Time for football to follow rugby`s example (citing, TV refs)?

I was going to write this on Saturday, after the Arsenal game, but I got busy, then the Chelsea game left me with such a bitter taste that my thread would have probably gotten deleted thanks to some choice words directed at the ref. Now, though, I do think football has to embrace technology on some level, Its a multi-billion dollar game, games like Chelsea-Man U, with a 6-point swing can be very financially Important. We were a man down, and thus there is a good chance we would have lost regardless, but to lose a second man like that, & then lose to an off-side goal was pretty gut-wrenching. Especially since the day before, I was watching the Currie Cup final, and had an off-side player scored a try, the ref could have simply sent the try upstairs, & problem-solved. Fifa keeps moaning that technology would disrupt the fluency of the game, but there is pause in the game in the event of a goal, so if the ref has any doubts, then he could send it upstairs. as for the citing, well the way I see it, there are two things which can be done tö help refs judge diving- 1) at ref camps, have the refs run at full tilt, then tap a log oñ their leg, nd see how easy it is to lose balañce. 2) create a citing system, just like rugby & punish them on Monday.

Having a pause in a game while a referee gets advice would accomplish the following:

(a) Justice would be done
(b) It would add to the excitement of a game waiting for the decision
(c) Players would be less inclined to cheat as they would realise that any dive/foul would be spotted upstairs

I don't see any real disadvantages at all....................

It could even lead to MLS finally breaking the mainsream in the states. Corporates would be all over it. a Budweiser Moment of Clarity, etc. But on a serious note, diving and off-side goals affect teams weekly, it defys belief that FIFA take goal-line tech, which really when scaled happens once in a blue moon, as a more urgent matter than these poblems. This to me suggests they are trying to make football a more dramatic game (thus more $$) rather than a better one.

The trouble is, where does it stop? If a team scores a goal from a throw in that they shouldn't have had, do we then look at having technology for this?

I kinda like it as it is and do believe things even themselves out. Remember, Utd haven't had their rub of the green in recent years at Stamford Bridge.

No. I dont mind a bit of controversy, but I am frustrated at the fact that people are demanding goal-line tech for an occurrence that almost never happens, yet they`re fine seeing mistakes that regularly happen continue. Simply put you start the play from the final pass/Shot.

Stella wrote:The trouble is, where does it stop? If a team scores a goal from a throw in that they shouldn't have had, do we then look at having technology for this?

I kinda like it as it is and do believe things even themselves out. Remember, Utd haven't had their rub of the green in recent years at Stamford Bridge.

With all due respect, you don't make much of a case for keeping technology out of the game........

"things even themselves out" - ah come off it!!............United haven't had rub of green in past, by "rub of green" i assume you mean, incorrect, game changing decisions. That is the whole point of this, to eradicate these wrong decisions.........

I'm not trying to make a case. I can see why most are for it but I'm not. It's part of the game and gives us a reason to moan.

The difference between football and rugby is that with rugby for almost all the key incidents there is a natural stoppage whereas in football not necessarily, e.g. penalty appeals and over the line or not: both can lead to quick counter-attacks (if not awarded) so when do you stop play?

That slight issue aside, I agree with the general premise - it is folly to say things like "this is how it has always been and things have worked fine up until now" well the key difference is now the technology is available: when you get to the stage where everyone knows by Saturday night that the refereeing team (possibly through no fault of their own - on a split second decision it can be almost impossible and I actually think refs nowadays are better than they've ever been but that's a different debate) got a major game-changing decision wrong, that can't be good for the game's credibility.

However I believe that general moanings achieve little and you need to give concrete solutions, so here is mine:

1) technology should be limited at the moment to goal-line technology and off-sides. The reason for this is that everything else can be a question of interpretation (see debates over whether Torres dived or not, see debates over what constitutes "goal scoring opportunity" and see debates over whether x was a pen or not). Whilst I appreciate that some penalty decisions are clear-cut and sometimes wrongly appreciated by the referee I don't see any way of making this workable.

2) For off-sides, if a goal is scored during the same play and the refereeing team have a doubt as to whether it is off-side or not, they should consult with the TV ref. the off-side law in itself needs to be clarified: what constitutes off-side? Whole body, part of the body, half the body? I suggest the latter, with the caveat that the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. That is, a hand out in front of the last defender = on-side; a foot trailing behind the defender with the rest of the body in-front = off-side.

If no goal arrises then play on whatever (e.g. if the goalkeeper makes the save and the ball goes for a corner): you have a stoppage in play and the defending side has a chance to regroup - if they can't then defend the subsequent play that is due to their own inadequecies and not that of the officiating team.

This also deals with Stella's throw-in situation. I am reminded of I think Tony Pulis moaning about the ref (wrongly) giving Chelsea a corner, from which they scored (but only after the ball had first been cleared, then played around for a while): frankly, if your side can't defend, you should look closer to home than the officiating team.

