Should football use technology?

[Frankie]

In fifteen years supporting Falkirk I can't remember one goal line incident.

 

 

Are they that bad ?

[shetlandbairn]

In fifteen years supporting Falkirk I can't remember one goal line incident.

 

 

Are they that bad ?

 

As I read my post back I noticed that too... hoped I'd get away with it!

[Frankie]

Definitely want to see more use made of technology - what Celtic fan doesn't...???

 

IMHO replays could be used to ascertain whether a goal was scored fairly or not, ie the replay would only be needed when the ball goes in the net, or appears to. Ball's in the net, play stops anyway - a video official could review it and indicate if there was an infringement by the scoring team and whether the goal should stand.

.

 

A good example would be Thierry Henry's 'goal' for Barcelona against Rangers this year in the Champions League. It wasn't apparent that it was a deliberate hand ball until it was replayed on video. But hey, that's football, let's not get paranoid about it.

[Frankie]

Definitely want to see more use made of technology - what Celtic fan doesn't...???

 

Bet you were glad technology wasn't in use re Charlie Adam goal today.

 

Thankfully it didn't matter regarding the points.

 

It does on goal difference though.

[Frankie]

Definitely want to see more use made of technology - what Celtic fan doesn't...???

 

 

I bet you are glad it wasn't in use again today for the Celtic v Falkirk game.

[shetlandbairn]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

I don't overly mind mistakes by referees, can (just about) handle decisions like McDonald's goal that was offside. Two of the 'penalties' we didn't get were debateable and Celtic probably should have one.

 

The Caldwell handball that didn't get punished was an absolute disgrace though. I sometimes cringe at fans of smaller clubs who say the Old Firm constantly get all the decisions but I'm afraid I'm in no doubt that if Darren Barr had done the same in our box it would have been a penalty to Celtic. Would love to hear the referee's explanation for not giving it.

[Marooned in Maywick]

Would love to hear the referee's explanation for not giving it.

 

Well, you could always hope that there'll be an explanation on the SFA's Whistleblower page http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/whistleblower.cfm.

 

However, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it as it apparently hasn't been updated since 5 November 2007.

And just to show how professionally the game is being run in this country...their citation of 'proof' that a linesman (yes, I know they're called assistant referees these days but I choose not to use that appelation) got a decision correct is to give a youtube reference.

Truly, you couldn't make it up

 

Basically, what the SFA seem to be saying is that since it is the case that...'In the average SPL and SFL weekly programme it has been estimated that referees and assistant referees will make approximately 10,000 decisions in controlling a match.'...then since 5 November last year, every decision has been the correct one.

Yup, every single one.

Aren't you glad we've got such good match officials

Or surely they'd be explaining themselves on Whistleblower...wouldn't they?

[EISTnWAST]

Credit must be given to our No.1 whistler for his honesty here...http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/whistleblower.cfm?newsid=3236

He is saying he made a mistake.

Is this what you're looking for with the Caldwell incident shetlandbairn?

 

You want an explaination, so let me tell you what the ref would say....

a) It wasn't handball.

It didn't look like handball at the time. Both myself and the assistant referee didn't have a clear enough view at the time to award a penalty kick. After studying television replays then I realise the wrong decision was made.

 

For others reading I'm sorry for not providing the option you would like of c) I am loyal to my beloved Celtic. I would never award a penalty against them. Not even if Caldwell pulled out a gun and shot the entire opposition inside his own penalty area.

 

 

So after one of the serious explanations then where does that leave you shetlandbairn?

a) Feeling the same as you do at the moment - cheated by a dodgy ref.

Feeling a little better - knowing that everyone makes mistakes.

c) Still feeling cheated - everyone makes mistakes, but technology would eliminate the problem.

[EISTnWAST]

MiM, what do you want as the evidence that the decision was correct? Is the ref saying "yes, I was right" enough for you, or would a link to Sky's website be more to your liking? I'm sure they must have Scottish Junior Cup footage of Pollack v Montrose on there somewhere

Anyway, I've finally worked up the motivation to do this......

 

On the whole the SFA Whistleblower page does seem to be an opportunity for referees to defend themselves against media reports of poor refereeing. It is obvious to any sane person that referees don't like to admit that they made a bad decision. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that there is no technology used in football. The refs don't want their decisions called into question more than they already are.

 

Lets say we start using technology. Now put yourself in the shoes of the referee. You have just awarded or denied a penalty or offside. You are 99% sure your decision was right. Your assistant referee is 99% sure you were right. The crowd and players are screaming because they think you are wrong. Do you stick with your decision and leave yourself with some respect? Or use the video replay to confirm to everyone what you already know?

I suspect that very few people would choose to stick with their decision.

 

And therein lies the biggest problem with the use of technology. As soon as a ref fails to use it, and it's that 1 time in 100 when he's wrong, then fans and players alike will expect it to be used for every single decision. It will only encourage people to question the refs decision more than they already do, knowing that they have that small chance of it being changed in their favour.

 

Now onto the restart of play. First of all for instances when the ref has blown his whistle to give a decision. After checking the video replay he would award the freekick or penalty to the correct team. For an incorrect penalty award then the defending side would restart play with a freekick from where the (now fair) tackle was made. Unfortunately we will have to punish the attacking team for the bad call by the referee, but nevermind, technology is all about fairness right? For offside decisions, the ref would give an indirect freekick to the attacking team, because he incorrectly awarded the decision to the defending team. Just a little unfortunate that the incident occured just outside the box, and now Ronaldinho, Messi and Henry are standing over the ball.

What about decisions that aren't given? Is play brought back to where the freekcik penalty should have been awarded? It would be very interesting to see the reactions to a goal being chopped off for something that happened a few minutes earlier. Boyd scores for Rangers but it's disallowed and McDonald lines up to take a penalty for Celtic. I'm sure there would be no complaints, because technology is 100% correct.

