TV Referral System to be trialed in 2015

[yeah whatever !!]

At Soccerex today, Step Ladder came up with this gem...

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481</a>

Sepp Blatter: 'Football TV referrals trial may happen next year'

A TV replay system allowing coaches to challenge a referee's decision may be trialled next year, Fifa president Sepp Blatter has announced.
Speaking via video link at Manchester's Soccerex, the Swiss, 78, said he wanted coaches to be allowed at least one challenge per half.
He revealed the trial could happen at next year's Fifa Under-20 World Cup.
"We can try in a youth competition, an Under-20, like next year when we are in New Zealand," he said.
"It can only be done where there is television coverage of all the matches."
In a wide-ranging interview, Blatter also confirmed he would seek re-election as Fifa president in 2015.
Coaches in the NFL have the authority to challenge a referee's decision
Coaches in the NFL have the authority to challenge an official's decision
He said the on-field referee would have the final say on whether to change their own decision.
Blatter said coaches would "have the right in the half, twice or once, to challenge a refereeing decision but only when the game is stopped".
He added: "Then, there must be a television monitor but by the television company and not by another referee.
"And then the referee and the coach, they will go then to look, and then the referee may change his mind, as it is the case in tennis, for instance."
Blatter also stated:
The 2022 World Cup in Qatar will have to be played in winter and consultation has started with the players' union FIFPro, clubs, leagues and the six continental federations about moving the tournament.
A boycott of the 2018 World Cup in Russia would not work as such a move in sport "never has any benefit".
He wants "respect, fair play and perhaps also the truth" over allegations over corruption within Fifa.
He still respects Greg Dyke despite criticism from the Football Association chairman.
Blatter announced his intention to seek a fifth term in charge of world football's governing body and will make an official announcement at Fifa's executive committee meeting between 25-26 September.
He had told delegates at a Uefa congress in March 2011 that he would definitely stand down in 2015.
However, that plan has now been shelved, with Blatter completing a U-turn.
"You see a mission is never finished. And my mission is not finished," said Blatter.

Opinions?

I suppose that would be a shoe in for another term.

 

[greasedupdeafguy]

I really wish I could post up the original thread that really kick started this discussion, but it was pre 2009.

I do have this snippet as a reminder to those that may remember the thought provoking origin...

Hello, i have coursework to be handed in tomorrow for English, and for it i have to make a speech about something important to me, obviously i could only think of city so i thought why not use video technology? i have 6 points to talk about...

1st. how it would improve the game
2nd. how it works
3rd. how its used in rugby
4th. maradona vs england, world cup incedent
5th. sheff utd match other week & list ofother incedents such as totenham vs utd, (roy carrol)
6th. counter arguments

i would also like to throw somehting about city it, can anybody help me with these points and basically give me some tips and usefull things to say?

Sorry I've only just come in from 5-a-side and seen this.

If it helps I wrote a passionate argument on this that was 'stolen'(let's say) by a particular journo that now works for MCFC!

Anyhoo...

My point was rather than simply using the Rugby method(where the game can stop repeatedly) use it in a tennis type method, where 2 'challenges' per team was allowed. Either Captain or manager could use it and if they were wrong, they would lose a 'challenge'. My thinking was that so many incidents happen they would have to be careful what they chose to use a 'challenge' for. If both teams ran out, then the ref ran the game to his discretion.

In reality, incidents like Adebayor's clash with van Persie would be inconclusive(also note the game had to be stopped, therefore allowing opportunity for the incident to be looked at) BUT would force the ref and 4th Official to make a decision there and then, avoiding the cop out with Clattenburg did with the FA. We would have had the decision in front of everyone, instead of the subsequent trial by media and no 'retrospective' video decisions by the FA.

As Sgoater says you could highlight certain incidents using this method and the ref can make the correct call, instead of fans feeling injustice at games all the time. It won't take away the feeling at time, but it would be much less than it is without video replay. I also wrote as Sgoater does about the clubs' future that hinges on silly unfathomable decisions that can ultimately send a club down. It's careers, income and history that can be affected.