3) Goal-line technology: this is a bit trickier. I suggest that the ref simply stop the game, and play restarts with a dropped ball. If anyone has a better suggestion (e.g. waiting for the next stoppage, but that could be a while away) then I'm happy to hear it. I don't think many goals have been scored from a non-goal at one end, but realise that even 1 is an argument against. To balance that is the need to get a crucial decision right, and the fact that technology is available pretty much instantly to get that decision. Overall I think the game would be better off.

I also see arguments for whether a foul was inside or outside the area, but the caveat with this is what happens if it becomes obvious on TV that there was no actual foul - does common sense prevail (if so, what restart?), or is the TV ref obliged to give what he knows is a completely incorrect decision.

I am also aware of the "thin edge of the wedge" argument, and indeed this is the case with rugby now (and rugby has gone too far this season). However I don't think the argument "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here. For me, the introduction of technology should be a given, and is inevitable - what remains to be sorted are the details of "what" and "how". This is what I try to address here.

Mike,

All very sensible. Goal line & Offsides 100%.
To eradicate cheating though, we must have a wider remit for Technology so that penalty incidents/sending offs are part of it.

What do you mean by cheating John? It could mean anything really. Deliberately stamping on an opponent is cheating. Trying to get someone booked by insinuating that they dived when they haven't is cheating.

The problem is, and as Mike has stated above, incidents like I've mentioned as well as simulation are all very subjective. One person's view is not always going to be the same as the next. With goal line and offside incidents the debate is much more clear cut and that's as far as I can see football ever going with technology.

I do think football should review its currect citing procedures (if the ref saw it then can't do anything???) in the same way that rugby does - so clear cut red cards which are missed should result in bans.

Similarly retrospective yellow cards could be awarded for clear simulations (where there is daylight between the tackler and the guy who goes down easily), but like liverbnz, I am not sure how you define "clear simulations" - you just know when someone gets YC'd for diving (e.g. Torres) in a lot of cases it's not clear cut and they'll be protests from everybody.

I maintain that video technology for penalty decisions is not workable - take any corner/free-kick, on video you could award a penalty as someone will have a hold of someone's shirt; take a handball - deliberate or not, how is the guy in the TV studio better placed to judge than the guy on the field?

It comes down to what I was saying earlier: it is no use simply saying "we need technology to eradicate diving", you need to come up with a concrete and workable template to how this could work. If you have one, then I'm all ears, until then I'm afraid it is utopia.

liverbnz wrote:What do you mean by cheating John? It could mean anything really. Deliberately stamping on an opponent is cheating. Trying to get someone booked by insinuating that they dived when they haven't is cheating.

The problem is, and as Mike has stated above, incidents like I've mentioned as well as simulation are all very subjective. One person's view is not always going to be the same as the next. With goal line and offside incidents the debate is much more clear cut and that's as far as I can see football ever going with technology.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Two examples :(1)take Luis Suarez's dive against Stoke. Supposing the linesman had flagged for a pen, and the ref went was unsure. Ref stops the game and asks the opinion of TV Ref who recommends Free out and yellow for Suarez. Simple. Clear Cut.

(2) an incident where there is contact but ref is unsure of whether it's a pen or not. He can (a) Do nothing - play on or give a pen (b) stop the game and ask upstairs. If the TV Ref says - inconclusive - then Ref has to go with what his oroiginal call would have been and live or die by it.

Surely, there would be a very low % of Example (2) above and even if they occur now and then, the referee still has to make a decision if there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

I think replay evidence and the like should only be used to determine if the ball crossed the line and for offside. I can imagine a situation where a team will complain that a foul was committed prior to the 'goal' which the ref missed and as such the goal should not stand.

It will never happen because A) Footballers are idiots. B) The people in charge of football are idiots and C) Fans are idiots. (just listen to a fan on a phone in trying to argue black is white to see what I mean.)

That wasn't a fan, that was Mark Clattenberg . . . . . .

John Cregan wrote:

liverbnz wrote:What do you mean by cheating John? It could mean anything really. Deliberately stamping on an opponent is cheating. Trying to get someone booked by insinuating that they dived when they haven't is cheating.

The problem is, and as Mike has stated above, incidents like I've mentioned as well as simulation are all very subjective. One person's view is not always going to be the same as the next. With goal line and offside incidents the debate is much more clear cut and that's as far as I can see football ever going with technology.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Two examples :(1)take Luis Suarez's dive against Stoke. Supposing the linesman had flagged for a pen, and the ref went was unsure. Ref stops the game and asks the opinion of TV Ref who recommends Free out and yellow for Suarez. Simple. Clear Cut.

(2) an incident where there is contact but ref is unsure of whether it's a pen or not. He can (a) Do nothing - play on or give a pen (b) stop the game and ask upstairs. If the TV Ref says - inconclusive - then Ref has to go with what his oroiginal call would have been and live or die by it.

