PL begins conducting secret video technology trials

[Frogfish]

At long bloody last ! Football being hauled kicking and screaming into the 21st Century after being shown the way by Rugby and Tennis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...ns-conducting-secret-video-technology-trials/

 

[Frogfish]

I wonder how many titles, cups, World Cups etc. would have gone another way had this technology been available 50 years ago.

 

[Modo]

We might have won the Fa cup against Chelsea if Carroll's header was determined to be in.
We might have also lost an Fa cup final if Henchoz handball in the box was discovered.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Not very secret, what with it being in the paper.

 

[manwithnoname]

I'm not that arsed, really.

If it starts to interfere with the flow of a game and make it too stop-start, it will get very annoying.
Which is why it's not as disruptive in rugby or tennis.

 

[Kay Age El]

I'm not that arsed, really.

If it starts to interfere with the flow of a game and make it too stop-start, it will get very annoying.
Which is why it's not as disruptive in rugby or tennis.

My suggestion, one call per manager per game.

And when you make the call to get a specific incident overlooked you will either win it or lose it. If you win it, you will get a new call at your disposal if you lose it, well, that's that then.

This way it would actually be a game in the game. Managers will have to really keep their cool and not throw the card around (if it's a card) and only when they believe it to be a massively game deciding incident they should take action. And now that goal tech has entered the game it would mainly be used for highly controversial penalty decisions, red cards and key offside decisions.

I already love the idea. Get it implemented asap.

 

[manwithnoname]

My suggestion, one call per manager per game.

And when you make the call to get a specific incident overlooked you will either win it or lose it. If you win it, you will get a new call at your disposal if you lose it, well, that's that then.

This way it would actually be a game in the game. Managers will have to really keep their cool and not throw the card around (if it's a card) and only when they feel it was massively game deciding incident they should take action. And now that goal tech has entered the game it would mainly be used for highly controversial penalty decisions, red card and offside.

I already love the idea. Get it implemented asap.

We don't need a game within a game, and it's a horrible idea.

Referee and assistants should make the call, if they see the need.

 

[Kay Age El]

We don't need a game within a game, and it's a horrible idea.

Referee and assistants should make the call, if they see the need.

But they don't. And it's a wonderful idea.

I watched 5 referees in the same game of late all overlooking at least three of the most blatant penalties you'll see. The Soton vs Inter game in the EL if anyone's interested.

Had Sotons manager been given the chance to make a call on the first mistake it would've change the course of the game and it would probably also made the players less interested in making use of their dirty tricks knowing that they could very well be caught out. Internazionale's players quickly understood that the refs in that particular game certainly wasn't going to interfere with their methods why they just kept going, which could've and should've been stopped the first time around.

 

[manwithnoname]

But they don't. And it's a wonderful idea.

I watched 5 referees in the same game of late all overlooking at least three of the most blatant penalties you'll see. The Soton vs Inter game in the EL if anyone's interested.

Had Sotons manager been given the chance to make a call on the first mistake it would've change the course of the game and it would probably also made the players less interested in making use of their dirty tricks knowing that they could very well be caught out. Internazionale's players quickly understood that the refs in that particular game certainly wasn't going to interfere with their methods why they just kept going, which could've and should've been stopped the first time around.

I'm assuming that any such technology would have an assistant to the referee observing it. You know, like we do. On telly.

 

[Kay Age El]

I'm assuming that any such technology would have an assistant to the referee observing it. You know, like we do. On telly.

Only when the call is made, yeah. I don't like the idea of another referee watching the game to ref it from the sidelines.

I am only pro the idea where an incident at a managers demand can be looked through. It only takes a tech on the side who can supply the relevant slows and that the ref (and perhaps his assistant on the side) runs to watch the incident over deciding whether to rule against it.

 

[gkmacca]

The argument about it causing delays would be sounder if it wasn't for the fact that controversial incidents and decisions already cause delays because the players argue about them. I like the appeals now in cricket where you only have a certain number in each innings and a certain amount of time to trigger each one of them, so it becomes another decision-making skill in the game that adds to the drama. You can either rashly waste your quota, like Stuart Broad always tries to do, or make them crucial to victory.

 

[ctlovesred]

NFL lets coaches challenge a couple of calls per game and it works out OK. They naturally only contest the most vital calls, if they are wrong they are down one challenge. If they win they keep it. Overall it adds a few minutes but it's not horrible. And then the refs and owners and fans have one less thing to whine about afterwards.

 

[manwithnoname]

NFL lets coaches challenge a couple of calls per game and it works out OK. They naturally only contest the most vital calls, if they are wrong they are down one challenge. If they win they keep it. Overall it adds a few minutes but it's not horrible. And then the refs and owners and fans have one less thing to whine about afterwards.

But american football is about three hours long, and the ball is only in play for just over 10 minutes. It's a spectacle based entirely around stoppages and in-game tactical changes.

Tennis and cricket, and to a lesser extent rugby are also fragmented, staccato games.

