I think thats why a challenge system is the only way to use video effectively without completely messing up the flow of the game.

It always seems to be 'one or two' horrible calls in a game that change the outcome dramatically. so if FIFA allow one, maybe 2 at the absolute maximum, challenges per game, to allow managers to challenge the absolute howlers, that should suffice.

That would also make for additional 'drama' as the decision to use the challenge in itself would be part of the the entertainment and strategy.

The one thing no-one has yet answered though, is what happens when there is no call from the ref ie. play on? can the manager press a buzzer or something to halt the game? because that would be quite ugly, and it seems a lot of 'bad calls' are actually non-calls (like not flagging for offside when it is). Would that be a case of only being able to challenge if a goal results from the 'non-call'?

It's easy to see why there is so much opppositon to video, but I agree something has to be done.


What do you think about the FourFourTwo blog Who Woz Robbed ??
According to Dr Luke Wilkshire, alcohol and lack of sleep are the best treatment for those niggling World Cup injuries.
Looking remarkably happy, Luke shared his prescription on SBS's Cup Fever on We...

Have your say.

I look at it this way. Football is a game of skill tension and drama with waves of play that go in each direction during the game.

A game can turn with a stroke of luck or skill and turn back the other way with a mistake or bad luck. Game losing mistakes can are commonly made by the players, often by the coach and sometimes by the Ref. I have heard Football talked about more than ever by media that hate the game all because of the drama of human errors.

If it had of gone smoothly they would be ignoring it.

The highs and lows in Football are extreme and I think to start taking away some of the controversy may be a mistake. A mistake 1000 times worse than the no goal because it will effect the drama for ever.

Football Fever is the best show on telly!!!

They also said that all the batting averages in cricket should be recorded as 'pre' and 'post' the introduction of the 3rd umpire on run out decisions because all the ones that were previoulsy too close to call are now given out. Hasn't affected the game and the averages arent any different, with the exception that the right decisions are now being made, and the reason its been done is because it was unacceptable for TV audiences to know the correct outcome but the game to ignore it.

The reality is that sport has to evolve with technology like everything else. The romanticism of human frailty/error is nice until it starts to look like naivety and arrogance, which is where we are now arriving at.

Well written piece Julia, I am totally in favor of a challenge system a la Hawk Eye in the tennis. The reason for this is that the non call off side can still be challenged if it results in a goal - the only time you would challenge it. Essentially you could only use a challenge when there is a natural break in play. Goal decisions and red cards. When else do you need to review play?

^^^ If teams can only hallenge during a natural break in play, we will see a lot more simulation in order to stop the game naturally. Dont mean to poo-poo your idea, because in essence I agree, but it maybe that the introduction of technology creates more problems than it fixes.

No, no, no!

The suggested solution is far worse than the problem. I've no doubt that the makers of the technology are salivating at the prospect of FIFA's mandating the use of their equipment, but let's not lose sight of the realities.

The first reality is that the technology will inevitably slow up the game (as mentioned above, what do you do about "non-calls"?).

The second reality is that the technology will diminish the authority of the referees and linesmen. We only have to look at rugby league in suburban parks to see the end result of that process.

The third reality is that the cost of the technology would limit its use - and the resultant rule changes - to major tournaments, effectively fracturing the universality of the rules of the game.

The fourth reality is that the scale of the problem is clearly not as bad as the tech-heads like to present. For example, the use of offside testing during broadcasts from South Africa shows that the overwhelming majority of offside calls are correct.

Nothing in life is perfect, and wrong calls in football are part of life. Introducing technology may reduce the number of wrong calls, but it will never eliminate them. That being the case, I can see no overwhelming argument that the downsides of the technology are justified.

What really worries me is that there is a far bigger blight on the game - dirty play (shirt-tugging, arm-wrestling (despite a widespread belief to the contrary, soccer is not a contact sport), diving, swarming the referee, arguing with the referee etc) - that FIFA should be addressing.

Non calls are non calls. Play goes on.
In the case of a goal like Lampards i am sure that if the refs had the option of looking at it again through hawkeye or whatever they would have. It takes all of 15 seconds to see once they ask for it. A simple whistle to stop play, check it, if its a goal no problems, if not it restarts from the keeper with ball in hand. Refs decision to look as in league keeps the power with the ref.

Cost is no drama as hawkeye has offered to place the system in every premier league ground for free in exchange for the sponsorship rights. I am sure they would be willing to do the same in other major leagues.

The only reason we need technology is goal and penalty decisions.

Everything else should be dealt with post game through a suspension and fine system, such as simulation and foul play.

imo, as Blatter has said, goal line tech would be a benefit, and can eradicate non goals (ie: Poms v Germs) while not effecting the natural flow of a game.
But I don’t like the idea of video refs that would interrupt games.

As other have said, it is part of the Drama that is football.
Human error is part of the game, to change that will change the game.

I don’t look back at the dive (v Italia 2006 WC) and think we need video refs.
The biggest non call of all time, the hand of god, has grown into a legendary tale that every person on the planet, football fan of not, knows about.

I don’t want football to change.

"Non calls are non calls. Play goes on."

So:

* if a ref blows up Kewell for handball on the line, allows, that should be subject to technology; but

* if a defender punches the ball off the goal line and the ref does nothing, that shouldn't be subject to technology?

All that you're creating there is a brand new set of inconsistencies! Technology would have solved nothing.

EDITED:
"Non calls are non calls. Play goes on."