 

Where do we put a stop to using technology? Surely it can be applied to decisions for ball out of play as well? Incorrectly awarded corners can be just as crucial as penalty or offside decisions. Is a goal scored from a corner that wasn't, any less important than a penalty that wasn't?

 

Maybe the referees would like this situation. They could even have a look to check which colour of card a foul deserved. No more complaints from anyone about a bad referee costing their team the game. Now remember what I said earlier about every decision being checked of video replays? If you do then you will realise that fans are now getting their money's worth. 30 or 40 pounds doesn't seem that bad for a game which lasts at least 2 hours. The end of such high tempo games will mean players like 'Gazza' would have longer careers.

 

Well it looks like I've almost convinced myself that technology is a good thing. If only I wasn't against having 2 hour games with stoppages every few minutes.

[shetlandbairn]

Credit must be given to our No.1 whistler for his honesty here...http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/whistleblower.cfm?newsid=3236

He is saying he made a mistake.

Is this what you're looking for with the Caldwell incident shetlandbairn?

 

You want an explaination, so let me tell you what the ref would say....

a) It wasn't handball.

It didn't look like handball at the time. Both myself and the assistant referee didn't have a clear enough view at the time to award a penalty kick. After studying television replays then I realise the wrong decision was made.

 

It was more of a rhetorical point regarding any explanation. There's no way he couldn't see it and any suggestion it wasn't a handball as it wasn't deliberate is scuppered by the fact he gave a free kick for handball right at the end of the match when a player fell down and the ball stuck his hand accidentally. He just bottled it I'm afraid.

 

I'm not blaming him for the defeat by the way.We created hardly any chances in the whole game.

 

As for the original topic in this, I still don't think video evidence is particularly viable in football.

[Marooned in Maywick]

I'll just address this point for now - the rest of your post is too long for me to give a considered response in the time I've got available at the moment...and onywye...whit's du doin' up at yun time i'da moarnin'?

 

MiM, what do you want as the evidence that the decision was correct? Is the ref saying "yes, I was right" enough for you, or would a link to Sky's website be more to your liking?

 

It wasn't the correctness of the decision I was highlighting, it was the SFA's blatant hypocrisy in citing some random punter's youtube footage as 'proof' that a doubtful decision turned out to be the correct one.

The hypocrisy stems from their refusal to use Hearts' own video footage when John Hartson clearly elbowed Andy Webster in the face( no, Martin O'Neill, Webster did NOT elbow himself in the face) - unseen (or at least unpunished) by any of the match officials. Yes, it was a while ago but what's changed since then?

[EISTnWAST]

Is the ref saying "yes, I was right" enough for you

the ref saying "yes, I was right" is enough for me

Well that's fixed now. Question answered.

 

I know you weren't questioning the decision, but obviously you think if they add the youtube link then they are being hypocritical and unprofessional., and I'm sure you don't want that.

I can see the small hint of irony - now that you explained what you mean - but still don't think the SFA did anything too wrong in using the link on their website. It's not as though they were using video evidence to change a decision which was made during a game (which 99.9% of fans have forgotten ).

 

I would have to agree with you about using video evidence AFTER a game to punish players who have cheated. It can only make the game better. I do believe the SFA have already started trials for this. So in the future a dirty Welsh cheat won't get away totally unpunished, but it still won't change the result.

 

 

Shouldna be sittin up so late efter coming hame fae da pub

[Carlos]

How about something like they are using in tennis: Say each manager has 3 "calls" through the game, when he can ask the ref to stop the game and review things on video playback and keep/change the decision after that, but only 3.

 

One more thing to berate the manager for getting wrong after the game too

[EISTnWAST]

@shetlandbairn

 

I did realise (with you being one of the few real football supporters on here) that you just wanted to vent some frustration. I was just asked the question to make a point to others.

So many people say "Would love to hear the referee's explanation for not giving it", and actually think there is an answer that they don't already know. This could be why the Whistleblower is mainly used for referees to defend themselves against uneducated media reports.

 

People need to get real when questioning a referee's decision.There really are only 2 answers a ref will give. Its either - I was right, or I made a mistake. The only information you could really get from him is how he came to that decision. If you are really that interested in knowing then why not take a referee course? Even read this strange thing called 'The Laws Of the Game'. I would be willing to wager all the tea in China that less than 5% of people on Shetlink know all the laws of the game.

 

 

Just so you all know that I'm not on the payroll at the SFA - I complain about referees as well. The difference is that when I do it I say "that **** is a bad ref". There are a lot of bad refs in the game, but with the attitude towards them it is becoming harder and harder to recruit new blood. [the part where I get back on topic] None of you supporters of technology should worry though. When we are left with officials who know the laws of the game but can't ref (yes the 2 are entirely different) then you will have what you want. There will be no alternative.

[EISTnWAST]

@Carlos

I don't really follow tennis, but in my view it's completely different. The rules of tennis are very simple. All you're really talking about there is ball in and out of play. I'm sure the day will come soon when hawk-eye is capable of working in real time, thus eliminating the requirement for umpires.

In football what would the 3 calls allow the manager to question? For some teams a free kick from 20 yards is almost as good as a penalty. Can they ask for that to be looked at again?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the 3 calls in tennis not just because it's a very high tempo game? Any more than 3 calls and players could use them tactically to gain an advantage. MiM has already stated that football is of a stop start nature. There is less advantage to be gained from a short stoppage in play. Players already create their own stoppages by lying on the grass "injured" for a minute or two, so the I don't see why there would need to be a limit on replays.

Same old story here, it ends up with me saying it should be all or NOTHING.