It's not to the say the system wouldn't have initial teething problems, but that's why they are tried and tested in other 'less' important games of football, i.e., U-19/ Women's football etc.

Anyway, Sgoater beats me to my own thesis, but I was just relaying what I wrote about 18 months back.

The original thesis contained how and when a 'challenge' would have been issued. I also remember a poster called 'CBlue' that ridiculed my notion that any kind of review system would come in to play and I told him football had to move with the times and this was the fairest way of levelling the game at the highest plateau.

I also said, when challenged on other divisions having access, that like tennis/ cricket/ rugby, not all levels would have an automatic right for video replay. As an afterthought, the only way more profitable division get access would be 'trickle down' money for televisual/ refereeing purposes.

I said it in 2008 and I'll say it now; it's gonna happen, like it or not...

By the way, many of you are suggesting multiple incidents as a scenario and what does the ref do? He does what he does now, call on the first incident as everything afterwards is irrelevant.

When he waves 'play on' and no advantage is gained, he will call it back. In this multiple case, he will call on the first incident, if proved to be correct.

So in this scenario what happens.

Team A gets a penalty using video technology but a few minutes before in the build up Team B should have been given a thrown in.

For me this why technology in the game wont work as its just to free flowing unlike other sports, there will always human error by refs.

If you want to make the game fair then have replays for every decision but I'm sure most wouldn't like to see that happen.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The best way to deal with diving would be to do it retrospectively. Automatic 3 match ban for anyone caught doing it on video. And anywhere on the pitch too, not just in the penalty area. And include those deliberately dangling the leg ones too and the ones where people are going down before anyone comes anywhere near them, even if they do get clattered later. With offsides, I guess you could keep playing while an official looks at the replay and then relay the decision to the referee who can blow his whistle 5 or 10 seconds later. It would mean that attacking players would always be given the benefit of the doubt and have to keep playing up until the decision was made, meaning that you wouldn't have the situation of the ref blowing the whistle when someone's through on goal, they'd have to try and score and find out later if they were offside. Having a real time video ref and retrospective punishment is the only way it can work in football, I think.

 

[Bigga]

I really wish I could post up the original thread that really kick started this discussion, but it was pre 2009.

I do have this snippet as a reminder to those that may remember the thought provoking origin...

Sorry I've only just come in from 5-a-side and seen this.

If it helps I wrote a passionate argument on this that was 'stolen'(let's say) by a particular journo that now works for MCFC!

Anyhoo...

My point was rather than simply using the Rugby method(where the game can stop repeatedly) use it in a tennis type method, where 2 'challenges' per team was allowed. Either Captain or manager could use it and if they were wrong, they would lose a 'challenge'. My thinking was that so many incidents happen they would have to be careful what they chose to use a 'challenge' for. If both teams ran out, then the ref ran the game to his discretion.

In reality, incidents like Adebayor's clash with van Persie would be inconclusive(also note the game had to be stopped, therefore allowing opportunity for the incident to be looked at) BUT would force the ref and 4th Official to make a decision there and then, avoiding the cop out with Clattenburg did with the FA. We would have had the decision in front of everyone, instead of the subsequent trial by media and no 'retrospective' video decisions by the FA.

As Sgoater says you could highlight certain incidents using this method and the ref can make the correct call, instead of fans feeling injustice at games all the time. It won't take away the feeling at time, but it would be much less than it is without video replay. I also wrote as Sgoater does about the clubs' future that hinges on silly unfathomable decisions that can ultimately send a club down. It's careers, income and history that can be affected.

It's not to the say the system wouldn't have initial teething problems, but that's why they are tried and tested in other 'less' important games of football, i.e., U-19/ Women's football etc.

Anyway, Sgoater beats me to my own thesis, but I was just relaying what I wrote about 18 months back.

The original thesis contained how and when a 'challenge' would have been issued. I also remember a poster called 'CBlue' that ridiculed my notion that any kind of review system would come in to play and I told him football had to move with the times and this was the fairest way of levelling the game at the highest plateau.

I also said, when challenged on other divisions having access, that like tennis/ cricket/ rugby, not all levels would have an automatic right for video replay. As an afterthought, the only way more profitable division get access would be 'trickle down' money for televisual/ refereeing purposes.

