Video Tech?

[Briggsy]

Ball may or may not cross the line? We go to the Video ref he rules no goal how do you restart the game?

That is one area they need to look at if it does not go out of play soon after the incident (which it often does) but things like that shouldn't prevent it happening. Sensible thinking should come to an acceptable set of rules for video reffing.

take this scenario Rev one team appeals there is a goal so the video ref is employed as thats happening the play continues the opposing team goes up the other end and scores what would happen then if the original goal counted?

[Reverend Gooner]

ChVint: I understand your worries and i have seen some very lengthy calls in NFL. There is no way it would be perfect but i can't help but think it would do more good than harm (although i won't say that for certain).


Smooth: In that situation the first goal should stand and the time added on at the end for the rest of play. If the first goal was a goal then the other team would be mugs to be angry with the ref. Something would have to be figured out so that the ref can stop play if it looks to be going on for a long period of time with a free kickor drop ball scenario if it is not a goal.

Things would have to be ironed out but i am sure if it is thought through sensibly then a sensible set of rule will emerge

[gooner90]

tough one, if anything they will try 5 refs first but that still doesnt really prove nothing becuase they could all say different and still get it wrong at least with the video like in nfl and rugby its the right decision 99>9% of the time and can view it many times from different angles and in slow mo, i cant see it changing though its just football works both ways

[Gunner Down Under]

Team that appeals loses possession.

[Rockin' Robin]

Five refs - I think video technology would take too long and break up the flow of the game.

[Rockin' Robin]

And not only would it take too long, but video evidence isn't always 100% conclusive. What happens if the replay doesn't give a clear idea of what should be given? Where do we go from there?

[gzagee]

Will Sepp Blatter review the reasons for video technology? Some news media are suggesting he may look into it after the World Cup finals.

[Inchpräctice]

I think that's more in hope than expectation.
He's always been strongly against it in the past, why would he change now?
He'll only take notice when his favourite team loses the WC final because of a disallowed goal.

[Gunner Down Under]

Ball may or may not cross the line? We go to the Video ref he rules no goal how do you restart the game?

That is one area they need to look at if it does not go out of play soon after the incident (which it often does) but things like that shouldn't prevent it happening. Sensible thinking should come to an acceptable set of rules for video reffing.

Officials immediately after the apparent goal should say whether it's beneficial to call for a video ref or not, the ball is stopped (if in flight put on spot on ground) and there is a drop-ball if there isn't a goal.

[SE13]

The premier showpiece for the game has so far been riddled with errors, and I don't just mean the England goal that never was, all of which could have been cleared up in seconds.

Something has to be done.

[gzagee]

Blatter apologises to England and Mexican Federations and promiese a review in FIFA's July business meeting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... technology

[Inchpräctice]

Well you never know it might bring about some change.
We've talked about the England goal and the Argentinian goal but what about the whole Henry handball debacle?
If anyone wants video tech right now it has to be Ireland!

[She_Gunner_Wales]

Your right there Inch.

Im all for video tech for goals, handballs, penalties & for red cards, but if it is introduced it has to stop somewhere too as it could ruin the game if it is taken too far.

[Inchpräctice]

Like I said before, imo it would be very EASY to introduce video technology without ruining the game as has been proven in many other sports.
People are worried about it interrupting the flow of the game or being used for every throw-in etc. but if each manager only had two opportunities to request a video playback they wouldn't waste it on a throw-in believe me.
It would also mean that the maximum number of interruptions to the game would be 4.
Considering that the there are currently about 30 interruptions to the average game another four won't make much difference.



And if you don't want to use video replays then fine but at least put a chip in the ball so we can all tell if it's crossed the line or not. No need to interrupt the game at all with that one.

[Reverend Gooner]

Anyone who says no to video tech is an enemy to the sport