Video Assistant Referee
- Thread starter es1
- Start date
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
What an absolute dog's dinner!
Referees in the professional game take the advice of their assistant's and supposedly the statues behind the goals, so why can't the referee accept the advice of the referee watching the video, surely would make the whole process quicker.
Personally think football authorities would be better off using the readily available video evidence to hit cheats with retrospective lengthy bans and heavy fines which increases with each subsequent offence before they try emulating cricket and rugby!
Referees in the professional game take the advice of their assistant's and supposedly the statues behind the goals, so why can't the referee accept the advice of the referee watching the video, surely would make the whole process quicker.
Personally think football authorities would be better off using the readily available video evidence to hit cheats with retrospective lengthy bans and heavy fines which increases with each subsequent offence before they try emulating cricket and rugby!
Paul March
Well-Known Member
Didn't quite work out at today's game! Oooppps
This is definitely a fair point. First thing to do is get rid of the pathetic "the referee did something on the pitch, so we can't do anything excuse". That's their rule and they can change it if they wanted to!
And if they really want to give the referee full control, make it part of his duty to re-watch the match after and flag up any incidents he believes may have been mis-handled in the heat of the moment. I'm capable of pointing at decisions I was less than sure about, or situations where I feel I missed something and that's just in my head without any replays!
They can and have upped yellows to reds retrospectively on a few selected occasions... They choose not to routinely because it would open a plethora of Press led claims for everything remotely controversial to be looked at again.
And that's somehow considered better than routinely having issues like Rojo's tackling undermine confidence in referees across the PL?
Paul March
Well-Known Member
Rojo's tackling isn't undermining referees. Referees by not taking action when they see it are undermining referees.
Same goes on the park. It isn't players dissent that causes problems for referees it's referees who are not prepared to do anything about it that are causing the issues.
Same goes on the park. It isn't players dissent that causes problems for referees it's referees who are not prepared to do anything about it that are causing the issues.
But what if they would have dealt with it correctly if they'd seen it clearly? The system seems specifically designed to avoid any chance of ending up with the right conclusion if the humans in the middle don't nail it first time.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
The more i think about it the more I am against video refereeing. Rugby use it for try no try. Cricket uses for in / out. Tennis the same. We have glt for that.
No other sport, to my knowledge and i know someone is going to correct me, uses it for in play so why should football. Only argument could be for on/offside in a goal situation, maybe! a la rugby. Looks at offside, knock on when reviewing a try. Do they use it elsewhere?
Biggest problem is that even when an incident occurs people, including us as refereeing colleagues, struggle to agree the correct outcome. So if we cant agree then video refereeing is still debateable and therefore erroneous in its purpose.
So whilst this example gives the correct outcome it takes too long and the whole process to arrive at the decision is flawed and I cant say I like it.
No other sport, to my knowledge and i know someone is going to correct me, uses it for in play so why should football. Only argument could be for on/offside in a goal situation, maybe! a la rugby. Looks at offside, knock on when reviewing a try. Do they use it elsewhere?
Biggest problem is that even when an incident occurs people, including us as refereeing colleagues, struggle to agree the correct outcome. So if we cant agree then video refereeing is still debateable and therefore erroneous in its purpose.
So whilst this example gives the correct outcome it takes too long and the whole process to arrive at the decision is flawed and I cant say I like it.
I really dislike this argument.
Cricket uses it only to overrule clearly wrong decisions, marginal decisions remain with the on-field umpire. Similarly, rugby and NFL video referees will only overrule the on-field referee if they can clearly see something wrong. Why do people think this approach won't work for football - anything obviously wrong can be overturned, anything right or in the "grey area" stays with the on-field decision.
I dont disagree with your comments, but that is for goal no goal equivalent decisions which we have sorted with glt. Those games are also slow and punctuated already and the break is immediate. They dont use it for in play decisions as in the op example.
I'm going to correct you...
Rugby uses it for all sorts of things. I'm no expert in the range of circumstances but Eliot Daly was sent off against Argentina a few weeks ago following the onfield ref and the video ref looking at the offence with the onfield ref looking at it on the big screen in the stadium. Admittedly not in play but not try/no try.
In rugby the ref actually looks at in a big screen where one is available.
Go to about 1:50 to see the ref making the decision.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Well two answers to your question why it won't work in football are in this clip
1) Its 4/12 mins from incident to goal being scored
2) There are 90 seconds of play between incident and review - FIFA have said that all incidents in that time have to be treated like rest of the match - so another incident that warrants a review could happen in that time with possible yellow/red cards. However makes no sense for that 90 seconds (or whatever) of play to "count" if original penalty is then given?
Agree for incidents, like "offside" goals, it could work, but even that is problematical, because if assistants know that a "No flag" can be corrected, but that, obvioulsy, a "yes flag" can't, then the tendency is surely to play safe and not flag on most of tight calls.
Racing Post journalist at the weekend hit nail on head for me, when he wrote that ti would ruin the game and that it is being done to appease all those who think that only reason their teams lose is down to us - the referees.
I'm in no way suggesting that this clip demonstrates the best way to do it - anyone suggesting that would clearly be wrong. What I am saying is that the argument I responded to (football has marginal decisions that can't be deemed clearly "wrong") is rubbish.
There will be a better way to implement the rest of the process I'm sure.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Wish I had your confidence in FIFA. They released a statement saying how well they thought this review worked, albeit that the decision took a "few seconds too long"! I make 4 1/2 minutes more than a "few seconds"!