Football has to be able to flow properly. It's designed to "stop" as little as possible. You are encouraged to take set-pieces quickly and penalised if you don't. There's still far more actual action and continuous excitement in football as a sport because of that, which is why it's the best spectator sport ever invented.

 

[ctlovesred]

But american football is about three hours long, and the ball is only in play for just over 10 minutes. It's a spectacle based entirely around stoppages and in-game tactical changes.

Tennis and cricket, and to a lesser extent rugby are also fragmented, staccato games.

Football has to be able to flow properly. It's designed to "stop" as little as possible. You are encouraged to take set-pieces quickly and penalised if you don't. There's still far more actual action and continuous excitement in football as a sport because of that, which is why it's the best spectator sport ever invented.

That's all true. If each manager had one challenge and it added 30 seconds each time I think most fans would be ok with it. I see more interruptions with all the feigned injuries than with adding limited video review.

 

[Kay Age El]

But american football is about three hours long, and the ball is only in play for just over 10 minutes. It's a spectacle based entirely around stoppages and in-game tactical changes.

Tennis and cricket, and to a lesser extent rugby are also fragmented, staccato games.

Football has to be able to flow properly. It's designed to "stop" as little as possible. You are encouraged to take set-pieces quickly and penalised if you don't. There's still far more actual action and continuous excitement in football as a sport because of that, which is why it's the best spectator sport ever invented.

I agree with your overall concerns that football certainly do not need a lot of additional time-wasting shenanigans, why the 'one-call' per game quota suggestion.

And also, as Macca rightly pointed out, there are already a lot of irregular stops in the slipstream of controversial decisions in football, and this would certainly be the case to a lesser extent if/when it will be possible to re-watch the incident.

Us the viewers should then see exactly what is showed to the ref when a call is made, this way, when that inevitable stop in play that almost always surrounds the big, game-deciding calls, will firstly more often than not end up beeing 'correct' decisions and secondly lead to less frustrations. And better entertainment value overall.

I believe this a win-win that is so evidently obvious that I find it kinda frustrating it hasn't been implemented as of now.

 

[Frogfish]

I'm not that arsed, really.

If it starts to interfere with the flow of a game and make it too stop-start, it will get very annoying.
Which is why it's not as disruptive in rugby or tennis.

Any big call will entail at least 60-90 secs of bickering, cajoling and outright aggression from the team on the receiving end. If the call is made/confirmed elsewhere and it takes no longer than 45 secs (as per the claim in the article) then there is no way it will be interfering with the flow of the match. And in any case, however long it takes (within reason) I'd rather the correct decision is given than a poor one that ends up adversely affecting the match.

 

[Kay Age El]

Imagine seeing Rooney celebrate like a drunken madman after having scored in extra time at Anfield to secure United a vital point only to then witness a smirking Klopp casually throw a green card onto the pitch.. A CALL!

The beast is stunned.

Refs storming to the sideline, a packed adrenaline-induced Anfield holding its breath, Rooney shaking his head in disbelief, Mourinho throwing hissy fits at the refs trying to impact their judgment.. *silence*.. the air quivering with excitement.. and Klopp still smirking. Calmly.

And there it is.. ref has made his decision, he looks up..

- GOAL DISALLOWED!

Offside. The roar. The release. Rooney booked for stupidity and Mourinho sent away amid strong, almost physical protests.

Klopp still smirking. Victoriously.

Liverpool winning the league. And then the Champions League. Suarez coming back to join us.. and we are signing Eriksen.

*wakes up*

 

[manwithnoname]

Poor old Wayne would not be impressed by being likened to "a drunken madman" at the moment.

 

[Kay Age El]

Poor old Wayne would not be impressed by being likened to "a drunken madman" at the moment.

It was very deliberate I might add.

 

[manwithnoname]

I'm actually a bit impressed he could stay up until 5am drinking red wine.

Proper sesh.

 

[Kay Age El]

I'm actually a bit impressed he could stay up until 5am drinking red wine.

Proper sesh.

Ha ha.. last time I was on the red wine me and the missus stumbled home (across the street) at around 1am and I spent most of the next on the toilet fighting off the worst hangover in the entire universe.. so yeah, equally impressed.

 

[refugee]

Imagine seeing Rooney celebrate like a drunken madman after having scored in extra time at Anfield to secure United a vital point only to then witness a smirking Klopp casually throw a green card onto the pitch.. A CALL!

The beast is stunned.

Refs storming to the sideline, a packed adrenaline-induced Anfield holding its breath, Rooney shaking his head in disbelief, Mourinho throwing hissy fits at the refs trying to impact their judgment.. *silence*.. the air quivering with excitement.. and Klopp still smirking. Calmly.

And there it is.. ref has made his decision, he looks up..

- GOAL DISALLOWED!

Offside. The roar. The release. Rooney booked for stupidity and Mourinho sent away amid strong, almost physical protests.

Klopp still smirking. Victoriously.

Liverpool winning the league. And then the Champions League. Suarez coming back to join us.. and we are signing Eriksen.