I said it in 2008 and I'll say it now; it's gonna happen, like it or not...

By the way, many of you are suggesting multiple incidents as a scenario and what does the ref do? He does what he does now, call on the first incident as everything afterwards is irrelevant.

When he waves 'play on' and no advantage is gained, he will call it back. In this multiple case, he will call on the first incident, if proved to be correct.

So in this scenario what happens.

Team A gets a penalty using video technology but a few minutes before in the build up Team B should have been given a thrown in.

For me this why technology in the game wont work as its just to free flowing unlike other sports, there will always human error by refs.

If you want to make the game fair then have replays for every decision but I'm sure most wouldn't like to see that happen.

Answered within my original post, years ago. I thought of every angle, at the time, which is why the article got nicked as presented as own by the reporter.

If someone is stupid enough to use a challenge based on a throw in, that's their problem. However, there are only two challenges allowed and it wouldn't be an ongoing situation(something many on here actually forgetting!). 2 'challenges' changes nought in the aspect of the game. As I said before, one would have to pick and choose when those 'challenges'/ 'reviews' are made. Frivolous challenges should just lose you the right to question a decision for that half.

It makes perfect sense, it's modern and makes the game more accessible to all audiences,i.e., no one going away feeling cheated.

As I said originally, it actually makes referees more accountable for decisions as they can't 'bottle' anything and can't cheat. If something is blatant, not given and is challenged, then the whole world gets to see that.

What's not to love...??

 

[Gordyola]

I really wish I could post up the original thread that really kick started this discussion, but it was pre 2009.

I do have this snippet as a reminder to those that may remember the thought provoking origin...



The original thesis contained how and when a 'challenge' would have been issued. I also remember a poster called 'CBlue' that ridiculed my notion that any kind of review system would come in to play and I told him football had to move with the times and this was the fairest way of levelling the game at the highest plateau.

I also said, when challenged on other divisions having access, that like tennis/ cricket/ rugby, not all levels would have an automatic right for video replay. As an afterthought, the only way more profitable division get access would be 'trickle down' money for televisual/ refereeing purposes.

I said it in 2008 and I'll say it now; it's gonna happen, like it or not...

By the way, many of you are suggesting multiple incidents as a scenario and what does the ref do? He does what he does now, call on the first incident as everything afterwards is irrelevant.

When he waves 'play on' and no advantage is gained, he will call it back. In this multiple case, he will call on the first incident, if proved to be correct.

So in this scenario what happens.

Team A gets a penalty using video technology but a few minutes before in the build up Team B should have been given a thrown in.

For me this why technology in the game wont work as its just to free flowing unlike other sports, there will always human error by refs.

If you want to make the game fair then have replays for every decision but I'm sure most wouldn't like to see that happen.

Answered within my original post, years ago. I thought of every angle, at the time, which is why the article got nicked as presented as own by the reporter.

If someone is stupid enough to use a challenge based on a throw in, that's their problem. However, there are only two challenges allowed and it wouldn't be an ongoing situation(something many on here actually forgetting!). 2 'challenges' changes nought in the aspect of the game. As I said before, one would have to pick and choose when those 'challenges'/ 'reviews' are made. Frivolous challenges should just lose you the right to question a decision for that half.

It makes perfect sense, it's modern and makes the game more accessible to all audiences,i.e., no one going away feeling cheated.

As I said originally, it actually makes referees more accountable for decisions as they can't 'bottle' anything and can't cheat. If something is blatant, not given and is challenged, then the whole world gets to see that.

What's not to love...??

Absolute nonsense it has already ruined tennis with the happy clappers Ooohh when they do the replay Football is flowing game this would spoil it giving the likes of Hughes another tactic to dispute play Blatter has always resisted anything that makes the pro game different from that played on the park so what's changed?

 

[Navas >>| Fast Forward]

At Soccerex today, Step Ladder came up with this gem...

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481</a>

Sepp Blatter: 'Football TV referrals trial may happen next year'
Blatter said coaches would "have the right in the half, twice or once, to challenge a refereeing decision but only when the game is stopped".
He added: "Then, there must be a television monitor but by the television company and not by another referee.
"You see a mission is never finished. And my mission is not finished," said Blatter.

