Lighthouse

So you think the ball spends 1/3 of the time out of play, (your words not mine, apparently 30 minutes would have to be added to the 90 if we stopped the clock) but this doesn't constitute regular, prolonged or consistent breaks in play? Right oh... However, at no point in these 30 minutes should we spend 2 minutes (most decisions would take a lot less but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) reviewing a potentially game changing incident on video. But then you also said... So if there are 2 minutes before the ball goes out of play in some instances, the video ref would already have come to a decision whilst the ball was in play. So no time at all would be lost. The video ref wouldn't have to wait until the ball was out of play to START reviewing the footage.

I think Bolton tried to sign Rivaldo once.

Hang on, in this same thread you said Which is it?

Yeah...

GLT was never used up until very recently. Then incidents like Lampard's goal against Germany and that goal Ukraine scored against England highlighted the ridiculous farce in not using this equipment. It's coming eventually whether you like it or not. It will probably take a couple more incidents like the hand of God, or Henry against Ireland which decided major tournaments/qualifying but it will come. I've explained enough times how your example can be quite simply dealt with. You insist on speaking as if having a goal disallowed and penalty rightly awarded will somehow destroy the whole game. It wont and the small, occasional delays involved will be no more significant than players time wasting by faking injury or kicking the ball into the crowd.

No it leaves the game, in very rare circumstances, with a disallowed goal and a penalty awarded. It's not a difficult situation to understand, though it would be disappointing for the team who had the goal disallowed. However, you would walk away from the game feeling as if justice had been done. If the video ref proved that you should have conceded a penalty, then you should never have had the chance to score the goal. As has been said several times; it's a very rare event. How often is a clear penalty not given and the opposing team then scores immediately without the ball going out of play. Yes there are the occasional, "we should have had a penalty 2 minutes before they scored!" moments but there is usually a goal kick or a thrown in in there somewhere, when a video ref could be consulted without stopping the game.

How is it any different to a goal being disallowed for offside or a handball in the build up? How often does that really happen. How many goals have Saints scored or conceded this season which followed the same passage of play as a legitimate penalty call? It will happen occasionally but it's better than the daft decisions we're getting every week right now. Where did you get 'a few minutes' from? If the video ref has a couple of screens showing 4 camera angles, how long does it really take to rewind 10 seconds, pick the best camera angle and play it forward in slow motion. Anyone fairly competent with a computer could make a decision in 30 seconds. It's not as if you have to review every single angle in slow motion. There is normally one clear angle for any given incident which shows clearly if there is contact, handball, offside, in/out the box etc.

I think Chelsea's are made from better leather and have more padding.

How is it not fair on the attackers, when they are the ones who have called for a video replay? What has a bigger negative impact on a game - a penalty being wrongly given/not given or a team being given a goal kick? Why can you not give a goal kick? It's a pretty minor change in the rules. I've yet to see any legitimate reason from you or mash as to why it wouldn't work. Just a lot of stubbornness and claims of 'it's a farce it wont work.'

I have you're just ignoring it. If a captain wants to consult the video replay he tells the ref. I'll try and make it even more simple for you Penalties - The ref blows his whistle. Play stops. the video ref reviews the footage. A decision is made - If it's a penalty, it's a penalty. - If it's not a penalty, goal kick is given. Red cards - If the ref has blown for a foul, the footage is reviewed and a card is awarded/not awarded - If the ref does not see the foul but an opposing captain appeals, the video ref reviews the footage whilst play continues. If there is a red card offence, it is then relayed to the referee who awards the card at the next break in play. In the rare event of a penalty wrongly not being given and the other team going up the other end and scoring, the penalty appeal is reviewed after the goal. If there is a legitimate appeal for a penalty, the goal is disallowed and the penalty is then taken. It would be disappointing for the other team obviously but at least justice would have been served. I would feel much worse watching MOTD and knowing we should have had a penalty 30 seconds before we conceded a goal.

If there is an obvious counter attack on, there's no reason the ref can't wait until the ball goes out of play before consulting the video ref.

If the captain isn't close enough to the incident, one of his team mates could give him a signal to call for a video ref. It would then be up to the captain whether he trusts his team mate and makes the call. If they don't have any idea what happened and don't call for a video ref, how is that in any way different to what happens now? We see this kind of thing all the time. Not always that blatant but players are always making cynical fouls to 'take one for the team'. It's not like a video ref would open up a whole new world of cynical cheating. IF you had a penalty claim in injury time AND the opposition won the ball AND launched an immediate counter attack then yes, the video ref could be used to stop play. How often does that happen? I'm willing to bet that in the 5 seconds following most penalty claims the ball is usually cleared for a throw in, or hoofed up the pitch and collected by a defender, or goes out for a corner or a goal kick or is collected by the 'keeper, or kept in play by the attacking player, or controlled by a defending player comfortably within their own half. What you have done is name a very specific set of circumstances, which happen very rarely throughout a season. Apparently you think this occasional situation in which a team is denied a counter attack and a POSSIBLE chance to score, is somehow worse than penalties, red cards and offsides being wrongly given/not given in a number of games every week. If a team uses a video ref call late in the game to stop you from countering (in a highly specific set of circumstances) then tough sh*t. It's by far the lesser of 2 evils, nobody ever lost a game because they were denied the start of a counter attack whilst 60 yards from goal.

Brentford, Sheff Utd and Southend for me.

