[white_haired_wizard]

There was a bit on Football Focus (FF) today, for such technologies to be introduced - trialled at the recent Watford Vs Charlton game (ended 2-2). A poll, during the time FF was on air, was conducted. The result proved unanimous, approximately 70% were pro, 30% against. Personally i'm for it, as the consequences of refereeing mistakes can be huge, i.e a penalty that should have been given when Arsenal played Blackburn in the FA Cup recently, and we've seen on the odd occasion when a terrible, absurd mistake is made, i.e. Mendes's 'goal' vs Manchester United at OT, this when Mendes was playing for Tottenham a couple of years ago...

I'm pro because the technologies will be quick, i'd be very surprised if they weren't. You see the equivalent technologies operating in Tennis (particularly speedy service), Rugby Union and Rugby League for example, and it delivers speedy conclusions to any controversies/contentious moments brought up. AND, countering the argument that the involvement of such technologies will slow the game down, on a few occasions, what follows such 'was it or was it not...over the line/offside/a punch' moments, is players crowding around the referee et al, which is a disruption anyway, so if such technology was to be immediately referred to, there'd be a similar 'disruption' anyway, but this time, not one in which players will surround referees, break into arguments with opposition players etc.....so in a sense, arguably, the inclusion of technologies to aid problem solving, will also act as a 'peacemaker' of kinds, as players on the pitch will feel more comfortable in the knowledge that in such controversial moments, there has been a more reliable/valid decision made...

your opinions? are you pro, against? and why so??

[EPD]

I'm pro, when it comes to definitive things like whether the ball crossed the line or not. People bring up the "it makes it more interesting" argument, but if the option's there, we should use it. It's not like contentious issues will suddenly disappear. As you rightly say, wrong decisions can cost millions. Just think, Chesterfield's history could have been completely changed if their goal against Boro in the Cup semi-final back in 97. If things like that can be avoided, they should be.

[NDGAARONDI]

Pro. Football has a lot to learn from other sports and if it still wishes to remain in the middle ages then so be it.

[EPD]

Poll added.

[Juwel]

Pro. At least for those decisions with no room for interpretation, i.e. the over the line sort of thing. Unless the referee is given the ability to defer judgment in the same way as in cricket or rugby, I don't want it for other things like "was it a foul or handball etc". Referees' authorities and decisions are undermined enough as it is without something coming along breaking the sacred rule that a ref's judgment is final. And if we had a video ref, looking at the other sports we can see that there is no significant time delay in a decision; half a minute at most. So yeah, all in favour if there's a video ref too.

[NDGAARONDI]

The only people against it are the governing bodies. Even the majority of Premiership managers are for it.

[white_haired_wizard]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
The only people against it are the governing bodies. Even the majority of Premiership managers are for it.

re: the latter part of your sentence, you say that, 'Even the....' as though it's surprising...

I'd be surprised if the majority of managers were AGAINST the technologies...

Why are you surprised??

[The_Bear]

No, i like the people complaining afterwards.

[Jonah Ramone]

Pro. Just look at Arsenal's unbeaten season. They'd've lost to Portsmouth had the slimey Pires not run into Stefanovic and fallen over like a little girl to get a penalty. Also, the Mendes vs Man U thing was an absolute joke.

[Economist]

Pro.

[Bear_Grylls]

(Original post by Jonah Ramone)
Pro. Just look at Arsenal's unbeaten season. They'd've lost to Portsmouth had the slimey Pires not run into Stefanovic and fallen over like a little girl to get a penalty. Also, the Mendes vs Man U thing was an absolute joke.

Wouldnt have ended if Rooney hadnt dived in the game which ended the run....works both ways

Id be up for it as long as the game isnt stopped every few minutes to be checked by video...

[Alan Grant]

Im up for it as long as it doesnt take over. The referee should only use it when he isnt 100% sure.

[DontBuyTheSun]

Pro.

Within reason however. Only use technology for important match deciding momments such as offsides, penalties and the like. Let the ref deal with the minute incidents himself.

[Hubert Poo]

I'm for it in principle, but it's one of those things that could easily spiral into a farce not much improved on the current situation if any trial is not conducted carefully; I'm worried that too many stop/start request decisions could slow the game down to the point where it becomes more of a cricket match than a game of football. That's only one thing though. We shouldn't rush to think video decisions are the saviour of poor officiating when in fact the best thing would be to improve refereeing standards themselves - it would be a lot cheaper too in the long run; if most refs could do a job like Collina, no one would be asking for replays. Collina wasn't just technically good - the players trusted him. He talked to them, helped them, and wanted to see a good game himself. He didn't red card players for wanting to know the reason for certain decisions (like the Fulham captain last season, if I remember rightly) and if he got something wrong, the players really could put it down to a very unusual case of error. What's more, Collina could admit it - he gave a really poor decision in a virtual title decider (I think it was Inter v Juve) a few years back, and the universal reaction after his admission was complete respect. Even the losers. He didn't hide, and that's a big problem currently. I'm worried videos would allow them the chance to do just that. Not a guarantee, but a possibility. The refs can't be allowed to fall back on them. They've got to improve from the ground up. Then the game can flow, the players won't have to worry about stopping tactics (if any) and the supporters can get what they paid for - a great game of football.

