Video replays JUST for determining whether the ball was in or not should be introduced... Works fine for hockey.

 

But really. Any time a shot goes bar down it has backspin. Had to have been in in order to bounce back up and hit the bar again.

Ooh, Holland today! In a couple of hours, can't wait! First game we're watching at home. Big group, big BBQ, I'm hoping for a good result, but I think Slowakia is going to be tough.

Lol @ DOOMY

 

As for video technology, and its place in football... Goal-cams. 'Nuff said. No need to review every tackle/off-sides call.

The people filming the games have the cameras there, and if there is a questionable call about the legitimacy of a goal, the 4th official turns around and looks at the screen behind him and views the replay to make the call.

 

The fact of the matter is, like tennis, the ball is in the goal or it's out.

 

Just my two cents.

 

~Max

Problem with video technology in Football is in scenarios like yesterday the game continues on unlike in many others. Take Rugby for an example, when the TMO (Televised match official) is called into use it's when a try is in dispute, when a try is in dispute there is a never a continue in play as there's always a pause after, whether it's down, held up, knocked on or gone into touch or not there's a pause in play. In sports like American football where a play might be disputed such as a fumble there's a pause in play after the play to check.

 

The problem with football is there's to many hypothetical situations. Say if the first pause in play after England's 2nd goal yesterday was a German goal from a quick counter-attack what is the ruling on it? The German goal is disallowed and English goal is granted because it happened first? When is the replay viewed to be contested? Ref can't stop the middle of play, it would breakdown all flow. The only way I see it working is if the team contesting it puts the ball out of play Ie in yesterdays case if an English player put the ball straight out of play after Lampards shot once they got possession and then contested it with the Ref.

 

No offense to the English supports, but even if the 2nd goal was granted I still don't see the English ever winning that much. The English defenders handed 3 piss easy goals to the Germans and England lost due to a terrible performance, not a ruled out goal.

thing is, with all modern stadiums having a giant tv-screen showing the situation in instant reply anyway (thanks to the great South-African production), the Refs have been able to see their mistakes live. Like the offside goal yesterday, where the offside-line was shaded in before the ball was in play again.

 

It doesn't have to take any time at all. Any time it takes (4-5 seconds at max) would be added to the stoppage time. Then stoppage time could actually reflect the time the ball is not in play (almost 10 minutes should be added to every game as it is anyway)

Netherlands are probs gonna go down against whoever they face next, we haven't seen a strong opponent yet and still play like we're having trouble with it. Hope it gets better but I doubt it.

[hide]

Video technology would be a pain, look at how long it takes for decisions in rugby and then apply that to every decision that is made during a football. Even with video technology there will be contentious refereeing decisions because there are so many decisions that just come down to a matter of opinion. Also, added time would increase exponentially with all the stoppages and this would cause more controversy.

You could still use them only when it's a tough call.

 

How do you define a tough call, if you leave that up definition up to the ref you leave them open to calls of bias every time they don't use the technology (and get it wrong).

 

The same way it's used in every other sport...

 

And if there's no "official review," the coaches can call a review if they want. If they're wrong and the ruling on the field stands, they lose a sub.

 

Also, this isn't an endorsement of video reviewing. I don't know where exactly I stand on it. Just saying it could be done imo.

 

The difference is in many other sports where such technology is used there is little room for interpretation - in tennis the ball is either in or out, in rugby the try scorer either had the ball incontrol when scoring or he didn't etc. If you even just look at a contentious tackles there are so many scenarios where it just comes down to a referee's preference and there is no way that a video review would alter a referee's taste.

 

Having managers call for a video review wouldn't work either as they are not in a good position to see what happens in the penalty box (where the majority of game changing incidents occur). Also losing subs for a wrong call would be horrible as it would lead to injured players having to play on when they shouldn't and making injuries worse which could potentially shorten careers in the long run.

 

Video technology can only work well in sports where there is little to no room for interpretation in regards to the rules, football in my opinion isn't one of them. The same goes for boxing where there can be a lot of things that go into judging who won a round - many of which are purely a matter of taste and preference. Yes, there will be room for human error by having people judging alone but video technology will not end contentious decisions in certain sports. By the way this is coming from a Scotland fan - we're continually robbed of results in one way or another but c'est la vie that is what being a football fan is about, some bad decisions go against you and some go your way.

[/hide]

 

That's irrelevant, we're not talking about reviewing bad tackles, we are talking about the simple yes or no decisions that require a sharp eye but no brain, and only if it's contested by a player. They're rarely points of contention, the referee usually gets it right and the players agree. If a player is thought to be making too many intentional illegitimate contests, then they should be booked for time wasting. In fact, most games probably wouldn't require the intervention of video replays at all. Simples, and not expensive nowadays either.

 

It was relevant to the post I was responding to. Also, if you think that players usually tend to agree with the referee then I don't know what sport you are watching because it isn't the same one I've watched for years (coincidentally Brazil player went looking for a foul that wasn't given just as I was posting this). A system where players contested decisions during open play (where most infractions/ dubious incidents occur) would be abused by teams trying to stop counter-attacks which would be completely horrible for the game. Kranked described this better than I did, refer to that post if you don't catch my drift.