I never understood making a goalkeeper captain. According to the FA only the captain is permitted to speak to the ref anyway, should he feel the need to appeal against or discus an on the pitch issue. Under the current rules, how can a goalkeeper do that for an incident committed 90 yards away? If you insist on having a GK as a captain then the duty of calling for a video replay could quite easily be given to a designated outfield player. That really isn't complicated. Yes, you could abuse the system but; 1. If there is a 5 second rule you aren't going to get very far. That's probably just enough time to win the dubious tackle, control the ball and clear it over the halfway line. It's not like you would be able to stop play for a video replay when the opposition is 10 yards from an open goal. 2. There would obviously have to be some common sense on behalf of the ref. If it's blatantly obvious a captain is just time wasting, i.e. there hasn't been anything resembling a dangers challenge or foul in the box then the video ref should be denied. It is pretty obvious when there is a contentious issue and when someone is just trying to stop play.

Maybe the birth was a few hours earlier than officially reported, in order for Kate to come out looking happier and fresher for the cameras. Is that really a conspiracy? I mean who actually gives a sh*t? The Royals would have known it was a girl months ago and probably have been decided on the name for a while. The idea that it got leaked and ended up on Facebook somewhere, before the birth, isn't all that extraordinary either.

They do serve a few functions 1. To replace the ref if injured, although there is no reason one of the video refs couldn't do this. 2. To calculate stoppage time and hold up the board. If as I proposed we didn't have stoppage time, this wouldn't be required either. 3. Holding up the flag and board for substitutes. Potentially the managers could have a small buzzer to the refs ear piece for substitutions, then when the ball goes out of play they hold up the board themselves. Just an idea. I'm not personally saying we should do the above but there are ways of making the 4th official surplus to requirements. He does just stand there like a lemon for 90% of the match.

You have absolutely no sensible idea why that wouldn't work do you.

It's why I refuse to go to games these days. Just not a world I want to live in.

It's not a logical extension of anything. Two guys to quickly look at the footage (in case one of them misses something on the video) and send a radio message to the referee. If the two of them can't agree, the ref's original decision stands. Nobody is suggesting we review every foul, throw in etc. Just contentious issues on which games are decided. Nobody ever lost a game because a throw in was incorrectly given but the pen. and red card on Saturday was a turning point in the game. I'm not sure I get your last sentence. Did you like that JWP was sent off on Sunday? Was it the correct decision because the referee said so?

1. Er no, I never said that 2. Er, no I never said that 3. Er, no I never said that

Give the captain about 5 seconds to get the ref's attention and call for a video replay. At that point play stops whilst the video footage is reviewed. 30 seconds later it's either a penalty or a goal kick. How is this complicated? If we're doing games by actual in play time, we would have to look at an average in play time for a given sample of games and base it around that. Make each half 35 or 40 minutes of 'live ball time' at a rough guess. We would still have some play acting if players wanted to break up the game but how many times have we seen a player lying on the floor for 2 minutes, only for the ref to add about 20 seconds of injury time at the end. If Man Utd are 1-0 up against Arsenal at OT and there are 3 minutes of injury time; Juan Mata goes down in a heap and needs 2 minutes of physio, is the ref really going to play 5 minutes of injury time with 70,000 people screaming at him?

How is the flow different exactly? I can pause and rewind a game 5 seconds instantly just using sky plus. Why can an a video ref not do exactly the same but with a couple of screens showing different camera angles and say, 'pen/no pen/offside/redcard' etc. Stopping the clock in rugby seems to work well enough and they have 80 minute games with plenty of stoppages. They also don't have players rolling around on the floor, demanding a physio and some magic spray to try and waste time when they are winning. If the clock is stopped that doesn't happen. I find it odd that you are happy enough watching this but feel video replays would disrupt the flow of the game. There is no reason why games have to be 90 minutes. We could have 80 minute games too but without including all the time wasted kicking the ball away or 30 seconds of waving at your team mates before taking a throw in.

There are a couple of ways of doing it: 1. The 'video ref' can review the footage whilst the game continues. If a penalty is awarded, play can be stopped and brought back. 2. The captain of each team gets 2 or 3 video penalty appeals per game. If a captain calls for a video review, play stops. Then either a pen or a goal kick is awarded depending on the outcome. If successful that team keeps their 2/3 appeals, if unsuccessful they only have 1/2 left, like in tennis, in order to prevent frivolous appealing. This isn't a flawless system but would prevent some of the silly decisions we see. A video ref may or may not have given the second penalty yesterday but would almost certain not have given the red. Also incidents like the penalty not given to Aguero at St Mary's would be wiped out. Not to mention some incidents which are an utter farce, like the ref sending the wrong player off for West Brom a few weeks ago.

It seems like every week now sh*te refereeing decisions are being discussed on here and in the wider media. This week alone we have the JWP incident, Burnley sending off and an Aguero penalty claim which many would argue the officials got wrong. How hard would it be to have a quiet isolated room somewhere in the stadium with a couple of TV screens and a radio link to the referee? Two officials who can quickly review the last few seconds of footage from different angles and pass the info on to the ref. I don't buy the argument that it would slow the game down at all. I'd say there is a good minute between the foul being committed and the penalty being taken, plenty of time to review the footage. Every other sport does it and we're stuck in the stone age having to accept these daft officiating errors. Also, why don't we stop the clock when the ball is out of play and do away with injury time, like they do in rugby. It would stop players from time wasting by taking ages to take throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, slow substitutions etc. No more Fergie time, just play until bang on 90 minutes then end the game when the ball goes out of play.

If you're going to talk about what should have happened, you can't have it one way and not the other. That should have been a penalty, Long should have had one at 0-0. Neither should have been a sending off.