The Video Referee Debate

[InvincibleGunners]

So Webb has come forward and stated that he got the penalty decison wrong, fair play to him we all make mistakes (even though that was a shocker!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 022476.stm

I think it's great that he has been given the platform on radio to apologise, I reckon that's far better than the FA's preffered "sweep it under the rug" or "no comment" strategy.

But this has re-opened the on-going debate about whether or not we should intoduce technology to aide the officials in making decisions.

There are products which could achieve this; the football which knows whether it is in or out of the goal was tried, proved successful (as far as i know) but rejected thus far. During my dissertation at university I came across a paper about a system which could monitor a live feed and accurately decide whether or not a recieving player was on/offside when a pass is made yet none of these have been utilised and I for one am happy.

I prefer the drama that surrounds a match with big decisions (either right or wrong) being the most talked about topic the next day between friends or fans on forums such as this. When a big penalty shout occurs or a goal is scored which might be offside, the thrill of waiting for a decision creates suspense which in my view is irreplacible. Seeing an event such as a thundering tackle in the penalty box and knowing the correct decision will inevitably be made would make the game just a liitle bit more boring for me.

Don't get me wrong I get mad when a decision goes against my beloved Arsenal but the fallibility of human judgement adds an extra element to this game and is a risk you undertake following or playing it. A bit like in poker when you put a guy all-in for all his chips only to see that one card he needs flip over on the river thus destroying your brilliant play. You pay your money, you take your chances.

I reckon the EPL is the best sporting establishment in the world and I don't want to see anything changed. (Sorry Old Firm, that includes you too).

What do you think?

[Fabrestuta]

I don't want to see video refs. I'm a bit of a traditionalist and I don't mind the fact that refs get decisions wrong at times. If you bring it in for one thing you will start having every decision going to the video ref.
In regard to whether or not the ball crosses the line, the technology is there (probably not perfected yet) so I don't see why you can't add a chip or sensor to make 100% certain.

[InvincibleGunners]

I'm sure they did and trialed it at one point, can't remember where I saw it but I saw a vid of someone demonstrating a ball which could do that. He held it in and out of the goal and wide of the post and it sent a signal to a little device which the ref has.

[StLGooner]

I don't want to see video refs. I'm a bit of a traditionalist and I don't mind the fact that refs get decisions wrong at times. If you bring it in for one thing you will start having every decision going to the video ref.
In regard to whether or not the ball crosses the line, the technology is there (probably not perfected yet) so I don't see why you can't add a chip or sensor to make 100% certain.

I always change my mind about this, but I think I'm with you.

Plus, the NFL uses this and they still get it wrong many times. Video evidence isn't always 100% proof believe it or not, and even though the NFL has 1000 cameras at every game (even one in the air that is zipped across wires) they still have many instances where you can't get the right camera angle to make the correct decision. It isn't full proof at all and still has its faults.

[Fabrestuta]

I don't want to see video refs. I'm a bit of a traditionalist and I don't mind the fact that refs get decisions wrong at times. If you bring it in for one thing you will start having every decision going to the video ref.
In regard to whether or not the ball crosses the line, the technology is there (probably not perfected yet) so I don't see why you can't add a chip or sensor to make 100% certain.

I always change my mind about this, but I think I'm with you.

Plus, the NFL uses this and they still get it wrong many times. Video evidence isn't always 100% proof believe it or not, and even though the NFL has 1000 cameras at every game (even one in the air that is zipped across wires) they still have many instances where you can't get the right camera angle to make the correct decision. It isn't full proof at all and still has its faults.

The NFL is exactly what I was thinking about. How many times have you seen the ref get under the hood to check a call and still get it wrong? 10 people may look at an image and all come to a different conclusion so checking every decision is no guarantee of getting them right.

[sendheroff]

Let the refs do there job. sometimes you win sometimes you lose

[gouldinho]

Defo should come in for the goal line. There isnt a need for a 100% fool proof system. If the cameras cant prove the ball crossed the line then its no goal.

[niko197]

football is to quick for refs, and they always make mistakes when it comes to offsides. i definitelly want video ref for offsides or just quit that stupid rule anyway!!

and btw, i still don't understand the away goal rule!? it's the worst rule i've ever seen, because of that rule we have shit football in CL semi finals.

[Gunflash]

If you bring in video refs, you'll eventually reach a stage where the referee may as well not be out there and we have some form of Big Brother system to officiate the matches.

[gouldinho]

and btw, i still don't understand the away goal rule!? it's the worst rule i've ever seen, because of that rule we have shit football in CL semi finals.

Agreed man, its the worst rule ever. It ruins more matches than makes them interesting.

[UFGN]

Yes.

As long as it allows the game to flow. Only for goal line situations, and penalties. Not offsides.

Let the ref do his job as usual but if a mistake is made re a penalty or goal, he could then be overruled, alternatively he could quickly ask for a decision.

No harm in that.

[liam_cork]

I'm sure they did and trialed it at one point, can't remember where I saw it but I saw a vid of someone demonstrating a ball which could do that. He held it in and out of the goal and wide of the post and it sent a signal to a little device which the ref has.

i saw that to last year, or some thing similar. it was kaka with a new ball with some chip in it an demonstrating how it worke
as for webb i wouldn't be shocked if he gave it so he could get on the radio. c***

[Inchpräctice]

I've always been in favour of video refs and I haven't changed my mind.
I accept what you guys have said about the NFL but I would still prefer more decisions to be right than wrong, and I can't see why football can't be like tennis?

Hawkeye can see exactly where the ball went or didn't go and the managers would only be allowed 2 challenges to the refs decision all game. This prevents too many interruptions to the flow of the game.
If used like this I don't see the game changing much. The ref is still in control and still makes all the decisions but we only use the video if there's a very controversial decision that could drastically affect the outcome e.g. a penalty.

Things like the Atwell incident could never happen with video refs.

[Gunner Down Under]

football is to quick for refs, and they always make mistakes when it comes to offsides. i definitelly want video ref for offsides or just quit that stupid rule anyway!!

and btw, i still don't understand the away goal rule!? it's the worst rule i've ever seen, because of that rule we have shit football in CL semi finals.

A offside decision not made has helped us plenty of times (vs Chelsea 30/11/08)

[Libertine]

I'm not in favour of video refs.

People say about only using them for goal-line incidents and penalty decisions.
But once there in it won't be long before someone complains that "they scored from a corner that should've been a goal kick" and we'll see video replays for corners, throw-in's and everything else.