So:

* if a ref blows up Kewell for handball on the line, that should be subject to technology; but

* if a defender punches the ball off the goal line and the ref does nothing, that shouldn't be subject to technology?

All that you're creating there is a brand new set of inconsistencies! Technology would have solved nothing.

Agree. Here is a thought. Most of the outrage and criticism here in Sydney have come from sports commentators, reporters and jurnos from the other codes.

Question; If goal line technology or offside technology was introduced would these dinosaurs suddenly start following Football???

Answer; NOT A CHANCE!!!!

Question: Will Football supporters drop the code and start following another code.
Answer; Also NO!

So what’s the point. Just except the drama and enjoy…….or cry uncontrollable depending on the error!

i don't like the appeal thing but I see no problem with the goal line technology. I think that should be suffice for now.

"i don't like the appeal thing but I see no problem with the goal line technology. I think that should be suffice for now."

Let's assume a device which flashes or makes a beep when a ball crosses the line (assuming that it can distinguish between a ball crossing the line and some part of a player's body).

How often would it go off during a match? Everyone remembers the Germany v England thing, but let's face it: the ball crossing the line and a goal's not being called is a fairly rare event. But, we've taken the first step towards taking the decision out of the referee's hands. Once that is done, there will inevitably be calls for technology to be used in relation to balls going out on the side and goal lines (why not?), then tackles on the edge of the penalty area, then offsides, then ...

Bollocks, you will only have technology used when it is most needed. Was that a goal? Was that player offside and a goal scored? Did that player perform one of the 10 things that should result in a red card? End of story.

All I can see is grey.......

If its grey, the ref's call stands, but at least it can be shown to be grey, not black when the ref said it was white....

All this talk about only using the technology when there is a break in play or a "natural break in play" is a bit naive.

Let's say a ball is passed to an offside player. He takes the ball down to the corner and floats it into the penalty area. The goalie punches the ball clear, but the ball is driven straight back and into the goals. Does the ref then use video technology to review whether the original pass was offside? What amount of time has to elapse between the reviewed event and the break in play?

Change the scenario. The ball is passed to a forward is front of an open goal, but offside is called. The electronic review shows that the forward wasn't offside. What do you do? Award a goal? Have a drop ball? Award a penalty or indirect free kick (even though the defending team wasn't at fault)?

The simple fact is that the technology creates as many (if not more) problems than it solves.

If a non call is made when the offside trap is sprung and it results in a goal then it should be checked if a challenge is made - after a goal is scored (as you wouldn't if they didn't score).

If offside is called then sucks to be you.

I still think you are missing my point stiofan:

A challenge system, a la Hawkeye, can only be used when the ball is 'dead'. You can only challenge under certain circumstances:

1, player is not called offside and a goal is scored from the play, i.e. Tevez

2, player is given a red card for commiting one of the 10 offences, i.e. Cahill etc.

3, no goal called, i.e. Lampards non goal etc. this is the only challenge that I can see that the ball does not become dead for immediately so it is slightly trickier to police.

In all seriousness what other decisions need to have a challenge? The only other one that may be worthy of it is the inside the box/outside the box foul.

I've heard that FIFA are experimenting with goal line referees, ones who can cover anything in the box and in the goal. This could eliminate almost all errors in the penalty box and would be faster than going upstairs. All the ref would need would be a brief confermation, and a descision would be made.

Failed in Europa cup as they had no training and were often on the wrong side of the box.

Good idea though.

Edited to add that it would still be faster if the 4th official could just tell the ref what he saw on his TV screen.

Edited by General Ashnak: 2/7/2010 02:10:23 PM

Good piece - BUT sorry - the lampard goal most certainly would have had an efect on the game. Not solely because of the score - but think of the huge mental BOOST That GERMANY received by the goal NOT being given. An immeasurable boost for the psyche - compounded 300000% at halftime when all the coaches managers etc are saying "we have them beaten, the goal wasnt given - it is 1966 being repaid".

Secondly technology is a very dangerous thing in soccer. My preference is purely a 5th ref to watch a monitor with the broadcaster providing LIVE access to various angles - and they can only rule on GOAL LINE issues. NO challenges, NO stops in play - The 5th official purely says in the earpiece "ref it was over the line." Ref blows goal, broadcaster shows it in the stadium - everyone is happy.

I dont like the idea of challenges or hawkeye or watching repeated replays. The simple solution using humans and technology will work best...

Im with centro, technollogy is bad ;)
biggest problems are if the wrong call is made and play should've run its course...
Besides, ive kinda gotten used to swearing my head off at the tv

eh. I don't reckon we would have beaten the USA.

Surely we would have done as well as Uruguay if we got through the group.

There is more than just human fallibility in the refereeing, there is a blatant negative attitude to smaller nations/players. Or probably more to the point, referee fear of larger nations and players. It might not be intentional, but when your team is on the wrong end of these calls it makes it hard to believe in the old 'swings and roundabouts' argument.

It would be interesting to see how ref's would compare calls on 'fouls' committed by Aussies compared to those by the Brazil's etc, if they didn't know who they were, or what team they were. Some sports scientist should get onto it. Swear I could pick 4 or 5 by Brazil in their match against the Netherlands last night that weren't even given a card (usually just a smile and a pleasant exchange) that were worse than red cards against us. I'm not necessarily saying that we didn't deserve them, but - call a spade a spade.

the 3rd official already has a TV screen at halfway, get another assistant to sit there watching the TV and informing the referee ONLY IF HE CALLS SOMETHING WRONG simple solution really

Doesn't Matthew Breeze do that already ?