[Juwel]

(Original post by Hubert Poo)
I'm for it in principle, but it's one of those things that could easily spiral into a farce not much improved on the current situation if any trial is not conducted carefully; I'm worried that too many stop/start request decisions could slow the game down to the point where it becomes more of a cricket match than a game of football. That's only one thing though. We shouldn't rush to think video decisions are the saviour of poor officiating when in fact the best thing would be to improve refereeing standards themselves - it would be a lot cheaper too in the long run; if most refs could do a job like Collina, no one would be asking for replays. Collina wasn't just technically good - the players trusted him. He talked to them, helped them, and wanted to see a good game himself. He didn't red card players for wanting to know the reason for certain decisions (like the Fulham captain last season, if I remember rightly) and if he got something wrong, the players really could put it down to a very unusual case of error. What's more, Collina could admit it - he gave a really poor decision in a virtual title decider (I think it was Inter v Juve) a few years back, and the universal reaction after his admission was complete respect. Even the losers. He didn't hide, and that's a big problem currently. I'm worried videos would allow them the chance to do just that. Not a guarantee, but a possibility. The refs can't be allowed to fall back on them. They've got to improve from the ground up. Then the game can flow, the players won't have to worry about stopping tactics (if any) and the supporters can get what they paid for - a great game of football.

That may have been Sylvain Distin. At half time he takes the matchball to Rob Styles and asks him why someone was sent off. Styles asks for the ball, offering nothing. Distin asks again, only to hear "give me the ball" again. He asks a third time, and earns a second yellow for dissent.

Completely agree on Collina; he earned the players' respect. He understood them and the game, unlike most referees, and he wouldn't take any bull either. One vicious glare with those eyes, you knew he mant business. That's one example of his biggest asset; communication skills. He didn't have this attitude of being above the players and detached. Rugby refs are like that, always communicating, preventing a break of the rules rather than waiting for one to penalise like football refs do.

[The_Bear]

The only technology that should be implemented is chips in the ball for goalline decisions and the ability to give cards post event.

If, for example, there was a potential dive the referee could wave play on and "refer" it to the video referee. Then award the card at the next break down. If there is a big brawl or a similar incident where play has already stopped it is right to analyse the footage and send off the known perps.

But certainly not for offside, not for 'contentious' decisions, not for pushing in the box. Only for things that can be legitimately be awarded after play has continued for a while.

[Economist]

(Original post by Hubert Poo)
I'm for it in principle, but it's one of those things that could easily spiral into a farce not much improved on the current situation if any trial is not conducted carefully; I'm worried that too many stop/start request decisions could slow the game down to the point where it becomes more of a cricket match than a game of football. That's only one thing though. We shouldn't rush to think video decisions are the saviour of poor officiating when in fact the best thing would be to improve refereeing standards themselves - it would be a lot cheaper too in the long run; if most refs could do a job like Collina, no one would be asking for replays. Collina wasn't just technically good - the players trusted him. He talked to them, helped them, and wanted to see a good game himself. He didn't red card players for wanting to know the reason for certain decisions (like the Fulham captain last season, if I remember rightly) and if he got something wrong, the players really could put it down to a very unusual case of error. What's more, Collina could admit it - he gave a really poor decision in a virtual title decider (I think it was Inter v Juve) a few years back, and the universal reaction after his admission was complete respect. Even the losers. He didn't hide, and that's a big problem currently. I'm worried videos would allow them the chance to do just that. Not a guarantee, but a possibility. The refs can't be allowed to fall back on them. They've got to improve from the ground up. Then the game can flow, the players won't have to worry about stopping tactics (if any) and the supporters can get what they paid for - a great game of football.

I completely agree.

[Epitomessence]

I'm all for it.

[Clubber Lang]

Surely we can make a start by having big screens in every football stadium which show TV replays - then the REF can look at the screen himself very quickly and confirm his OWN decision. That wouldnt take long at all..

[EPD]

That'd just lead to more problems though. Grounds that already have TV screens don't show controversial incidents, because it'll inevitably lead to crowd unrest.