*wakes up*

I'd rather we just beat them 8 nil. And then they got relegated. And then Fergie got mauled by a bear.

 

[YNWA]

My suggestion, one call per manager per game.

And when you make the call to get a specific incident overlooked you will either win it or lose it. If you win it, you will get a new call at your disposal if you lose it, well, that's that then.

This way it would actually be a game in the game. Managers will have to really keep their cool and not throw the card around (if it's a card) and only when they believe it to be a massively game deciding incident they should take action. And now that goal tech has entered the game it would mainly be used for highly controversial penalty decisions, red cards and key offside decisions.

I already love the idea. Get it implemented asap.

What you are proposing is very similar to what has been introduced in international cricket, i.e. every team gets two successful reviews per 80 overs in test matches & 1 successful review per innings in an ODI. It has reduced the number of major mistakes which umpires used to make, however unlike football, cricket as sport is quite stop & start, so it made a lot of sense to introduce video technology

 

[darkstarexodus]

NFL lets coaches challenge a couple of calls per game and it works out OK. They naturally only contest the most vital calls, if they are wrong they are down one challenge. If they win they keep it. Overall it adds a few minutes but it's not horrible. And then the refs and owners and fans have one less thing to whine about afterwards.

Hockey has instituted a similar coaches challenge on certain matters and has had video replay on goals for years. And hockey is a much more fluid sport than American football .

I think the replay system with challenges works well in both sports.

 

[gkmacca]

What you are proposing is very similar to what has been introduced in international cricket, i.e. every team gets two successful reviews per 80 overs in test matches & 1 successful review per innings in an ODI. It has reduced the number of major mistakes which umpires used to make, however unlike football, cricket as sport is quite stop & start, so it made a lot of sense to introduce video technology

But I think, if they really wanted to, many cricket reviews could be way quicker. A bit of showbiz has crept in, with the reviewer dragging it out when common sense should allow them to cut the process short. That game is ripe for someone to make that method less slavish in the way it proceeds. And in football, there would surely be a more limited review, with no 'snicko' stuff and maybe just two key camera angles to assess.

I really think if you tried that and timed it, and then timed footage of a ref telling crowds of players to go away, then him jogging over to his assistant, both of putting their hands over their mouths and mumbling something, then the ref jogging back and maybe showing someone a red or disallowing a goal, the difference in time would be negligible.

 

[tombrown]

Challenging refs decisions, even if limited, will be a proper time wasting tactic when 2-1 up at 90 mins. Different to NFL where the clock stops every time the ref scratches his arse

 

[peterhague]

But I think, if they really wanted to, many cricket reviews could be way quicker. A bit of showbiz has crept in, with the reviewer dragging it out when common sense should allow them to cut the process short. That game is ripe for someone to make that method less slavish in the way it proceeds. And in football, there would surely be a more limited review, with no 'snicko' stuff and maybe just two key camera angles to assess.

I really think if you tried that and timed it, and then timed footage of a ref telling crowds of players to go away, then him jogging over to his assistant, both of putting their hands over their mouths and mumbling something, then the ref jogging back and maybe showing someone a red or disallowing a goal, the difference in time would be negligible.

Exactly. 90 odd % of the situations requiring review already incur these stoppages.

The one major category I can think of that might be a problem is offside calls, because you can't reverse an incorrectly raised flag if the attack has been stopped. So they might have to compensate by letting attacks play out more, I suppose.


Personally I don't really like the idea of dramatising the change by having managers use a very limited quota of challenges, though. Football's entertaining enough - I just want it to be as fair as possible. And so the video ref should be able to intervene on major calls (ie where a goal is at stake) as often as necessary.

 

[YNWA]

But I think, if they really wanted to, many cricket reviews could be way quicker. A bit of showbiz has crept in, with the reviewer dragging it out when common sense should allow them to cut the process short. That game is ripe for someone to make that method less slavish in the way it proceeds. And in football, there would surely be a more limited review, with no 'snicko' stuff and maybe just two key camera angles to assess.

I really think if you tried that and timed it, and then timed footage of a ref telling crowds of players to go away, then him jogging over to his assistant, both of putting their hands over their mouths and mumbling something, then the ref jogging back and maybe showing someone a red or disallowing a goal, the difference in time would be negligible.

Re cricket i agree with you about the amount of time taken on reviews, however a lot also depends on who the 3rd umpire is. I have seen a few who just need one look at the replay to make up their mind and there are others who keep on playing it back and forth for ages and yes it can get frustrating. Also impacts the over rate per hour which has become a joke now in international cricket.

In football also i believe the same principle would apply. Some refs simply make a decision and let the players get on with the game and some feel like stopping the game to deliver a never ending lecturing. This again impacts on how much football is actually played. Read somewhere a while back that the actual number of minutes where the ball is in play during the 90 minutes is close to 60 mins or even less than that.

On the other hand i have some sympathy with the refs / umpires given every decision of theirs is dissected and discussed threadbare and i can understand why some of them would want to take a few extra moments to be sure they are making the right decision.