An idea for video technology

[chris]

Tennis has recently introduced a new use of video technology. Players are allowed to challange two decisions per set, which are then checked by video technology - if the challange is successful, they retain the opportunity to challange (ie -still have two challanges)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4778996.stm

I think something similar could be used in football. Say, in each match, a manager has the opportunity to challange one refereeing decision. This would then be refered to the fourth official using a video replay. If the decision is overturned, that manager would retain the ability to challange. If the decision stood, they cannot challange again that match.

I think this would make the decisions fairer, without slowing down the match too much for video references (ie: using technology for every decision)

Thoughts?

[Winter Hill White]

The problem I have with this is the same as I would have with the introduction of any form of technology; it's not possible to replicate it at all levels of football. The Sunday league teams of the world aren't going to be able to install the appropriate technology.

Part of the beauty of football is that, however far apart the financial aspects are, John Smith playing for the Dog and Duck in Sunday league is playing the same game as Terry Henry is for Barcelona.

[communistworkethic]

except they're not. Most sunday league games don't have proper linesmen, it's a fat bloke from either team's periphery or a sub, neither of who move from teh halfway line or are allowedto call offsides. If refs don't show, a common occurence, anyone can stand in, qualified or not.

besides which, millions of pounds aren't resting on a bad decision in sunday league.

bring in technology and get the decisions right that can be - goallines and offsides.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

except they're not. Most sunday league games don't have proper linesmen, it's a fat bloke from either team's periphery or a sub, neither of who move from teh halfway line or are allowedto call offsides. If refs don't show, a common occurence, anyone can stand in, qualified or not.

besides which, millions of pounds aren't resting on a bad decision in sunday league.

bring in technology and get the decisions right that can be - goallines and offsides.

Would you support the idea of "two challenges per game", based solely on those two parameters?

[communistworkethic]

except they're not. Most sunday league games don't have proper linesmen, it's a fat bloke from either team's periphery or a sub, neither of who move from teh halfway line or are allowedto call offsides. If refs don't show, a common occurence, anyone can stand in, qualified or not.

besides which, millions of pounds aren't resting on a bad decision in sunday league.

bring in technology and get the decisions right that can be - goallines and offsides.

Would you support the idea of "two challenges per game", based solely on those two parameters?

nope, technology exists to make those calls accrately and every time. No need to argue. The ref's word should be final but TV has shown they're often wrong. You can supplement them with technology to ensure accuracy where fact and not opinion are the deciding elements - ball crossing line can be shown factually, offside can be shown factually. Fouls are more open to opinion. I'm not in favour of the "challenege rule" the only time I can see it being valid is for penalties but even then TV monitoring would give a clearer pictue of events in all but real time, with the ref being signalled by ear piece.

[chris]

I think by limiting the number of challanges per game, it would prevent questioning every decision, such as dubious throw-ins, and every offside, but would give the opportunity to change incorrect decisions. I don't want to see games continously interrupted for video checking - and feel this method would prevent too many interruptions as managers would need to be 100% certain to challange.
I admit it could be used tactically, but feel it would be a benefit overall.

[boltonboris]

But doesn't the human aspect of the game make it so great? It does in my view, If we get beat 1-0 and should have had a few decisions go our way, we can blame the ref and also what have we got to bitch and moan about on a Monday morning?

The only plus-side would be that there are less pundits to be required to analyse decisions

[Montreal Wanderer]

This essentially the system used in, dare I say it, American and Canadian football. It works well, but these are games where stops and starts are part and parcel of the game. It might ruin the flow of footie. Perhaps it should be limited to critical situationjs like a disallowed goal or handball in the penalty area.

[chris]

This essentially the system used in, dare I say it, American and Canadian football. It works well, but these are games where stops and starts are part and parcel of the game. It might ruin the flow of footie. Perhaps it should be limited to critical situationjs like a disallowed goal or handball in the penalty area.

But I do think a challange rule would work like that in practice - if managers lost the ability to challange if the decision stood, they would save challanges for situations such as that.

[dodgykipper]

The 2 challenge rule has also been trialled in cricket this year (in the Pro40 league I think). In the game I saw, Durham made 2 challenges for decisions on catches that never were and the umpire was right on both. No more challenges were allowed during the rest of the innings. You could have an even more controversial decision later on and do nothing about it.
I can see the same in football unless it is used only for rare events like whether the ball crossed the line. Imagine a Barry Knight scenario. The 2 challenges would be used up before the players had broke into a sweat.

[communistworkethic]

For those making the "it takes out the human aspect that makes the game what it is", bollocks. When we were relegated thanks in no small part to Taggart's goal being disallowed, the "human aspect" cost us millions and in no way added to the sport. Manure having the ball 2 feet over the line and Carrol scooping it out of the net while sat next to someone in row c, was criminal. Both scenarios could easily have been avoided.

[H. Pedersen]

I am absolutely in favor of the goal-line technology. Sensors in the ball can instantly relay that information to the referee. Quick, accurate, can't argue with it. As Montreal Wanderer indicated, they have introduced the challenges in American football; what I would add is that they make a boring game even more unwatchable. Even video evidence and technology regarding offsides is impossible to execute given how complicated that law is now. A camera can't tell you if someone was interfering with play or not.