Imagine if we are to use video evidence to examine every handball, penalty calim, offside or any other controversial incident, it would make the game mechanical and less exciting.
That why I say if video evidence is to be use in the future. The ref got to decide whether is there a need to review the reply and not being pressurise by the managers and players to review the reply. Ref like Mike Riley, would have to keep reviewing every single controversy due to his incompetency. And that would slow down the game. It is equally important to have competent ref on the pitch. Remember that video evidence is only there to assist the ref, and not to take over the ref. The ref eventually must make his own decision and not to get confuse over.
Technology - Is the time right
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by 112-1077774096 » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:33 am
if the ref is unsure he can signal the video ref while play continues, the video ref can make a decision is seconds then the game can be halted if needs be.
but ive no doubt that sky will have the best technology to show all the replays so that they go in the scums favour
but ive no doubt that sky will have the best technology to show all the replays so that they go in the scums favour
- 112-1077774096
by Judge » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:44 am
marcus.c wrote:Imagine if we are to use video evidence to examine every handball, penalty calim, offside or any other controversial incident, it would make the game mechanical and less exciting.
That why I say if video evidence is to be use in the future. The ref got to decide whether is there a need to review the reply and not being pressurise by the managers and players to review the reply. Ref like Mike Riley, would have to keep reviewing every single controversy due to his incompetency. And that would slow down the game. It is equally important to have competent ref on the pitch. Remember that video evidence is only there to assist the ref, and not to take over the ref. The ref eventually must make his own decision and not to get confuse over.
no one has said to use it for every incident, just use it at ref's discretion. even a poor ref could use video to exonerate himself.
as i said, rugby uses it well, so should football. the game maybe even speeded up, as it would prevent players from disrupting games for minutes whilst the ref gets control of the game. remember, scumchester always surround the ref at every decision which is why there is always 10 minutes of injury time, this video reffing would put a stop to that, if it is properly regulated etc.
ffs, read my words properly
-
Judge - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 20477
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:21 am
by aco67 » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:21 pm
Looks like technology is on it's way (Sorry Leon)
From www.teamtalk.com
Football should not be "afraid" of using modern technology to help take the game forward, according to players' union chief executive Gordon Taylor.
Fifa look set use next month's meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) to initiate an extended experiment with the use of technology to establish whether a ball has crossed the goalline.
The introduction of some sort of electronic aid to help determine such instances has long been the subject of much debate - intensified by the controversy surrounding Tottenham's 'non-goal', dropped over the line by Manchester United goalkeeper Roy Carroll but ruled out by match officials at Old Trafford on Tuesday.
While an introduction of such a system into the English top flight is likely to be some time away, any change which "can improve the game" would be welcomed by Professional Footballers' Association boss Taylor.
"We have been advocating this for quite a while," he said.
"It has been successful in cricket, in tennis and it is something football as a whole could benefit from.
"The game is too big now - it is the biggest game in the world, and we shouldn't be afraid to use technology to advance the sport in this manner.
"When it is a goal it is important that the team who scored is credited with it.
"Any change which can improve the game has to be welcomed. These kind of incidents can make a massive difference to teams over the course of a season and it is important we get them right."
From www.teamtalk.com
Football should not be "afraid" of using modern technology to help take the game forward, according to players' union chief executive Gordon Taylor.
Fifa look set use next month's meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) to initiate an extended experiment with the use of technology to establish whether a ball has crossed the goalline.
The introduction of some sort of electronic aid to help determine such instances has long been the subject of much debate - intensified by the controversy surrounding Tottenham's 'non-goal', dropped over the line by Manchester United goalkeeper Roy Carroll but ruled out by match officials at Old Trafford on Tuesday.
While an introduction of such a system into the English top flight is likely to be some time away, any change which "can improve the game" would be welcomed by Professional Footballers' Association boss Taylor.
"We have been advocating this for quite a while," he said.
"It has been successful in cricket, in tennis and it is something football as a whole could benefit from.
"The game is too big now - it is the biggest game in the world, and we shouldn't be afraid to use technology to advance the sport in this manner.
"When it is a goal it is important that the team who scored is credited with it.
"Any change which can improve the game has to be welcomed. These kind of incidents can make a massive difference to teams over the course of a season and it is important we get them right."
Beer...........
The cause of......
And solution to..........
All of lifes problems............
The cause of......
And solution to..........
All of lifes problems............
