VAR

[DJ]

DJ - 20/2/2013 16:12

RobTrent - 19/2/2013 19:33

When they say 'all stadia', at what level will this technological innovation go down to? Hopefully no lower than the Premiershi*.

Get this in and wait to see how long it is before Martin Tyler demands camera rulings for a corner which should have been a goal-kick, offsides that were onsides and basically any disputable decision.

:110:

Football should be the same across all levels of football, unless they develop something simple and instant that is cheap and works no matter what the level I'm not interested and Hawk Eye with its 12 cameras and computer graphics does not provide this.

It also threatens the use of more technology being introduced which would not be good. Players are not immune to making errors and neither are officials, its all been part of the game for 150 years and it all seems to have worked rather well until now.

And so it begins...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24937668

:thumsd:

 

[USCherry]

DJ - 20/2/2013 11:12

:110:

Football should be the same across all levels of football.

So you are saying that kids U6 teams should play full fields 11 vs 11, slide tackles etc? Not sure I understand this argument at all.

Just to add, I am also not keen on technology in football, but I just don't feel that this argument is an adequate reason not to have it.

I would be more concerned about the pace of the game, speed of decision making, and also the human element. We see it in cricket these days, where the umpires rely on the technology rather than actually making a decision.

 

[DJ]

USCherry - 14/11/2013 14:27

DJ - 20/2/2013 11:12

:110:

Football should be the same across all levels of football.

So you are saying that kids U6 teams should play full fields 11 vs 11, slide tackles etc? Not sure I understand this argument at all.

Obviously while referring to "all levels of football" I meant the adult game ie seeing the importance of a Premier League game as equal to a Southern Premier League game, not the Under 6's...

 

[USCherry]

DJ - 14/11/2013 09:36

USCherry - 14/11/2013 14:27

DJ - 20/2/2013 11:12

:110:

Football should be the same across all levels of football.

So you are saying that kids U6 teams should play full fields 11 vs 11, slide tackles etc? Not sure I understand this argument at all.

Obviously while referring to "all levels of football" I meant the adult game ie seeing the importance of a Premier League game as equal to a Southern Premier League game, not the Under 6's...

so what level of adult league and why?

 

[DJ]

All levels.

I just don't see why the game needs to change at any level. It's the beautiful game for a reason, it's simplicity and it's worked for 150 years and has become the most popular sport in the world.

Just as human error by the players is part and parcel of the game, so should the referee's and linesmen.

Of course as you work your way up the levels you'd expect the quality of players to improve and it's reasonable to think the levels of officiating should rise too, but why can't that be achieved with better coaching rather than just referring to technology?

TV cameras are not the answer, with the Brighton game recently being a prime example of the illusions angles can produce. With one camera angle looking nailed on that it was a goal and another showing it wasn't. That's the same for all decisions.

Introduce tv replays to games and we'll soon be watching 90 minutes of football spread out over three hours as the likes of Sky and BT Sport will see it as an excellent reason to introduce in game adverts as the officials debate every contentious decision rather than just getting on with the game.

It all starts somewhere, I'm sure American Football didn't take three hours to complete a 60minute match when it first evolved, now look at it.

 

[USCherry]

And that is my point. To say that football should be the same at all levels is not a strong argument against technology in my opinion. Here in the states I play on a sunday team. No slide tackles, 40 min halfs, breaks halfway through for drinks (in the summer). I don't think changing things at various levels is a bad thing.

However, you other points are exactly on the money. The speed of the game of Football cannot be compromised at the betterment of the decison making by the officials. We cannot halt a game for minutes at a time to review decisions like penalty awards, or corners or offsides.

I mean, even with a replay, sometimes even the commentator and their co-pilot disagree on what the decision is. Although in principle I have no problem with an instantaneous goal/no goal decision using technology, where I agree with you is that this is a slippery slope that I do not want to see the game go down. With so much money riding on games in the upper leagues I know that this will open up a can of worms.

 

[simonhpieman]

I have to disagree. A ref stops the game to talk to his linesman quite frequently and that takes ages. With the available technology it will takes seconds for the 4th official to turn to his right and look at a TV screen, at which point the ref can be radioed and a penalty can be given. 20 seconds? Probably as quick as 10, in which time they could have seen the incident again twice already. It can take longer than this anyway if he goes walking around the pitch to get everyone's opinion anyway and you wouldn't have to deal with players arguing over the decision afterwards.

It will certainly create a disparity with lower/Sunday league stuff but then Winton Rec or Slades Farm were never going to get goal-line technology either!

 

[DJ]

USCherry - 14/11/2013 17:26

And that is my point. To say that football should be the same at all levels is not a strong argument against technology in my opinion.

Before this gets all RobTrent & Red House where we have an argument despite actually agreeing I think we should leave it there.

