Would cameras help?

[Igors Uncle Dave]

Time and time again we see a decision that splits the footballing world, did the ball cross the line etc?

 

Is it time now that we allowed the game to progress and clear up the disagreements by allowing the fourth official to monitor the game and assist the referee with modern technology?

 

Or, do you prefer to have the debate, the banter and the uncertainty after the game?

[Chili Palmer]

Time and time again we see a decision that splits the footballing world, did the ball cross the line etc?

 

Is it time now that we allowed the game to progress and clear up the disagreements by allowing the fourth official to monitor the game and assist the referee with modern technology?

 

Or, do you prefer to have the debate, the banter and the uncertainty after the game?

 

 

For did it cross the line the technology must be used, for everything else, no.

 

I also think that if a buzzer goes off when the ball does cross the line the conceding manager gets an electric shock. just for a laugh.

[Rich Gobey]

I think football, especially in the media requires and is sustained by it's perceived 'controversial' or talking-point moments. The goal line technology debate is just another example of this.

 

I can't really see the point in having cameras that supposedly identify every situation in a match, we might as well have a commitee of footage analysts in the stands refereeing the game, reducing the on-pitch ref to that of a spokesman, relaying the decisions to the players.

 

f*** it, if we can have cameras, why not have a direct line to the players ear from the commitee, telling the players their decisions as and when they occur.

[whitewidow]

Time and time again we see a decision that splits the footballing world, did the ball cross the line etc?

 

Is it time now that we allowed the game to progress and clear up the disagreements by allowing the fourth official to monitor the game and assist the referee with modern technology?

 

Or, do you prefer to have the debate, the banter and the uncertainty after the game?

 

Not for everything - goal line definitely.

 

The technology is available, and in each of the sports where it has been applied, which I watch it appears to have had a generally positive effect (cricket, rugby, tennis). I say yes, and this is reinforced by the high level of reward and loss should decisions be wrong in key situations.

[fyds]

I like the buzzer idea, but would expand on it...all Everton fans should receive 30,000volts evertime they shout 'HANDBALL!' for no good reason (they'd all be dead after 10 minutes) Arsene Wenger should get 15,000volts everytime he says he hasn't seen anything as if he's not watching the game, what's he doing on the bench? Moyes should get 50,000v everytime he mentions us in a post/pre match interview when they're not actually playing us, Steve Bruce should get 100,000v because I'd love to see what he looks like with his big fat head all lit up like an energy saving bulb and Ferguson should get 100mv just because he's a c*nt.

 

Back to crossing the line technology - absolutely it should be used - I'd run experiments on other stuff (offside, referring for diving, off the ball incidents etc) with an open mind and add them if successful.

[_00_deathscar]

For did it cross the line the technology must be used, for everything else, no.

 

I also think that if a buzzer goes off when the ball does cross the line the conceding manager gets an electric shock. just for a laugh.

 

Rafa would be f***ed then based on how we're conceding. He would also be crying/begging every time we fouled the opposition or conceded a corner.

[growler]

I reckon ball crossing the line should be technology. I also think post game punishments for things like dangerous tackles, diving and referee abuse should be heavily punished as a starting point. As the game starts to clean up, pick up on other things such as shirt tugging for example. Allow the ref to do this; that way he can redeem himself.

 

For the rest, increase the assistants. Get 6 linesmen instead of two. 1 behind each goal line, 2 in each half. Its also a feeder system to get more officials into the game. Start behind the goal, move to lino, then 4th ref, and then into match ref.

 

Finally, let only the captain speak to the ref.

[John am Rhein]

I think the key thing is that the video review doesn't interrupt the progress of the game - and specifically doesn't give a team who's into time wasting an opportunity to interrupt the progress of the game.

 

A question of whether the ball crossed the goal-line is an obvious area where it could have a positive impact.

 

It could also work for 'diving' incidents as well - the game could continue while the 4th official reviews the incident and, if a clear dive is seen, signal the ref to book or even send off the player in question as soon as the ball next goes out of play.

 

For offsides, though it's hard to see how it could work.

[Smith]

I think the key thing is that the video review doesn't interrupt the progress of the game - and specifically doesn't give a team who's into time wasting an opportunity to interrupt the progress of the game.

 

A question of whether the ball crossed the goal-line is an obvious area where it could have a positive impact.

 

It could also work for 'diving' incidents as well - the game could continue while the 4th official reviews the incident and, if a clear dive is seen, signal the ref to book or even send off the player in question as soon as the ball next goes out of play.

 

Would love that. Imposing bans on divers by reviewing video photage after the game would be boss.

[John am Rhein]

Would love that. Imposing bans on divers by reviewing video photage after the game would be boss.

 

That as well - but if they could do it within a few minutes of the actual incident then it would be better still

[spk]

injuries see significant amounts of additional time being added on to games. adding a few cameras that could be reviewed in seconds by an official would add a little more time but it gives the referees a far better chance of getting the big decisions correct.

 

i disagree it should be the fourth official though, i think the two managers are too close to them and could influence a decision.

[John am Rhein]

We can see from American Football/Rugby that a review does not take a few seconds - typically it takes several minutes

[spk]

i'd rather spend another couple of minutes at a game and see say stevie get a yellow card for simulation than later see him missing two important champions league ties. the incident with eduardo the other week would have taken 30 seconds, even less with a greater number of cameras.

[growler]

I reckon players feigning injury is a big one too, and play should continue, if the player needs treatment, he leaves the field for a minimum 5 minutes.