-
aco67 - Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:46 pm
- Location: Wirral
by woof woof ! » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:29 pm
Would this work ,
We have a video ref monitoring the game , he only advises the match ref when
1, The match ref asks for a video review
2, The match ref has made a MAJOR mistake decision wise regarding play INSIDE the area re:possible penalty or ball crossing the goal line. In which case the video ref advises the match ref who blows up play (which has continued uninterrupted) and restarts play in the appropriate position.
We have a video ref monitoring the game , he only advises the match ref when
1, The match ref asks for a video review
2, The match ref has made a MAJOR mistake decision wise regarding play INSIDE the area re:possible penalty or ball crossing the goal line. In which case the video ref advises the match ref who blows up play (which has continued uninterrupted) and restarts play in the appropriate position.
-
woof woof ! - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 21173
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:22 am
- Location: Here There and Everywhere
by 112-1077774096 » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:59 am
woof woof ! wrote:Would this work ,
We have a video ref monitoring the game , he only advises the match ref when
1, The match ref asks for a video review
2, The match ref has made a MAJOR mistake decision wise regarding play INSIDE the area re:possible penalty or ball crossing the goal line. In which case the video ref advises the match ref who blows up play (which has continued uninterrupted) and restarts play in the appropriate position.
that the point i was trying to get across, the game can flow while a decision is made, it can be made quickly so the game can be called back. there is no real need to stop and all stand round.
what makes me laugh will be all the pub players on a sunday with there mate "terry" standing on the touchline with his camcorder and the players crowding the reff asking them to consult "terry" every time there is a contentious decision
- 112-1077774096
by LFC #1 » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:02 am
peewee wrote:what makes me laugh will be all the pub players on a sunday with there mate "terry" standing on the touchline with his camcorder and the players crowding the reff asking them to consult "terry" every time there is a contentious decision
that would be ****** hilarious, 22 guys and the ref crowded around "Terry" with his little camcorder.
-
LFC #1 - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8253
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:53 am
by LFC #1 » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:05 am
this is an excellent read on the whole situation by ESPN football analyst Derek Rae, a Scottish guy who does a football show on ESPN called Press Pass.
Rae's say: Modernizing the game
Derek Rae
Football's beauty has much to do with its simplicity. The game's guardians deserve considerable credit for rejecting over the years, the many arguments made in favour of 'modernization.'
Match officials Rob Lewis and Mark Clattenburg leave the pitch. (MatthewAshton/Empics)
For 'modernization' we can generally read, unnecessary complication.
Remember the daft debate we had in the early nineties concerning the size of the goals? The modernizers were convinced that size really mattered. Make the goals bigger, they told us, and 0-0 draws would be banished to the museum of ancient football memories, everything and everyone would open up, and games ending 5-4 would become the norm. Thankfully, change was resisted, and as far as I can see, we're still none the worse for the odd goalless draw.
Around the same time, presumably with a view to making the 1994 World Cup in the USA more palatable to American television executives and advertisers, the fanciful idea was floated that four quarters might be preferable to two halves. Other mischief-makers even suggested that managers should be given gridiron style 'time-outs' for tactical purposes, an experiment eventually carried out in Brazil's Paulista League, which succeeded only in suffocating the rhythm of the game.
The International Football Association Board is the body which looks after the laws, and comprises one member from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in addition to four representatives from FIFA. When they next convene at the Vale of Glamorgan on 26 February, an altogether more serious item will top the agenda: goal-line technology.
Until Tuesday night, I was still fairly clear in my own mind, that we should continue to rely on the referee and his two assistants to make their best judgement, as to whether or not, a ball has crossed the line. Thousands of mistakes have been made in the past (and I'm not just referring to the 1966 World Cup Final) but that's football: an art, as opposed to a science.
Then, with the Manchester United v Spurs match at Old Trafford ebbing away, there was poor old Roy Carroll, spilling a fifty-five yard hoist by Pedro Mendes. With the naked eye at normal speed, it looked as though the ball had bounced over the line. The television replay showed it to be fully a yard over the line, yet referee Mark Clattenburg and his assistant Rob Lewis, both miles away from Carroll, couldn't be certain from their respective vantage points.
After United's great escape, it occurred to me that there's something seriously wrong, when millions of television watchers are better placed to make an outcome-changing decision, than the match officials themselves. By the way, I'm not having a go at Clattenburg and Lewis, who were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong stadium, on the wrong night at the wrong time. Given the bizarre nature of the incident (a speculative shot from the half-way line, dropped by a Premiership keeper), even Pierluigi Collina would have been hard pressed to get into a good viewing position.
