TV Referral System to be trialed in 2015

[MaineRoadmcfc]

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.

Goal line tech doesn't disrupt the play though at all. Personally I didn't think it was needed, very few goals are/will be decided by it, the Bundesliga rejected it as they didn't think it was worth the cost.

 

[Bigga]

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.

Goal line tech doesn't disrupt the play though at all. Personally I didn't think it was needed, very few goals are/will be decided by it, the Bundesliga rejected it as they didn't think it was worth the cost.

Currently, the person that 'disrupts the play' on command is the referee. Well, that won't change. I think what people are forgetting is that most of these scenarios are built from watching the game on TV, where you can put together 'what ifs'. When it is live, a 'challenge' would happen within two or three seconds of an 'incident'. Tennis doesn't allow a player to umm and arr for 2 mins before a challenge, it has to be within a reasonable scope of time. Why would anyone think this would be expanded to accommodate football?? In this regard, none the supposed 'what ifs' gain any traction for argument!

Whilst Blatter is seemingly looking at offering manager's the 'challenge' right, I think this is unworkable as a whole. Like I said in my original thread, the 'challenges' should be at the discretion of the captain and manager. They can use the two between themselves and that would be a trust issue to be worked upon in making the right call. For example, someone brought in the issue of Hughes, but he generally gets his opinions wrong and his 'challenges' would ultimately cost his team.

And, by the way, I only think this 'video ref' system is useful for 'major calls' rather than small innocuous things that the ref can control.

 

[MaineRoadmcfc]

"Ruined tennis"??

That's where any further discussion stops...



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.

Goal line tech doesn't disrupt the play though at all. Personally I didn't think it was needed, very few goals are/will be decided by it, the Bundesliga rejected it as they didn't think it was worth the cost.

Currently, the person that 'disrupts the play' on command is the referee. Well, that won't change. I think what people are forgetting is that most of these scenarios are built from watching the game on TV, where you can put together 'what ifs'. When it is live, a 'challenge' would happen within two or three seconds of an 'incident'. Tennis doesn't allow a player to umm and arr for 2 mins before a challenge, it has to be within a reasonable scope of time. Why would anyone think this would be expanded to accommodate football?? In this regard, none the supposed 'what ifs' gain any traction for argument!

Whilst Blatter is seemingly looking at offering manager's the 'challenge' right, I think this is unworkable as a whole. Like I said in my original thread, the 'challenges' should be at the discretion of the captain and manager. They can use the two between themselves and that would be a trust issue to be worked upon in making the right call. For example, someone brought in the issue of Hughes, but he generally gets his opinions wrong and his 'challenges' would ultimately cost his team.

And, by the way, I only think this 'video ref' system is useful for 'major calls' rather than small innocuous things that the ref can control.

Just sounds horrible to me mate. Very similar to what they do in the NFL and while I like the sport its not what I would like to see in football.

What happens if Team A is on the attack a player goes down no penalty is given, Team B gets the ball and goes on a counter attack, the manager of Team A or captain could easily abuse the challenge system and stop play to stop team B going on a counter attack.

Video replays would also break up play when the game is most open in the latter stages.

Personally I would rather see Fifa get to grips with players who fake injury (I'm looking at you Dzeko and the whole of the Greek NT) and diving. The latter is very simple to deal with, a match ban for anyone seen diving.

I also like the fact that football on the whole is played the same from the grassroots to the world cup, its one of the things which makes football unique, video replays would at the top level would undermine that imo.

 

[Pokes28]

I really don't see how this can work in any fashion that won't be completely disruptive to the game. Also, there were a number of mentions about coaches challenges in the NFL. While true, there are a lot of limitations. Pretty much only possession (was it a fumble or was a knee down, or if a catch was valid type things) , determining field position, clock setting, and scoring plays are reviewable. The worst officiated calls such as holding and pass interference are not reviewable and neither are errant whistles that stop play.

But in the NFL, the average play lasts around 10 seconds and then there is a reset. So even having several reviews doesn't really change too much and if a review isn't upheld, it costs the coach a timeout. But even with the review booths being close to the field, it takes at lot of time in most cases for the review flag to get thrown, the official goes over to the coach to determine what he is reviewing then makes an announcement of what is under review. Then trots his butt over to the review booth and then watches TV for a while. It isn't out of the ordinary for the entire process to take 10 minutes. Do that 4 times a match and a 2 hour match is now nearly 3 hours without any improvement. Players get cold, momentum is lost, etc.