I agree it's not the only argument against technology, it's just one of the arguments in my view. :thumbsup:

 

[northstandmark]

My thoughts have always been that it needs to be used for the most basic black and white call - did the ball cross the goal line or not. And I'm happy that is coming to pass.

Almost all other calls are so subjective and open to referee interpretation, and should remain so. So West Brom should pipe down in this instance.

 

[RobTrent]

As DJ has pointed out, it won't stop at penalty decisions.

 

[USCherry]

simonhpieman - 14/11/2013 12:48

I have to disagree. A ref stops the game to talk to his linesman quite frequently and that takes ages. With the available technology it will takes seconds for the 4th official to turn to his right and look at a TV screen, at which point the ref can be radioed and a penalty can be given. 20 seconds? Probably as quick as 10, in which time they could have seen the incident again twice already. It can take longer than this anyway if he goes walking around the pitch to get everyone's opinion anyway and you wouldn't have to deal with players arguing over the decision afterwards.

It will certainly create a disparity with lower/Sunday league stuff but then Winton Rec or Slades Farm were never going to get goal-line technology either!

but where does it end? Offsides, throwins and corners, even free kicks outside the box?

 

[RobTrent]

It's a shame this wasn't around years ago. It might have prevented England fans from thinking we'd win every World Cup since 1966 ;-)

 

[AlGard]

Rubbish the lot of you. Anything that stops our resident "Ref Critique" posting..tednphil", the sooner we can enjoy the game again.

 

[Forza Rossoneri!]

northstandmark - 14/11/2013 18:04

My thoughts have always been that it needs to be used for the most basic black and white call - did the ball cross the goal line or not. And I'm happy that is coming to pass.

Almost all other calls are so subjective and open to referee interpretation, and should remain so. So West Brom should pipe down in this instance.

Exactly. We don't want umpteen interruptions in every game. West Brom's plea is a completely separate issue.

As for clarifying whether or not the ball has crossed the line, it's no more time consuming - in fact less so - than when the ref asks for a video replay in a big rugby match before awarding a try or not.

I'm sure pub team players won't be expecting goal-line technology for their Sunday morning matches. It's a false argument to expect exactly the same at all levels.

There is one other area where I'd like to see video evidence used, though, and that is retrospectively to ban players who cheat, specifically by diving. A three match ban would soon sort this out.

 

[USCherry]

Forza Rossoneri! - 14/11/2013 15:30
There is one other area where I'd like to see video evidence used, though, and that is retrospectively to ban players who cheat, specifically by diving. A three match ban would soon sort this out.

but would this have to be at every level of the game

 

[DJ]

USCherry - 14/11/2013 21:21

Forza Rossoneri! - 14/11/2013 15:30
There is one other area where I'd like to see video evidence used, though, and that is retrospectively to ban players who cheat, specifically by diving. A three match ban would soon sort this out.

but would this have to be at every level of the game

:grin: As it would be just a change in the administration of the game rather than changing the laws of the 90 minutes on the pitch, no it wouldn't have to be at every level.

 

[DJ]

Forza Rossoneri! - 14/11/2013
I'm sure pub team players won't be expecting goal-line technology for their Sunday morning matches. It's a false argument to expect exactly the same at all levels.

It's not a false argument, it's my opinion which everyone is free to agree or disagree with.

My view and reasons behind being against goal line technology are more than just wanting the game to be the same at every level, but it was one of the reasons.

Another was that I believe it will open the flood gates to more technological interference, which unfortunately it would appear it is.

 

[simonhpieman]

The fact the FA have changed their law on retrospective punishments in the last few days can only be a positive.

You can argue about keeping the game the same as it's been for 150 years but there have been LOADS of changes in that time. Substitutions for a start!

Because penalties play such a pivotal role in results (let's face it, 9 out of 10 probably result in a goal) we'd have to leave it there. Offisides, free kicks etc would have to be exempt.

How would you feel if it was rationed, too? One or two challenges per match, a bit like the tennis? The flipside would be that if you got caught diving the ref would have to award cards... it might actually make the game fairer (ie. Less diving)

 

[wallmth]

I would just go with more officials personally.Just for professional games maybe two more linesmen ,so they only have to cover half the pitch. I think there is far more issues with the offside rule than goal line technology .

 

[USCherry]

DJ - 14/11/2013 16:42

USCherry - 14/11/2013 21:21

Forza Rossoneri! - 14/11/2013 15:30
There is one other area where I'd like to see video evidence used, though, and that is retrospectively to ban players who cheat, specifically by diving. A three match ban would soon sort this out.

but would this have to be at every level of the game

:grin: As it would be just a change in the administration of the game rather than changing the laws of the 90 minutes on the pitch, no it wouldn't have to be at every level.

It was a cheap shot. Didn't mean it really.