Surely, there would be a very low % of Example (2) above and even if they occur now and then, the referee still has to make a decision if there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

For you first example, despite Suarez's ridiculous dive at the end he was fouled beforehand so which do you give? The free out for the theatrical fall or the penalty for the first foul? Remembering all the while that players were encouraged by senior referee Howard Webb prior to the 2011/12 season to go down under any contact as that would help them make their decisions.

As for the 2nd, I don't see the point in going for a 2nd opinion. People interpret things in different ways. Inconclusive for one, will not be inconclusive for others. And where do we stop? What about free kicks just outside the box? Dangerous tackles that the ref couldn't see? Corners? Throw-Ins? It won't work because it's still subjective and what will be a penalty one week will not be the next and we will have introduced a new system for no reward.

John Cregan wrote:

liverbnz wrote:What do you mean by cheating John? It could mean anything really. Deliberately stamping on an opponent is cheating. Trying to get someone booked by insinuating that they dived when they haven't is cheating.

The problem is, and as Mike has stated above, incidents like I've mentioned as well as simulation are all very subjective. One person's view is not always going to be the same as the next. With goal line and offside incidents the debate is much more clear cut and that's as far as I can see football ever going with technology.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Two examples :(1)take Luis Suarez's dive against Stoke. Supposing the linesman had flagged for a pen, and the ref went was unsure. Ref stops the game and asks the opinion of TV Ref who recommends Free out and yellow for Suarez. Simple. Clear Cut.

(2) an incident where there is contact but ref is unsure of whether it's a pen or not. He can (a) Do nothing - play on or give a pen (b) stop the game and ask upstairs. If the TV Ref says - inconclusive - then Ref has to go with what his oroiginal call would have been and live or die by it.

Surely, there would be a very low % of Example (2) above and even if they occur now and then, the referee still has to make a decision if there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

There are a couple of problems:
1) I think there are far more examples of arguable cases than clear-cut ones. So many times whilst watching MotD I've watched the commentators claim confidently that the ref got it wrong and thought "debateable" or "rubbish, that was quite correct". As liver pointed out even the Suarez example is a grey one. Or take any corner, as I said in my original post...
2) When does the ref stop play? If immediately, you are preventing the (potentially non-offending) defensive side from mounting a counter-attack. If you wait for a natural stoppage you could easily lose up to 2 minutes. Then return and award penalty?

But 1) is the main one, and the reason why in rugby for example the TMO doesn't rule on penalties in open play (which affect a result as much as tries sometimes): there is so much interpretation that you are best leaving it to the guy in the middle.

Perhaps there is a way of a TV ref informing the ref that he's got a pen call blatantly wrong, but I'm not convinced how, or how to define "blatantly wrong".

Liver,

I think Goal line is a no brainer and we need technology for "offside" and while i think it should be expanded, i would understand it being introduced incrementally eg (a) goalline first (b) offside 2nd...................

Problem is while FIFA have allowed the introduction of GLT, UEFA have rejected it and will persist with the man at the side of the goal.......correct me if i am wrong but i have to see that man contributing to the correction of any erroneous decision, but then again, Super Realist's generalisation is correct in the case of Mr. Platini

Don't know Mike, i would have thought that 90% plus of penalty decisions are clear. Even if the Referee is vaey confident he knows, no harm in asking. It is of course vital what question the referee asks...............to take your Suarez example, it would be up to referee to ask the pertinant question on the specific incident he was judging eg..........I believe No 7 green kicked No 8 Red inside the area, am i right??

Had a penalty been given and correctly overturned, surely that is good for the game. I dont believe the issue of a possible counter attacks being thwarted is a good enough reason for it not being used

UEFA can resist all they like, they have no jurisdiction over the individual leagues or the World Cup. Once it's introduced somewhere and it's proven to work, UEFA will quickly change their minds.

This is me making sure I understand the point of view of traditionalists- ` I`m against technology because it takes away the drama, yet conversely Im also against technology because it would create drama (how far back must we go etc)`. I mean, these things even themselves out is 1) a blatant lie, (man U vs Liverpool, unjust penalty, then Che-Man, correct me if Im wrong but thats an extra 4 points for Utd, as the games were tied, with none debited). 2) Thats really just lazy thinking. If your car gets stolen, are you just gonn say, well these things even themselves out? I cant keep stressing that football is a business, & players make & lose a lot of ££ due to such decisions.

In fairness to United, nobody seems to notice when they get decisions against them - of which they get plenty. Whenever they get decisions in their favour everyone will be up in arms with 'consipracy'. This website is the closest thing I've seen to 'correcting' incorrect decisions and by their call United would have won the league last season if all decisions were corrected. And in the absence of any other substansial evidence, I'm happy to go with them.

http://www.debatabledecisions.com/