To me, it is great theory, but the reality is that if they want the ref to handle the replays from the pitch it is going to slow everything down way too much. I'd like to know what they seriously believe the benefits will be. I just can't fathom that the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

 

[Bigga]

I really don't see how this can work in any fashion that won't be completely disruptive to the game. Also, there were a number of mentions about coaches challenges in the NFL. While true, there are a lot of limitations. Pretty much only possession (was it a fumble or was a knee down, or if a catch was valid type things) , determining field position, clock setting, and scoring plays are reviewable. The worst officiated calls such as holding and pass interference are not reviewable and neither are errant whistles that stop play.

But in the NFL, the average play lasts around 10 seconds and then there is a reset. So even having several reviews doesn't really change too much and if a review isn't upheld, it costs the coach a timeout. But even with the review booths being close to the field, it takes at lot of time in most cases for the review flag to get thrown, the official goes over to the coach to determine what he is reviewing then makes an announcement of what is under review. Then trots his butt over to the review booth and then watches TV for a while. It isn't out of the ordinary for the entire process to take 10 minutes. Do that 4 times a match and a 2 hour match is now nearly 3 hours without any improvement. Players get cold, momentum is lost, etc.

To me, it is great theory, but the reality is that if they want the ref to handle the replays from the pitch it is going to slow everything down way too much. I'd like to know what they seriously believe the benefits will be. I just can't fathom that the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

I seem to be banging the drum on this subject, but anyway...


American Football and football are two very different playing styles. In our game only things like stamps, diving for pen,s deliberate handballs and the like should be reviewed. I'm not suggesting everything should have a review ability, nor would it take 10 mins for stoppage. A fifth official(if not the fourth) would easily review at the touchline.

People are creating easily solvable scenarios here.

 

[MaineRoadmcfc]

I really don't see how this can work in any fashion that won't be completely disruptive to the game. Also, there were a number of mentions about coaches challenges in the NFL. While true, there are a lot of limitations. Pretty much only possession (was it a fumble or was a knee down, or if a catch was valid type things) , determining field position, clock setting, and scoring plays are reviewable. The worst officiated calls such as holding and pass interference are not reviewable and neither are errant whistles that stop play.

But in the NFL, the average play lasts around 10 seconds and then there is a reset. So even having several reviews doesn't really change too much and if a review isn't upheld, it costs the coach a timeout. But even with the review booths being close to the field, it takes at lot of time in most cases for the review flag to get thrown, the official goes over to the coach to determine what he is reviewing then makes an announcement of what is under review. Then trots his butt over to the review booth and then watches TV for a while. It isn't out of the ordinary for the entire process to take 10 minutes. Do that 4 times a match and a 2 hour match is now nearly 3 hours without any improvement. Players get cold, momentum is lost, etc.

To me, it is great theory, but the reality is that if they want the ref to handle the replays from the pitch it is going to slow everything down way too much. I'd like to know what they seriously believe the benefits will be. I just can't fathom that the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

I seem to be banging the drum on this subject, but anyway...


American Football and football are two very different playing styles. In our game only things like stamps, diving for pen,s deliberate handballs and the like should be reviewed. I'm not suggesting everything should have a review ability, nor would it take 10 mins for stoppage. A fifth official(if not the fourth) would easily review at the touchline.

People are creating easily solvable scenarios here.

So if Team A is on an attack and a player goes down in the box, Team B gets the ball and quickly go on a counter attact. Could the manager or captain of team A stop the game and use a challenge?

 

[dennishasdoneit]

football will eat itself.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I really don't see how this can work in any fashion that won't be completely disruptive to the game. Also, there were a number of mentions about coaches challenges in the NFL. While true, there are a lot of limitations. Pretty much only possession (was it a fumble or was a knee down, or if a catch was valid type things) , determining field position, clock setting, and scoring plays are reviewable. The worst officiated calls such as holding and pass interference are not reviewable and neither are errant whistles that stop play.

