I appreciate referees and assistant referees can?t see everything and errors do occur but I personally would welcome anything that would improve the quality of referee?s judgements and reduce the number or impact of their errors. So, and perhaps I?m wearing my rose tinted glasses here, I raise the subject of using video evidence to mitigate these errors or act as a deterrent to footballers of questionable integrity.
From the arguments I have heard against the use of real time video evidence the main one appears to centre around the concern that it would interrupt the flow of the game. I expect this would be true. However, isn?t the real question: ?would it interrupt play by an unacceptable degree??. For me, I?d have happily sat in my seat for an extra ten minutes whilst the evidence was examined if I knew either of those two goals against us would have been disallowed and the offending players sent off.
Mind you, would it have been ten minutes? How long does it take the Beeb or Sky get footage from all those different camera angles, repeated in slow motion and zoomed-in for us to look at the incident? Seconds. How long would it take for the referee to make a decision? Less than a minute in the majority of cases. Certainly less than the time it takes him to calm the protestations of the players and restore continuity to the game. In fact, does it even have to be the referee on the pitch who examines the video evidence? It could be done ?behind the scenes? by other off-pitch referees and they merely inform the on-pitch referee of the decision he should enforce.
I would image that key to the success of this technology would be it?s judicious application, perhaps limited in use to a small number of significant cases, for example, when there was uncertainty about if the ball had crossed the goal line; a contentious sending off incident; or if a goal had been unjustly earned. Don?t get me wrong, I?m not saying it would be easy to define which, or even when, significant cases merited the use of this kind of examination but surely it offers a way forward to enforce fairer play?
Regardless, I have drifted from the original idea behind this post - I didn?t really intend to attempt to justify the use of real time video evidence. I really wanted to suggest a more pragmatic use of it: as an off line deterrent: after the game a panel of ?officials? review the video evidence surrounding the incident, such as the Eduaro handball. If the footage does not conclusively indicate a foul occurred then nothing is done. If it does, then a severe penalty is enforced, for example, the result is overturned and the player is banned for half a season.
Sure, there would be absolute outrage from managers, club owners, etc., the first few times such penalties were enforced - but what a deterrent and how quickly they would learn. If the player knew that his offence would always be thoroughly scrutinised and the penalty actually hurt player and club (as opposed to pathetic cash fines that hurt nobody) would he ever commit the crime?
Apologies for the lack of sex and lies.
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 16/01/2008 at 01:35:13
It will be vital that the people at the top get it right. Otherwise it will end up being more of a hinderance.
It’s a real shame about the sex and lies though.....!
2 Posted 16/01/2008 at 04:58:20
I agree 100% that certain things can be done to improve on the situation we have with referees and dubious decisions etc. But where does one stop? Do we only do it for "did it cross the line" incidents, do we do it for disputed offsides, dangerous tackles, handball, or even decisions close on the penalty area line...that can be contentious too.
I would say the one thing we definitely need to do is have camera’s in or around the goal area so if the ball crosses the line it should count....that seems like a no-brainer to me. If it crosses the line it should be a goal....if you miss an offside that’s one thing but a goal scored should be a goal, end of.
I think the game as we know it could be ruined if there were too many stoppages.....after all one reason why the Prem IS the best is because it’s non-stop, fast and furious.....we don’t want or need numerous coffee-breaks....so please lets not go down that route.
As bad as some refs can be....it IS part and parcel of the game.....and when they screw up, just like coaches and players do, the pressure is on them all the more because of the high stakes/money involved.....that is not their fault. And as we have humans (with the exception of Clatterberk) for referee’s.....mistakes will always happen even with cameras.
To my mind...the biggest problem is consistency, or the lack of it.
I don’t see how video evidence would have helped us against The RS....for example the tackle on Neville...was a flying two-footed challenge, doesn’t matter if he connected or not, the intent was clearly there. Everybody saw what happened so why wasn’t it a straight red? You don’t need a camera for that!
Equally the foul on Lescott....the ref was right there, clear view....why didn’t he give a PK?
My point being that if the ref did his job you wouldn’t need a camera (and the stoppages to go with it).
3 Posted 16/01/2008 at 08:26:30
4 Posted 16/01/2008 at 09:12:46
5 Posted 16/01/2008 at 10:17:03
With video replays Carsley would have got sent off last week not just a yellow - and I am sure there are other occasions where we have been ?lucky? not just unlucky!
6 Posted 16/01/2008 at 10:24:02
7 Posted 16/01/2008 at 10:25:30
All sportsmen are cheats, trying to bend and manipulate the rules. Technology exposes them and allows the game, if at worst a little slower, but most importantly, to be palyed fairer and there would never be cause for complaint and bitterness leading to further unsavoury comments.
8 Posted 16/01/2008 at 12:15:31
Bolton? Video evidence would show the blatant foul on Southall.
9 Posted 16/01/2008 at 12:11:26
10 Posted 16/01/2008 at 12:40:59
I have had this discussion on another forum and that was the general feeling also. We simply cannot let Sky get its sticky little paws further on the "beautiful" game.
Open for the "Sky 4" corruption, It wouldn’t happen but it could. The point being I and it seems many others would not want Sky’s influence in the game to grow even further than it already has.
11 Posted 16/01/2008 at 12:41:19
I like the fact that there can be wrong decisions during a game. It gives us more to talk about afterwards.
If we go down the route that video evidence will take us it will take some of the human element (human error) and controversy out of the game. I don’t want every game to have perfect decisions all of the time; I enjoy footballs imperfections.
Just think, we will have one less person (the ref) to shout abuse at during a match.
a lot of people say that these things even themselves out over a season, that may or may not be true but what is true is that some decisions will go our way and others won’t. Remember our 1st match of last season against Watford, we were awarded a peno that never was, only for that we could have drawn against a very poor Watford side.
Embrace footballs imperfections, and as for referees, the saying, you can’t polish a turd springs to mind.
12 Posted 16/01/2008 at 12:55:21
Lescotts goal last weekend was offside.. We dont moan about that do we...
13 Posted 16/01/2008 at 13:02:09
1 - Goal Line - has the ball crossed the line and is it therefore a goal?
2 - Penalty decisions. Is it a penalty? Did the player dive? If it is a dive he should be booked/sent off and hopefully that would discourage cheats.
3 - Acts of violent conduct - after the game, if it’s shown that a player has purposefully elbowed/punched/stamped on another player then he shoul;d be banned for x amount of games.
14 Posted 16/01/2008 at 12:59:11
15 Posted 16/01/2008 at 14:34:08
It was close......but the linesman was right in line with him and I think the Man City player positioned towards the corner flag kept him onside, plus Lescott ran in to take the touch on the ball as opposed to being just stood there waiting for it.
The TV commentators said he was played onside (presumably as I described above).
16 Posted 16/01/2008 at 15:13:11
We would end up with a shedload of penalties and Gerrard would get red cards every week!!!
17 Posted 16/01/2008 at 15:33:06
18 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:29:22
19 Posted 16/01/2008 at 22:11:48
20 Posted 16/01/2008 at 22:42:20
21 Posted 17/01/2008 at 00:37:15
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.