Opinions?

I'm not sure Sky or BT can be trusted to pool evidence for penalty decisions impartially.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

At Soccerex today, Step Ladder came up with this gem...

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29109481</a>

Sepp Blatter: 'Football TV referrals trial may happen next year'
Blatter said coaches would "have the right in the half, twice or once, to challenge a refereeing decision but only when the game is stopped".
He added: "Then, there must be a television monitor but by the television company and not by another referee.
"You see a mission is never finished. And my mission is not finished," said Blatter.

Opinions?

I'm not sure Sky or BT can be trusted to pool evidence for penalty decisions impartially.

nope, only have to see how ITV brushed Rooney's stamp on Monday under the carpet.

 

[stonerblue]

Some right drama queens on here "death of the sport" etc. In case it has escaped your attention the refs, certainly in the Prem, are getting worse and the game has become too fast for the refs and linesman and they make shocking cock ups all the time. Cock ups which could mean a club getting relegated or a team winning the league or not. I have zero problem when a dodgy goal has been scored during the natural break in the game the manager challenges it and the ref has another look and then makes a decision. Having worked on a football broadcasts they have the replays up and ready within 3 seconds so we won't all be sitting there for ages waiting for it to happen. Obviously things like normal offsides the system wouldn't work but for bad tackles the ref has missed, wrongly disallowed goals etc.

Football has for too long been stuck in it's "tradition" with fans of a certain age up in arms at even the slightest hint of change. It's time the game got with the times and utilised the readily available technology to make the game fairer and more importantly protect teams from shockingly inept refs.

Yeah, you're right.
After all, who wouldn't wanna pay £50 for a ticket to wait for a big screen to shout 'GOAL'. Then we could all cheer together and look passionate by screaming into a camera.
Hopefully they'll also start cutting away from the on-field action as well to show crazy people in fancy dress and fit birds and that. Glad i'm on the waiting list now

 

[mat]

It won't happen.

It's a way to distract jurnos dipping into twatter past whilst he's standing again.

What will happen will be the mandatory 3 min stoppage for injuries which co-incidentally is enough time for a commercial break.

 

[Bigga]

So in this scenario what happens.

Team A gets a penalty using video technology but a few minutes before in the build up Team B should have been given a thrown in.

For me this why technology in the game wont work as its just to free flowing unlike other sports, there will always human error by refs.

If you want to make the game fair then have replays for every decision but I'm sure most wouldn't like to see that happen.

Answered within my original post, years ago. I thought of every angle, at the time, which is why the article got nicked as presented as own by the reporter.

If someone is stupid enough to use a challenge based on a throw in, that's their problem. However, there are only two challenges allowed and it wouldn't be an ongoing situation(something many on here actually forgetting!). 2 'challenges' changes nought in the aspect of the game. As I said before, one would have to pick and choose when those 'challenges'/ 'reviews' are made. Frivolous challenges should just lose you the right to question a decision for that half.

It makes perfect sense, it's modern and makes the game more accessible to all audiences,i.e., no one going away feeling cheated.

As I said originally, it actually makes referees more accountable for decisions as they can't 'bottle' anything and can't cheat. If something is blatant, not given and is challenged, then the whole world gets to see that.

What's not to love...??

Absolute nonsense it has already ruined tennis with the happy clappers Ooohh when they do the replay Football is flowing game this would spoil it giving the likes of Hughes another tactic to dispute play Blatter has always resisted anything that makes the pro game different from that played on the park so what's changed?

"Ruined tennis"??

That's where any further discussion stops...

It won't happen.

It's a way to distract jurnos dipping into twatter past whilst he's standing again.

What will happen will be the mandatory 3 min stoppage for injuries which co-incidentally is enough time for a commercial break.

Remember when goal line tech wouldn't happen?? Has it supported the game or did you prefer it when fans and teams would be incensed at ridiculous decisions? Even Blatter once said he liked the idea of fans discussing incidents in pubs and at work! He changed his mind on that and brought it in.

So long as trials are fairly successful, it will be brought in.