Video Tech?

[gzagee]

Found this article at UEFA.com after seeing a little report on it yesterday.
What do y'all think?

I know we've discussed the current set-up vs video tech. I'm just wondering given the choice would you prefer video technology or 5 match officials? Or just stick with what we have?

Me? I'm undecided...

(Would be great if someone could put up a poll for this)

The innovative experiment with five match officials has continued in a UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualifying round mini-tournament in Cyprus with former top referees on hand to witness the test.

Behind the goalline

In addition to the match referee and two assistant referees on the touchline, two extra assistants are situated behind the goalline to focus on incidents that happen in the penalty area, such as fouls or misconduct. The tests follow approval by football's lawmakers, the International Football Association Board, last spring. UEFA President Michel Platini and General Secretary David Taylor watched the tests in person at another U19 mini-tournament in Slovenia last month.

Scottish and French referee teams

Scottish referee Douglas McDonald, two assistants Graham Chambers and Derek Rose, and two additional referees Calum Murray and Iain Brines officiated at the 1-1 draw between Cyprus and the Czech Republic. In the game between Denmark and Georgia, which ended in a 2-2 draw, the five match officials were French – referee Tony Chapron, assistant referees David Benech and Emmanuel Boisdenghein, and additional referee Olivier Thual and Said Ennjimi

Top-level supervision

The two games were supervised by former top-level international referees Hugh Dallas (Scotland), Urs Meier (Switzerland), Marc Batta (France), Peter Mikkelsen (Denmark) and Vitor Manuel Pereira (Portugal). "This will be the third tournament where we have conducted this trial," said Dallas who, together with Marc Batta, is a member of the UEFA Referees Committee. "So far it has been very successful. The main aim of it is to assist with more control of the penalty area – and in general to assist the referee, because we know the penalty area is obviously where the most incidents happen."

Better control

French referee Chapron said the experiment gave the referees better control over an area over which they usually had less control. "Consequently, we felt greater comfort in the decisions that we were taking," he said. "Of course, we must remember that because we are able to have better control, this does not mean that errors will not be made - but the number of mistakes are limited considerably."

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=524288/newsid=777410.html

[ozgooner]

i reckon 5 refs mate . the 2 extra officials have their specific duties to focus on . i'd rather go down tht road than video ref .

[singaporegooner]

it's gonna be wierd to have someone standing behind the goal constantly looking for infringements...
i'm assuming part of their duties include looking out for balls crossing the line as well...

[Inchpräctice]

(Would be great if someone could put up a poll for this)

Done.

Personally I prefer the technology.
Each manager gets 2 'challenges' per half when they can challenge the refs decision.
The incident is checked on video by an official in the stands and the decision is given one way or the other.
Simple really.

[ozgooner]

do we go down the road of using the video ref and interrupting the game or to we trust it human perception . can we accept that humans are fallible or rely on camera angles . cricket , rugby league and gridiron etc halt play to make decisions . it really shits me in rugby league that when an official is standin right on the spot and refers the decision upstairs . i sorta think that ya take the good with the bad regarding decisions .

ya win some ya lose some ... or is that view outdated

[Trina]

(Would be great if someone could put up a poll for this)

Done.

Personally I prefer the technology.
Each manager gets 2 'challenges' per half when they can challenge the refs decision.
The incident is checked on video by an official in the stands and the decision is given one way or the other.
Simple really.

I agree and have always been for it. As long as some simple rules are set up then it won't interrupt play too much as people say.

[Andreys_Does_Simples]

5 refs seems stupid, in the long run the cost of video technology is gonna be less than that of paying extra officials.

There is still gonna be errors with having 5 refs, just because they might possibly start getting penalty decisions correct there is still gonna be decisions that go wrong further up the field like dodgy red cards and such.

Plus there is also the fact most refs are a law unto their own.

[Bristol_Gunner]

imo i belive they should use a tennis based system with hawkeye where they have say 2 maybe 3 challenges per match so it doesnt get abused.

[SE13]

No point in having a "3-challenge" thing, the managers can't see the whole pitch anyway, especially Wenger!

For me, it's the fourth official in the stands, overseeing everything, and calling play back when needed. I've said it countless times on here, but it really is high time football caught up with technology, after all for a player there is a lot of money at stake, not to mention the team, supporters, sponsors, back room staff and so on. All of whose futures rely on a dodgy referee spotting something glowingly obvious, and let's face it when it come to arsenal, Mike Riley is a class example of why technology is needed.

See when Nancy dives, Riley will kiss his arse on the way through to give the free kick, where a video ref can over-rule the decision, and the game restarts with a free kick to the defending team, and a awarded to the diving pillock.

For crying out loud, we are still on the same technology as 100 years ago, with the exception of the day The FA feel the need to examine something, and suddenly camera evidence (or video technology) IS allowed.....

[ayN]

Five Refs.

[Artemis8]

Both options will interupt the flow of the game. I would prefer vidoes technology.
Just as long as its not like rugby and this flashes up on the screen

[Melksham Gooner]

I think you'll find we get something similar to that at AG already.

I'm personally in favour of video technology. Five on-pitch officials could very well work, but I would certainly prefer video technology, whereby the referee can refer an incident he is unsure of, and managers can challenge decisions based on what he has seen on a video screen in the dugout. For me, one of the massive problems with referees at the moment is that they get no respect from anyone. This is because they are arrogant, get decisions wrong frequently and can be influenced by players running up and screaming at them. Video technology would phase out these problems. whereas having five officials on the pitch would not. The main problem I see with this is that refs are trained to have 100% conviction in their decisions, and have been doing it this way for over 100 years. I'm not so sure they could be prepared to admit they don't know.

[Cheese]

Every sport will rely on video technology soon.

It's the only way forward to be honest.

[gzagee]

I bet Platini's chipper that none of the 5 refs or video technology was on display last night...

[SE13]

I bet Platini's chipper that none of the 5 refs or video technology was on display last night...

I wonder what he'd be saying today if it was against France.........???