But in the NFL, the average play lasts around 10 seconds and then there is a reset. So even having several reviews doesn't really change too much and if a review isn't upheld, it costs the coach a timeout. But even with the review booths being close to the field, it takes at lot of time in most cases for the review flag to get thrown, the official goes over to the coach to determine what he is reviewing then makes an announcement of what is under review. Then trots his butt over to the review booth and then watches TV for a while. It isn't out of the ordinary for the entire process to take 10 minutes. Do that 4 times a match and a 2 hour match is now nearly 3 hours without any improvement. Players get cold, momentum is lost, etc.

To me, it is great theory, but the reality is that if they want the ref to handle the replays from the pitch it is going to slow everything down way too much. I'd like to know what they seriously believe the benefits will be. I just can't fathom that the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

I seem to be banging the drum on this subject, but anyway...


American Football and football are two very different playing styles. In our game only things like stamps, diving for pen,s deliberate handballs and the like should be reviewed. I'm not suggesting everything should have a review ability, nor would it take 10 mins for stoppage. A fifth official(if not the fourth) would easily review at the touchline.

People are creating easily solvable scenarios here.

So if Team A is on an attack and a player goes down in the box, Team B gets the ball and quickly go on a counter attact. Could the manager or captain of team A stop the game and use a challenge?

I'm pretty sure Blatter said the review could only happen when the ball next goes out of play, so no they couldn't beak up a counter attack. The system could, however, render several minutes of play that includes a goal completely meaningless.

Colin Murray pointed out yesterday that the most similar American sport to football is ice hockey. It's also the only American sport that doesn't have a review system because they determined that it would be completely unworkable. I agree with him.

 

[stonerblue]

I really don't see how this can work in any fashion that won't be completely disruptive to the game. Also, there were a number of mentions about coaches challenges in the NFL. While true, there are a lot of limitations. Pretty much only possession (was it a fumble or was a knee down, or if a catch was valid type things) , determining field position, clock setting, and scoring plays are reviewable. The worst officiated calls such as holding and pass interference are not reviewable and neither are errant whistles that stop play.

But in the NFL, the average play lasts around 10 seconds and then there is a reset. So even having several reviews doesn't really change too much and if a review isn't upheld, it costs the coach a timeout. But even with the review booths being close to the field, it takes at lot of time in most cases for the review flag to get thrown, the official goes over to the coach to determine what he is reviewing then makes an announcement of what is under review. Then trots his butt over to the review booth and then watches TV for a while. It isn't out of the ordinary for the entire process to take 10 minutes. Do that 4 times a match and a 2 hour match is now nearly 3 hours without any improvement. Players get cold, momentum is lost, etc.

To me, it is great theory, but the reality is that if they want the ref to handle the replays from the pitch it is going to slow everything down way too much. I'd like to know what they seriously believe the benefits will be. I just can't fathom that the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

I seem to be banging the drum on this subject, but anyway...


American Football and football are two very different playing styles. In our game only things like stamps, diving for pen,s deliberate handballs and the like should be reviewed. I'm not suggesting everything should have a review ability, nor would it take 10 mins for stoppage. A fifth official(if not the fourth) would easily review at the touchline.

People are creating easily solvable scenarios here.

In that case, who gets to review the 5th official?

 

[MaineRoadmcfc]

I seem to be banging the drum on this subject, but anyway...


American Football and football are two very different playing styles. In our game only things like stamps, diving for pen,s deliberate handballs and the like should be reviewed. I'm not suggesting everything should have a review ability, nor would it take 10 mins for stoppage. A fifth official(if not the fourth) would easily review at the touchline.

People are creating easily solvable scenarios here.

So if Team A is on an attack and a player goes down in the box, Team B gets the ball and quickly go on a counter attact. Could the manager or captain of team A stop the game and use a challenge?

I'm pretty sure Blatter said the review could only happen when the ball next goes out of play, so no they couldn't beak up a counter attack. The system could, however, render several minutes of play that includes a goal completely meaningless.

Colin Murray pointed out yesterday that the most similar American sport to football is ice hockey. It's also the only American sport that doesn't have a review system because they determined that it would be completely unworkable. I agree with him.

Dont see how that can possibly work tbh