Darlo Uncovered

I must say I am watching the rugby tonight - and it has really convinced me that video technology would ruin football once and for all.

Spent what felt like an eternity in the first half just watching replays. Even if the first one blatantly said black and white that it wasn't a try they still watched it over and over again. Imagine it being used for a friggin penalty decision in football where it's firmly in the grey.

Never understood the rush for video replays, it makes a mockery of a naturally free-flowing game and further separates Premier from the rest of us

The thing I didn't like in 1st half was ref awarding the try then after seeing the replay on big screen he then went to the TV ref and asked...surely once try was awarded he can't change his mind.

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

karlo-cardiff wrote:The thing I didn't like in 1st half was ref awarding the try then after seeing the replay on big screen he then went to the TV ref and asked...surely once try was awarded he can't change his mind.

Surely the most important thing is that the right decision is made.

So when Matuwala "scored" the try, but the replays showed he dropped the ball over the line, it was rightly reversed as no try had been scored.

And QuakerPete - describing it as a "rush for video replays" is a bit unfair. You're making it sound like people want technology for the sake of it, when really it's driven by a want to help referees and their assistants make fewer mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there's a balance to be struck (do we need to be going back for every single questionable decision?), but when it comes to major decisions like whether a goal has been scored, or whether a try has been scored, I'd prefer officials made a slower correct decision than a quick incorrect one.

Video technology works in some sports, like American Football and Cricket for example, but it would get in the way in footie.

Darlogramps wrote:

karlo-cardiff wrote:The thing I didn't like in 1st half was ref awarding the try then after seeing the replay on big screen he then went to the TV ref and asked...surely once try was awarded he can't change his mind.

Surely the most important thing is that the right decision is made.

So when Matuwala "scored" the try, but the replays showed he dropped the ball over the line, it was rightly reversed as no try had been scored.

And QuakerPete - describing it as a "rush for video replays" is a bit unfair. You're making it sound like people want technology for the sake of it, when really it's driven by a want to help referees and their assistants make fewer mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there's a balance to be struck (do we need to be going back for every single questionable decision?), but when it comes to major decisions like whether a goal has been scored, or whether a try has been scored, I'd prefer officials made a slower correct decision than a quick incorrect one.

We have had calls for video technology for a number of years and for a number of reasons - Thierry Henri's handball against Ireland was one where "if only" a video had spotted him. Or for those close off-side decisions "which cost my team the game" etc. managers especially always have an agenda with these things and video replays won't necessarily satisfy it.

And why must the Premier be different to the rest of football, I don't get it - it makes a mockery of all other levels of football where officials make honest judgments on what they see or don't see. To me that's how it should be, not the rush for an elite few to have the "right" decision which in the end boils down to money. And that's before you get on to the unlimited numbers of penalty disputes and the unlimited number of views on whether they were right or not.

Said it before, it's much more likely the errors of the players will affect the outcome of a game before a referee's "incorrect" decision. You only have to watch the discussion after a televised game to see endless slow-mo repeats of incidents whereby agreement can't be reached on what actually happened

I think it's a divisive path for football to take and could actually prove more problematic for football in general in many ways - financially, technically and legally

I'll still shout and bawl at officials at our level if I think they're wrong, but that's part of the beauty of our non-sterile game and I'd rather stick with that. And in the end would video technology actually make "the beautiful game" better?

Ill be honest my only reservation over the goal line tech is the cost - cost of what 2 goals a season could have probably funded all youth football in the country for a year. Not that the money would have ever been directed there the PL is a business so would have just kept the profits otherwise.

Thing is though last season there was calls for handballs, offsides and general fouls/penalty decisions to go to video (and rugby was pointed to as an example). I might be wrong here but is the video only every turned to for a try - what if a try is illegally stopped before it can be scored that doesn't get reviewed does it?

What would happen if a team had a ball cleared off the line and the defending team then raced up the other end and scored......only for the ref to then see a replay of the clearance which had actually crossed the line and should have been a goal....he can't then go and disallow a goal he'd given but then award a goal he didn't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

karlo-cardiff wrote:What would happen if a team had a ball cleared off the line and the defending team then raced up the other end and scored......only for the ref to then see a replay of the clearance which had actually crossed the line and should have been a goal....he can't then go and disallow a goal he'd given but then award a goal he didn't.

That scenario could never happen, as goal-line technology which is in operation now would tell the referee within seconds that the first effort had been over the line.

And why must the Premier be different to the rest of football, I don't get it - it makes a mockery of all other levels of football where officials make honest judgments on what they see or don't see. To me that's how it should be, not the rush for an elite few to have the "right" decision which in the end boils down to money.

The Premier League already is different from the rest of football. One reason - money. That's it. Whether you like that or not doesn't really matter, because this is the way it is. And no, the Premier League having extra technology would not make mockery of other decisions.

