It's common for youth tournaments to be used as trial environments. The officials will generally be ones that officiate in competitions that already have VAR etc. So it's not a random summer league with L5's refereeing it
Maybe they want to trial it in a match that actually has something riding on the outcome so that people use their challenges correctly - I don't know.
Which is exactly why I've said to give it a go. Gives them an element of control, but more importantly, accountability.
I've argued for and against a challenge system. It has merit but it does still also have it's flaws.
One hundred percent not. I'm an umpire as well, at the football equivalent of level 5, and the difference is massive. I have only ever had players shout at me/criticise me twice, one got 10 matches and the other 15. We would get blamed in football.
Maybe? It's hard to tell, but I feel like as a ref, if the system existed to formally challenge and a player just chose to shout at me instead, I'd be far more willing to start throwing out dissent cautions.
Aye, Ref makes a mistake with a review of a challenge... and it massively fuels the notion that managers know the game better than refs
We at least wouldn't need a caution for excessively making the TV signal anymore!
As I said not wanting to debate too much but a few months back there were another few page thread I was very active in at the time.where these points were debated. Time will tell but this is personally where I see a challenge system headed. What is obvious is most of football seems unhappy with the current iteration so it's worth a trial, I guess.
I genuinely don't think I've ever seen anyone cautioned for this!
I've also never sent someone off for entering the video operation room, and given that in England the video operation room is in Stockley Park, I find it unlikely that anyone ever has, but it's still in the LOTG as a red card offence.
That could happen. Or the referee gets a second look, changes his decision and is seen as being human.
Out of interest, would we propose that the manager gets to explain why he is challenging a decision? The ref from the Utd vs Newcastle game may watch it back and still not see the achilles contact unless it was pointed out to him.
Agree with that, and I keep coming back to the same word: subjective. Let's say a manager challenges a decision, the referee goes to the screen and decides to stick with his original decision. Cue outcry in the media as they feel the original decision was wrong, and the usual suspects such as Hackett and Halsey will have a pile on saying the standard of refereeing isn't as good as it was in their days, if they can't get it right after watching a replay, blah, blah, blah.
I'd imagine they would have to do some form of explanation somewhere as to why they're challenging. But whether they would want them to go into so much detail, I don't know. Saying it's for a foul is fine. But if they started specifying on the achilles etc, I don't know if that would work. From what I remember, they don't really do that with current system as they don't want to cloud referees judgement.
