so we simply need these things.

Judging by your response to this one you didnt read mine at all - because the goalie saves the ball, play continues because his team has the ball and can launch a counter attack. Read the rules before you question me i'm a ****** ref.

Addidas has the technology that they are trying to implement into soccer balls that beep when the ball has wholey crossed the line. Between this system and an official watching the monitors it's not to difficuly to figure out, unless of course your mike riley or stu the red.

Well you review the penalty before the kick and if the player dived he should be sent off, none of this yellow card ****** for diving, if they sent you off for diving it would be used a whole lot less. Also if you read my post i said what i thought would work quite effectively after a penalty kick has been awarded, as for one should have been added I don't know, I'd leave that up tot Fifa, but I feel that when you start going back to make calls that should have been instead of calling them just a few seconds afterwards would devastate the game. Video refereeing is a good idea, but only when used in a conservative fashion, or else is could indeed screw up the game. As for the game lasting 3 hours as some suggest I found that to be ******. Maybe an extra 5 minutes at most.

Video reffing is needed because to much money is riding on the outcome of games. In sunday leagues and the lower leagues there isn't quite that amount of money riding on the games, whereas if a club gets relegated due to a bad call it would literally cost them millions. I am totally against that, in the beginning of the season Blackburn were totally undone by bad calls that lost them 4 points, to man u and another team. if they had those 4 points imagine if they didn't slow down and end up in the relegation battle.

The "redemption" i was talking about that if the ref misses a game changing call, the man behind the monitor can call the foul, thus redeeming him for his mistake.

by **stu the red** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:30 am

L-Type, i'm not in the mood for all this.

If you don't like the game go and support another sport.

I'm sick of all this change ******. The games got faster... so what? The refs... like the players should be better and fitter.

There's ALWAYS been mistakes. There ALWAYS SHOULD be, thats the beauty of the game. The beautiful and unpredictable game. I agree the speed of the games got better, but that should mean the standard of referee's get better. If we had 10 of the standard of the likes of Dermot Gallagher and Paul Durkin we wouldn't go far wrong.

The answer is better referees, NOT i repeat, NOT video technology and a different set of rules for players at the highest level.

by **supersub** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:49 am

I don't think video technology should be dismissed out of hand;I also don't think it should replace the referee as the decision maker.But if there is an instant aid to the referee to help give him the oppurtunity to give the correct decision in the most important of circumstances,then I have to go with it.
Just to pick up on a few points mentioned.....
The video replays don't need to take 10/20 seconds for the video "official" to give the ref a message.Everyone sitting at home watching "sky" would have seen the incident in questuion from 10 different angles by then.

Just because people have an opinion that differs doesn't mean "go and watch another sport" is a particularly good reply.

The "beautiful game's" rules and format has changed quite a bit,even in the last 30 odd years I've been watching and playing.

This is not a recent issue;it's been muted for a good few years,but has always been dropped until video technology gets better.

Stu I hope you don't go for me if I say it in front of,what me being "Joe Public" and you being an officer to up-hold the law.If we had more video technology in place we could weed out the bully cops and have them prosecuted for beating on us innocent public.

by **stu the red** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:14 pm

Why change the rules at the highest level of the game?

Anyone answer that for me please?

I'm sorry, but to me, the best thing about football is if you play at sunday/saturday league the rules are the same as they are in premiership.

Once that changes it becomes a different and seperate sport completely.

If its going to change right through out football then sound. But the fact is it isn't. Can team in administration afford this? Can teams all over Europe afford this? Can sunday league sides afford this?

Also, what happens when a club like Yeading play Newcastle, they wouldn't have video technology, so they'd move the game to St James for the other rules. Great.

Totally what football is about.

Sport? Nar, its becoming a stupid ****** business and the more i hear things like this from "fans" and "supporters" and "football lovers" the more i fall out of love with the game. It makes me sick, i eat, sleep, live and breathe football, i love the game.

I think about footy more than sex, am sick to death of idiots trying to change something that simply is not broken. Controversy is and always has been a part of the game. It ALWAYS even's itself out over time.

The second this technology comes in, is the day i stop following the sport for good.

by **supersub** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:58 pm

It is not a rule change...
It is more an introduction of a refereeing aid to eliminate the possibility of an inaccurate,but very important decision,being made that could and probably would determine the outcome of the game at the highest levels of our beautiful game.

how does the game itself become a different sport?
The same way it became different when nets were introduced!
or the same way it became different when substitutes were introduced!
or when players stopped wearing 1-11 and stuck their name on the shirt.
Perhaps the game became a different sport when a fourth official was introduced or a 15 minute half-time break.
There has been countless changes to the shape of the game but it is still the same sport to me and I will always love it,whatever.

have to go visitors.

by **zarababe** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:08 pm

.. Good point Super.. the game is in danger of becoming rather Jurassic.. if technology that is at it's disposal is shunned because of some archaic traditions.. eliminating crucial "errors" which impact on championship, relegation, promotions and ultimately winning, drawing and losing surely should be piloted .. for the very issues raised; time-outs, practicalities etc.. but lets not dismiss it totally ... this game will always remain that of opinions... as most things in life !

Liverpool FC Forum

Why we should be above man united - + VIDEO TECHNOLOGY DEBAT

Who is online