Both Pedro Mendes and Spurs boss Martin Jol had the good grace to smile about it when interviewed afterwards, but really it's no laughing matter. Some of us thought Michel Platini was 'off his trolley' when he suggested adding two extra assistant referees, to stand behind each goal and make goal-line rulings. In the light of what happened on Tuesday, perhaps the former French great simply recognized what we were blind to.
Many refereeing decisions demand interpretation from officials. That's why there's so much controversy over the offside law in its current form. It's also a good reason to keep technology away from this aspect of the game. It's a similar story with penalty awards: a cast-iron penalty to some is a soft award to others. It all depends on your point of view.
But the goal-line issue is more clear-cut. Either, it crossed the line, or it didn't.
The German ball manufacturers Adidas will make a presentation to the International Board next month, extolling the virtues of their latest invention. It's a revolutionary ball with a microchip that makes a beeping sound once it has fully crossed the goal-line. Extensive trials would have to be carried out before technology of this nature is used comprehensively. One only needs to think back to the early problematic days of the 'electronic eye' at Wimbledon in 1980, to understand that modern gadgets don't necessarily eliminate quarrels.
Platini's proposals seem to me, to have more merit, while retaining the human factor in all of this. What harm would it do to experiment, perhaps in the Carling Cup, with goal-judges? What would be wrong with having two extra pairs of eyes? If television pictures are available, install a couple of small screens behind each goal while we're at it, so they can be absolutely sure in borderline cases.
Football remains a simple game, yet it's a faster than ever: too fast sometimes, even for the best referees in the world. If we're sensible about this, we can keep up with the times, without selling football's soul.
The Vale of Glamorgan meeting at the end of February, promises to be more than a bit intriguing.
Rae's say: Modernizing the game
Derek Rae
Football's beauty has much to do with its simplicity. The game's guardians deserve considerable credit for rejecting over the years, the many arguments made in favour of 'modernization.'
Match officials Rob Lewis and Mark Clattenburg leave the pitch. (MatthewAshton/Empics)
For 'modernization' we can generally read, unnecessary complication.
Remember the daft debate we had in the early nineties concerning the size of the goals? The modernizers were convinced that size really mattered. Make the goals bigger, they told us, and 0-0 draws would be banished to the museum of ancient football memories, everything and everyone would open up, and games ending 5-4 would become the norm. Thankfully, change was resisted, and as far as I can see, we're still none the worse for the odd goalless draw.
Around the same time, presumably with a view to making the 1994 World Cup in the USA more palatable to American television executives and advertisers, the fanciful idea was floated that four quarters might be preferable to two halves. Other mischief-makers even suggested that managers should be given gridiron style 'time-outs' for tactical purposes, an experiment eventually carried out in Brazil's Paulista League, which succeeded only in suffocating the rhythm of the game.
The International Football Association Board is the body which looks after the laws, and comprises one member from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in addition to four representatives from FIFA. When they next convene at the Vale of Glamorgan on 26 February, an altogether more serious item will top the agenda: goal-line technology.
Until Tuesday night, I was still fairly clear in my own mind, that we should continue to rely on the referee and his two assistants to make their best judgement, as to whether or not, a ball has crossed the line. Thousands of mistakes have been made in the past (and I'm not just referring to the 1966 World Cup Final) but that's football: an art, as opposed to a science.
Then, with the Manchester United v Spurs match at Old Trafford ebbing away, there was poor old Roy Carroll, spilling a fifty-five yard hoist by Pedro Mendes. With the naked eye at normal speed, it looked as though the ball had bounced over the line. The television replay showed it to be fully a yard over the line, yet referee Mark Clattenburg and his assistant Rob Lewis, both miles away from Carroll, couldn't be certain from their respective vantage points.
After United's great escape, it occurred to me that there's something seriously wrong, when millions of television watchers are better placed to make an outcome-changing decision, than the match officials themselves. By the way, I'm not having a go at Clattenburg and Lewis, who were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong stadium, on the wrong night at the wrong time. Given the bizarre nature of the incident (a speculative shot from the half-way line, dropped by a Premiership keeper), even Pierluigi Collina would have been hard pressed to get into a good viewing position.
Both Pedro Mendes and Spurs boss Martin Jol had the good grace to smile about it when interviewed afterwards, but really it's no laughing matter. Some of us thought Michel Platini was 'off his trolley' when he suggested adding two extra assistant referees, to stand behind each goal and make goal-line rulings. In the light of what happened on Tuesday, perhaps the former French great simply recognized what we were blind to.
