Halfpenny said:I think the idea of the OP is that the retrospective 'trial by slow-mo' as another poster succinctly put it, is what needs to be done away with until video tech is fully implemented on matchday, simply due to its overt manipulation by the media. I think everyone agrees that video tech available to the officials on matchday is absolutely the direction we need to go in.Gary James said:The proper use of video technology is something I strongly agree with and cannot see any legitimate reasons why it cannot be used.
The arguments for are simple and would ensure refs are treated with more respect from managers and players, plus managers would have little to whinge about if a proper process was in place.
Halfpenny said:I think the idea of the OP is that the retrospective 'trial by slow-mo' as another poster succinctly put it, is what needs to be done away with until video tech is fully implemented on matchday, simply due to its overt manipulation by the media. I think everyone agrees that video tech available to the officials on matchday is absolutely the direction we need to go in.Gary James said:The proper use of video technology is something I strongly agree with and cannot see any legitimate reasons why it cannot be used.
The arguments for are simple and would ensure refs are treated with more respect from managers and players, plus managers would have little to whinge about if a proper process was in place.
The arguments against say about time wasted etc. but let's be honest, at City if a goal is scored we see it replayed on the big screens at least 3 or 4 times before the game has even restarted, so any delay for a controversial decision would be minimal.
I'd rather have a minute's delay while they review an incident than the minute time wasted last night while LFC were bringing on a sub at 90 mins (a minute that only resulted in 28 secs of added time).
A video process could allow managers or captains to launch a maximum number of appeals per game (or even over a number of games). If proved a valid appeal then the appropriate decision is made. If appeal proves invalid then the opposition get a free kick and the game resumes.
If a manager or captain makes a habit of appealing for silly stuff game after game then a process can be included that punishes them.
It seems so simple. Refs should support it. Regardless of whether Webb was right/wrong/sighted/unsighted for the Ballotelli incident the issue according to the FA is that his ability has been called into question. Last night another ref error raises the issue again and I think we are right to question their abilities.
This could easily be solved. In both incidents an appeal could have been made and judgement brought within seconds.
Against Spurs.... if Harry felt so strongly about the MB incident he could have appealed then and video techology reviewed. The ref still may have made an incorrect decision, but it would have been done and dusted without the furore after the match.
Last night... as capt Richards would have been right to appeal. The ref could have reviewed it and the right decision reached. Even if the wrong decision was reached after video technology there would be a much stronger case for the ref to say 'in my judgement based on all the evidence I believe that...' and then the FA could legitimately back their ref.
At the moment the system allows us all to criticise and highlight every inconsistency, every mistake... we all look for it and managers/players know that they can blame the ref (as Harry did with his criticism which led to the furore and ultimately the trial by the media for Ballotelli).
I don't see why anyone involved with football from refs, to managers and players can't want technology that will help ensure the right verdict.
Football's too big a business to allow errors to be made game after game and not learn from them.
Gary James said:Halfpenny said:I think the idea of the OP is that the retrospective 'trial by slow-mo' as another poster succinctly put it, is what needs to be done away with until video tech is fully implemented on matchday, simply due to its overt manipulation by the media. I think everyone agrees that video tech available to the officials on matchday is absolutely the direction we need to go in.Gary James said:The proper use of video technology is something I strongly agree with and cannot see any legitimate reasons why it cannot be used.
The arguments for are simple and would ensure refs are treated with more respect from managers and players, plus managers would have little to whinge about if a proper process was in place.
I agree entirely. I'm on about ensuring it happens within the match, not afterwards. If you allow it afterwards then you've got to start disallowing goals scored as a result of incorrect judgements and so on otherwise it's all not fair - and obviously that's a ridiculous situation to get into.
Do it all within the match. It's the best way and limits criticism. It's the right way, but why isn't it backed by the FA?
interpol said:Trial by TV is only ever going to be fair if it's applied to all games.
Big games like the Spurs game had multiple camera angles with super slo-mo capabilities.
Also the fact they are broadcast live instantly means any incident that occurs in it is immediately in the public domain and subject to debate in phone-ins, SSN, etc.
The trouble for us is that all our games are live on TV currently. We could do with a few out of the spotlight.
trublue55 said:interpol said:Trial by TV is only ever going to be fair if it's applied to all games.
Big games like the Spurs game had multiple camera angles with super slo-mo capabilities.
Also the fact they are broadcast live instantly means any incident that occurs in it is immediately in the public domain and subject to debate in phone-ins, SSN, etc.
The trouble for us is that all our games are live on TV currently. We could do with a few out of the spotlight.
Point taken, but, and i am serious here, if they dont want the referees decisions open to debate / ridicule..................and want to treat all games the same.Ban the slo mo, show it as many times as they like, but at normal speed, and judge it , as they forced the referee to do. Whats the point in allowing slo mo to prove the decision was wrong after the event, when they are not prepared to use it to get the decision right at the time it occurred.
Total hypocricy and double standards.