Video replays in football. For or Against?

Yet again there has been more calls for video replays in football after that Watford v. Reading match on Saturday. Yes the linesman made a huge mess of it, and it was probably the worst decision I've seen since that incident at the Dell when Mark Hughes' fierce drive went in, and bounced back off of the advertising boards and came back out and wasn't given!

The football experience has already become sterilised, can't stand up, can't swear, can't smoke etc. Please don't take away major talking points as well. If every contentious issue is decieded by video replay then you may as well go and watch two people playing PES or FIFA video games! These things happen, the officials are humans and humans make mistakes. All those people who were at that game on Saturday will remember that game for years, it will be something they will tell their kids/grandkids about in the future. If a video replay had cancelled out the goal, would people have gone away talking about it? In a years time no-one is going to remember a run of the mill 2-2 draw(or 2-1 Watford win as it would have been if the goal hadn't been given) but they will remember that. Yes its hard on a team but these things do even themselves out.

The Media always go on about how behind the times football is compared to Rugby and Cricket in the use of video technology, but I am one person who is happy that it is and long may that continue.

Video replays are unnecessary, IMO. I'm all for bringing in technology to decide clear-cut decisions, such as whether the ball crossed the line or not, but it should be technology that doesn't slow the game down.

For the "ball over the line" type of incident, it should be possible to put some sort of microchip in the ball (which various groups have experimented with but so far haven't really progressed it very much) which triggers sensors placed inside the goalposts. This sends a signal to the referee to tell him the ball has crossed the line. Simple. It's also not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that that sort of technology could be extended to lower levels of the game, so long as they can prevent the cost of implementing it being prohibitive.

The vast majority of other decisions are based on a matter of opinion. If, in the referee's opinion, Darren Moore has assaulted Stern John in the penalty area (which he clearly felt he hadn't on Saturday), he gives a penalty. Another referee might a) not see it, or b) not think it's a foul. While it's inconsistent, it's also the "human" nature of the game and why it develops so many more talking points than rugby.

I think cricket's got a decent balance of technology and human decision-making. For run-outs, it is pretty much a black-and-white decision of whether the batsman is in the crease when the bails are broken, but it's mostly very difficult to tell with the naked eye whether a marginal decision is "in" or "out", so to use technology (via the third umpire) when it's available makes sense. Umpires still hold the power when it comes to LBW and catch decisions, which is fine by me. The umpire may make a bad call every now and then, but they do tend to even themselves out over the course of a game.

For.

But like tennis, each captain has one appeal per half for which they can appeal for anything.

If they use it and then something more controversial happens, tough sh!t.

I heard an interesting comment over the weekend re offside's. That there should be a second lino in each half on the opposite touchline from the current one.

If you think about it, the job of a lino is near on impossible to get exactly right. He cannot physically look at one thing (when the ball is being played) while also looking at when the player makes his run and is in an offside position.

Ok so he can get it pretty accurate which is how its survived up to now, but I feel a second lino would be a very good step forward.

You arm Linoo 1 with a bleeper which he presses as the ball is played and lino 2 has an earphone and hears when the bleeper is pressed. Its then his job to decide if the striker is in an offside position when he hears the bleeper. This way he can be directly in line and should limit mistakes further.

Im gonna take it on dragons den. 10% for £300,000!

it was probably the worst decision I've seen since that incident at the Dell when Mark Hughes' fierce drive went in, and bounced back off of the advertising boards and came back out and wasn't given!

It didn't hit the advertising boards, it hit some poles which were lying on the floor behind the goal. Poles which were used before the game to hold up some netting to the side of the goal. I'll bet we started storing them somewhere else after that match.

.

 

If you think about it, the job of a lino is near on impossible to get exactly right. He cannot physically look at one thing (when the ball is being played) while also looking at when the player makes his run and is in an offside position.

 

 

You arm Linoo 1 with a bleeper which he presses as the ball is played and lino 2 has an earphone and hears when the bleeper is pressed. Its then his job to decide if the striker is in an offside position when he hears the bleeper. This way he can be directly in line and should limit mistakes further.

 

Point 1 - I have been a linesman in the past, it's a piece of **** to do. It's easy to know when a ball is kicked and still look along the line. The linesmen get it wrong because they are stupid. There is no legislation for that.

Point 2- Lino 1 would have to know eactly when the forward pass is made, otherwise he would be anticipating every forward ball and pressing his buzzer every 2 seconds.