Right up to now there are one or two contributions that will help get the ball rolling, BM can have the honour of the first entry. I'll add the rest in a jiffy.
Bigmick - I do think on a slightly seperate note that it's about time that football considered using some video coverage. Something siliar to the tennis thing where the captain of the team in question has two incidents per half which they can question might work, or even a system like in rugby where the ref goes to kind of a "third umpire" over penalties. We';ve only had nine league games this season andit seems there's been extremely controversial instances in almost every one.
maguskwt - I believe someone has mentioned this before. I don't mind that kind of system at all. But I do think 2 decisions per half is too many... imagine some referees like to stop the game alot and on top of that you can have 4 challenges/stoppages in a half (2 from each team) not to mention injury disruptions. I would think that 1 challenge from each team per half is sufficient if ever this kind of system is implemented. After all you don't want to put too much power into the hands of the players given the fact that referees are already under alot of pressure and you also would want to make the respective captains of the team think carefully before making any challenge calls as they won't want to waste them.
puroresu - Technology can only work with goal line decisions as its a fact which cant be denied. Things like penalties and offsides can be debated so technology wouldnt work.
Ace Ventura - Thats not strictly true as technology will be able to show a fourth official different angles which give a far clearer indication.
Not saying it should definately happen for things like penalties but it would help get decisions right without question.
taff - football is different to rugby so the video technology argument has to be debated thus
the main stumbling block i see is that if it is introduced then managers and players would demand for it to be used to many times in a game. football is such a big business that i could see lawyers being used to debate decisions.
username - I dont see whats wrong with a quick look at the video for a big decision that there not sure about, it wont take any longer, teams stand there complaining about it for 2 minutes anyway
JamCar05 - I agree with this. Video evidence just isn't for football imho. It would take so much intensity out of the game, if we were to stop the game each time someone contested an offside decision, a freekick etc. And most of the time, you can't even be sure about the decision being right anyway, as the pictures might not always be conclusive and can often depend on different angles (ie from one angle it looks like a definite freekick, but from another it doesn't). Then the refs would not only have to watch one videoclip, but would have to watch it from say seven different angles and THEN discuss which one looks the most valid one. Imagine standing in the crowd and having to wait for this a number of times during a game - as Homer J. Simpson would so eloquently put it: BORING! I know some people might suggest that each team had maybe 2 calls each for watching a decision on video, but even then I think I'd be against it for the above reasons.
By all means bring on the goalline technology though (if it works properly), as this wouldn't be so time consuming and doesn't happen all that often, but can be very crucial when it does happen (I know a dubious offside decision can be so aswell, but you already know my arguments from above)
red37 - Im against it on the whole.
For decisions involving the ball crosing the goal line, there is a viable case. But when you start to go down the road of 'Video referees' ala Super League (which actually works very well) In that particular sport...the intuitive nature of this fast moving spectacle and some of the passion/spontenaiety involved may start to get diluted.
I mean - i see 'some' point and place for it...in the major 'big' issues. And lets face it the referees assistants are next to useless when it comes down to actually doing anything constructive by and large. So the scope is there - its just the implementation of the thing and the disruption it could cause. Like username says...The players contesting a dubious decision are bound to harass the officials anyway (regardless of the fact they should not be doing so) - in the light of that fact, there is i admit a period of time thats wasted which could well be spent replaying an incident to the attention of an appointed official on the sidelines.. But, some of the fluidity and more especially the Drama - the human element (by default the inherent mistakes) all add to the whole package.
And while its wrong to rely on those errors becoming a gamebreaker (we've already been the victim and the benefactor) on two such occasions this term...they do at least fuel the fires of debate and go some way to making the game of Football as appealing and as controversially pulsating at times that it is.
OK there are blatant, and downright clear cut scenarios in which its use could be helpful. But equally care must be taken to avoid the watering down of the whole spirit of the game. Sadly, much of that has eroded for reasons that belong in other threads. I would just advocate a little caution in asking for carte blanche over the situation via a Television Lens. At the very least there is a strong argument for goal line technology...but not any that makes the referee's decisions entirely redundant - i mean, who would kop all the stick then? There has to be some scapegoat to call rotten from the stands!!