 

Also it may not sound expensive but I say again, at the lower echelons of the game money is already tight with many clubs struggling to stay in business - this would be an unwelcome expense to them. In addition to that, many teams don't have great stadiums that are built in a way where you could feasably install such a system since the cameras would need to be high enough to get a decent angle - this is not possible in many smaller stadiums in the lower leagues. If you only do this sort of thing in big games / events then you're basically creating a two-tier system which to me would be damaging to the game. As I've said I agree with the principle of goal line technology but I don't see any feasable way that it can be instituted for everyone at all levels of the game and in my opinion, if it can't be universal then it shoudn't be done at all.

 

 

At the end of the day these things happen, it isn't the end of the world. Interestingly, I didn't hear the groundswell of support for goal line technology from England fans when this happened to Brazil a while back. It's funny how it wasn't a big issue until it happened to them.

 

[hide]

edit - To illustrate my point about the angles you would need for the cameras, explain to me where you would install the cameras in this stadium:

 

[/hide]

to the picture: on the lighting fixtures, temporarily on the goal nets for matches (so they don't get stolen). Where there's a will, there's a way and this isn't exactly a logistical nightmare. it could function as tennis' hawkeye system: it's expensive so only top tournaments / matches / leagues implement them. it works fine for tennis, why not football?

to the picture: on the lighting fixtures, temporarily on the goal nets for matches (so they don't get stolen). Where there's a will, there's a way and this isn't exactly a logistical nightmare. it could function as tennis' hawkeye system: it's expensive so only top tournaments / matches / leagues implement them. it works fine for tennis, why not football?

 

As it's been said before, when a shot needs to be analysed in tennis the ball isn't still in play and more often than not, that isn't possible in football. Look at it this way, we use this technology and the ball is dubiously cleared off the line to an opposing attacker player who counter-attacks and scores. What do you do - stop the game during the counter-attack to check the video, give a goal for each team eventhough the counter-attacks possibly shouldn't have had the opportunity (presuming the ball was in). There are just too many potential pitfalls to me. Again, the idea about having a two-tier system just seems like a horrible idea to me, what would happen if the same incident that happened to England happened in the lower leagues - it would create an uneven playing field.

 

...and yes that picture wasn't the best example of my point (I used it because it's my local ground) but the point still stands - it is difficult to cover the angles in many stadia.

 

edit - just while I remember when Liverpool put out Chelsea in the champions league a few years back the broadcaster had a camera in the goal and they still couldn't see if the ball was over the line. The goal was given at the time (which put Chelsea out) but after a computer reconstructuon they found that the whole ball didn't cross the line. A camera wouldn't be a perfect solution this is why a lot of people favoured the 'microchip in the ball' technology but that is even more expensive.

Brazil vs. Netherlands and Argentina vs. Germany should both be very good matches.

(coincidentally Brazil player went looking for a foul that wasn't given just as I was posting this)

I saw that, pretty graceful dive on his part.

Holland played excellent today. Slovakia didn't have much chance. Brazil shouldn't be too much trouble friday. :thumbup:

Netherlands - Brazil will be a good game.

But first, Spain - Portugal tomorrow. It really is worthy of being a semi-final or final game - #2 vs. #3 on the FIFA rankings. (and as I'm checking, Brazil - Netherlands will be #1 vs. # 4) I think I'll also wake up to see Japan - Paraguay. Not really expecting Japan to win, but it's possible, especially if they played the same way they did against the Danes.

this |<---->| close to skipping my class tmr so i can watch the spain-portugal game.

Bah! No Asian country through. I like their football, honest, hard working, fair play, not falling over like match-sticks and not [bleep]ing around.

I like their football, honest, hard working, fair play, not falling over like match-sticks and not [bleep]ing around.

:thumbup:

It's a lame excuse but that ref really was awful (same ref as US - Slovenia I think). Really inconsistent, and Paraguay should've only had 10 men for the end of the second half + all of extra time. Don't remember who it was (Morel?) but a player from Paraguay elbowed Endo in the head...as the announcers said, it was red card worthy. <_<

So South America continues to dominate, and half the teams in the quarterfinals will be from there. And none of them have been eliminated by a non-South American opponent...

tbh i thought japan should've gone through. but the ref just screwed em. oh well.

 

i just like watching PSOs. poor japanese dude will have to commit honor suicide now

Yeas Paraguay :thumbsup:

 

10 mins til Spain vs Portugal... I want to watch Ronaldo cry :mrgreen:

spain :D ronaldo and torres had no effect on the game. villa is amazing

Spain gaining momentum now, Paraguay will probably get crushed. :razz:

 

From yesterday's match; Kuyt celebrating Sneijder's goal. :lol:

Dirk Kuyt is the man :thumbsup:

its funny how the argentina bandwagon is so huge here. ill be glad when germany takes em out

Germany/Argentina should be close. I hope Germany wins though, Maradonna annoys the [bleep] out of me.

Germany/Argentina should be close. I hope Germany wins though, Maradonna annoys the [bleep] out of me.

Think about the argentine children!

 

An Argentine bandwagon, da [bleep]? 'Cuz of Messi I'm guessing? The only bandwagons here are Spain and Brazil.