The Premier League has goalline technology, yet it hasn't "made a mockery" of lower leagues.

If the technology is there and can be used to good effect, I don't see why anyone would be reject out of hand. Yes it needs refining, but if it helps referees it has to be considered.

QuakerPete wrote: And in the end would video technology actually make "the beautiful game" better?

Yes, because it would stop incorrect decisions being made.

Bringing in all this technology will be very expensive and would be financially crippling for clubs below the Premiership.

As I say I think goal line has been positive. That said not a single decision last year was actually made by the technology, the assistants flagged/did not flag correctly each time - and given they are told to not rely on the technology and make their decision as normal well...you can actually see in the Leicester game the other week that the assistant was flagging before the alert came through from the watch...

I accept that there will be a time, it may be once every 2 or 3 seasons that the tech will get it right where otherwise an official will have gotten it wrong.

You are quite right that it hasn't made a mockery. Ultimately there is already a difference as you go down the divisions. Video is so much more widely available in the top league that video footage can be used for retrospective punishment.

I do think that £12.5million could have had more of an impact if spent on youth facilities but it was never destined to be spent there anywhere, it would be as relevant to suggest it would should have been spent on the NHS!

I don't however think that video will make things better. Do I care enough about a penalty/no penalty, free-kick/no free-kick, off-side/no off-side decision, yellow/red decision that I would want to wait 5minutes at a time as someone deliberates and watches the replay over and over again to decide what is right or wrong...definitely not. Especially as those decisions above have a heck of a lot of 'grey' involved.

Interestingly everyone always points to rugby as an example of where it should be used, but actually from what I have seen the tv ref is only used in rugby once a try has been 'scored' just to check it out. If a ref gives an infringement in open play it isn't brought back to check.

The equivalent of this in football would be off-sides, so actually it would a fundamental change as the only way I could see it working would be to effectively remove decision making over off-sides from officials and let it be decided by TV. If a goal is scored then check it...if one isn't scored then just play on. Otherwise how do you correct and incorrectly awarded offside flag?

But then what happens if ball goes out for a corner, the first corner is cleared for a second corner then a goal is scored. Do you go back to the offside which should have been given prior to the first corner?

PS. I have now taken to just ignoring Darlo_Pete's remarks as you rightly say I think they are deliberately there to provoke reaction.

As I say I think goal line has been positive. That said not a single decision last year was actually made by the technology, the assistants flagged/did not flag correctly each time

Well thats not true !

It was used plenty of times

In my opinion, each team should be given 1'challenge/referal' per half.
If proved right, keep your referral, if not its gone.

The tv ref should have no more than 1 minute to make a call either way. Anything after that is inconclusive.

Yeah it would only be in the premier league as well.

BUSHEAD wrote:

As I say I think goal line has been positive. That said not a single decision last year was actually made by the technology, the assistants flagged/did not flag correctly each time

Well thats not true !

It was used plenty of times

Was it. Do tell me how many decisions were given by the technology that would not have already been made by the officials at the time?

The past would tell us that about 1 or 2 per season are wrong. There were about 3 or 4 that were focussed on last year, and while Alan Shearer or whoever raved about how that it is the saviour they complete fail to omit one thing. That all assistant referees are instructed to ignore the tech, and make the decision as if the technology weren't there. Simply because they wouldn't know if it did stop working mid-match.

On each of the occasions, when you see the far side assistant the goals he was already flagging and the no-goals he wasn't.

Look at the clip recently of Jamie Vardy's goal against I think it was Villa. The ball gets cleared nearish the line by the defender and the assistant is already flagging, a half second later referee's watch goes and then he blows and gives the goal.

That decision was not right because of the technology, that goal would have been given pre-technology.

BUSHEAD wrote:In my opinion, each team should be given 1'challenge/referal' per half.
If proved right, keep your referral, if not its gone.

The tv ref should have no more than 1 minute to make a call either way. Anything after that is inconclusive.

Yeah it would only be in the premier league as well.

The road to hell

The problem with this is so many incidents are open to interpretation, which could cause more problems.

BUSHEAD wrote:http://www.sportshaze.com/premier-leagu ... rth-money/

This is just a list of 4 close goal situations - again with no indication as to what decision would have been given otherwise. Given the ass ref in the first didn't appear on TV peggin' it up to the half way line flagging, otherwise that would have been noted he got that one right.

That takes us to 2 PL goals that were given "as a result" of the tech. One of them was thumped into the net a moment later anyway. So all it changed was who was winning on the first scorer bets, and dubious goals panel would have picked that up anyway.

I was advised that the ARs got all the decisions right in all circumstances last season - so had tech not been there outcome would have been the same. Lets assume that isn't true...that basically leaves us with Edin Dzeko's remarkable goal, the £3million goal, which was the first goal in a comfortable 4-2 victory.

great use of goal line technology tod.ay in west ham v chelsea match