Many refereeing decisions demand interpretation from officials. That's why there's so much controversy over the offside law in its current form. It's also a good reason to keep technology away from this aspect of the game. It's a similar story with penalty awards: a cast-iron penalty to some is a soft award to others. It all depends on your point of view.
But the goal-line issue is more clear-cut. Either, it crossed the line, or it didn't.
The German ball manufacturers Adidas will make a presentation to the International Board next month, extolling the virtues of their latest invention. It's a revolutionary ball with a microchip that makes a beeping sound once it has fully crossed the goal-line. Extensive trials would have to be carried out before technology of this nature is used comprehensively. One only needs to think back to the early problematic days of the 'electronic eye' at Wimbledon in 1980, to understand that modern gadgets don't necessarily eliminate quarrels.
Platini's proposals seem to me, to have more merit, while retaining the human factor in all of this. What harm would it do to experiment, perhaps in the Carling Cup, with goal-judges? What would be wrong with having two extra pairs of eyes? If television pictures are available, install a couple of small screens behind each goal while we're at it, so they can be absolutely sure in borderline cases.
Football remains a simple game, yet it's a faster than ever: too fast sometimes, even for the best referees in the world. If we're sensible about this, we can keep up with the times, without selling football's soul.
The Vale of Glamorgan meeting at the end of February, promises to be more than a bit intriguing.
-
LFC #1 - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8253
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:53 am
by anfieldadorer » Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:06 am
Manager against video referees Jan 7 2005
Daily Post
LIVERPOOL manager Rafael Benitez has spoken out against using video replays during football games.
The subject has become one of intense debate following the debacle over the Tottenham Hotspur 'goal' not given at Manchester United on Tuesday.
Referee Mark Clattenburg and assistant Rob Lewis both failed to spot United goalkeeper Roy Carroll drop a long-range effort from Spurs midfielder Pedro Mendes two yards over his own goalline.
It led to calls for video replays to be introduced.
But Benitez said yesterday: "In my opinion, I do not like the use of video to change the game. I think it should just be used for disciplinary problems.
"If all the players did the right things, then there would be no need for referees. But it doesn't work like that."
Clattenburg and Lewis will officiate Liverpool's FA Cup third round tie at Burnley this evening.
But Benitez insisted: "Actually, the officials will be more concentrated on the game because of what happened."
Daily Post
LIVERPOOL manager Rafael Benitez has spoken out against using video replays during football games.
The subject has become one of intense debate following the debacle over the Tottenham Hotspur 'goal' not given at Manchester United on Tuesday.
Referee Mark Clattenburg and assistant Rob Lewis both failed to spot United goalkeeper Roy Carroll drop a long-range effort from Spurs midfielder Pedro Mendes two yards over his own goalline.
It led to calls for video replays to be introduced.
But Benitez said yesterday: "In my opinion, I do not like the use of video to change the game. I think it should just be used for disciplinary problems.
"If all the players did the right things, then there would be no need for referees. But it doesn't work like that."
Clattenburg and Lewis will officiate Liverpool's FA Cup third round tie at Burnley this evening.
But Benitez insisted: "Actually, the officials will be more concentrated on the game because of what happened."
-
anfieldadorer - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:40 am
by marcus.c » Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:12 pm
There are certainly pros and cons. But at the end of the day, whatever that is being introduce, is suppose to help advance the game and not the other way round. We wouldn't know for sure, whether or not it will work. The only way, is to try it out. Have a trial run and note what are the good and bad points, after that try and work things out. There will certainly be some mistakes here and there but that is exactly what the trial run is all about, which is to improve the overall standard of refereeing.
- marcus.c
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:28 pm
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Premiership - General Discussion
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- About time - Changes
by 112-1077774096 » Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:06 pm - 6 Replies
- 1006 Views
- Last post by CardinalRed
Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:39 pm
- About time - Changes
-
- Spanish media - Gone too far this time
by L-type » Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:11 am
- 5 Replies
- 891 Views
- Last post by dawson99
Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:51 pm
- Spanish media - Gone too far this time
-
- Rafa and chelsea - Could avb's time be up?
1, 2, 3by red till i die!! » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:00 pm - 35 Replies
- 3283 Views
- Last post by Boxscarf
Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:04 pm
- Rafa and chelsea - Could avb's time be up?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.