Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Using human referees vs goal-line technology & video replay-based referee Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we get rid of referees?
    Keep the referee
    26.67%
    Do away with the referee. Bring on technology.
    73.33%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Basically do you think we should do away with referees and use technology to prove whether something was goal or whether something was a foul?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, I think it would be great if they relied on the technology at their disposal, it's crazy that what the ref says will go, even if replay afterwards shows a different thing :/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SharpenedPencils)
    Yeah, I think it would be great if they relied on the technology at their disposal, it's crazy that what the ref says will go, even if replay afterwards shows a different thing :/
    The refusal for football authorities using video technology is probably based on arrogance from refusing to learn from other sports. Rugby league had video technology since 1996 I think.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think a big part of the problem is football's insistence to not stop the clock when really replays could be played to the referee who could then decide but the clock would need to be stopped or just add a load of injury time the current system is ridiculous- a lot of the time the referee didn't get to see what happened and just has to guess what happened and make decisions accordingly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    The refusal for football authorities using video technology is probably based on arrogance from refusing to learn from other sports. Rugby league had video technology since 1996 I think.
    Rugby League, Rugby Union, tennis, cricket, US sports ...

    Of course the poll is flawed. Technology is there to assist, not to replace.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It's always ridiculous arguments for not bringing in technology.

    The one which makes my blood boil is "but if we had technology, we wouldn't be able to discuss contentious decisions after the game!"

    WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    It's always ridiculous arguments for not bringing in technology.

    The one which makes my blood boil is "but if we had technology, we wouldn't be able to discuss contentious decisions after the game!"

    WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?

    Well I'm not sure if we had technology being used that every decision will be examined, which means some wrongful decisions can influence the game anyway such as a goal created directly from a wrongfully awarded throw-in.

    I guess the people you are on about haven't had an Ovrebo performance for their side. Perhaps they should and they might review their opinion then.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Well I'm not sure if we had technology being used that every decision will be examined, which means some wrongful decisions can influence the game anyway such as a goal created directly from a wrongfully awarded throw-in.

    I guess the people you are on about haven't had an Ovrebo performance for their side. Perhaps they should and they might review their opinion then.
    Agree. I think the ref should carry on as they are and teams should get a max of say 2 reviews each per game? Would have a max of 4 per game, which may add a total of 30 secs each but that time is wasted on arguments and ref trying to calm players down anyway.

    You then are highly unlikely to review simple things like throw-ins (obviously you have to contest a decision within say 10 secs to avoid someone trying to go back to a throw in from 45 secs ago).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    Agree. I think the ref should carry on as they are and teams should get a max of say 2 reviews each per game? Would have a max of 4 per game, which may add a total of 30 secs each but that time is wasted on arguments and ref trying to calm players down anyway.
    Yep, or may be three. Depends if a successful appeal uses up the reviews like cricket or not. But expect opposition to this with lines like "Yeah but in cricket there are natural stoppages in the game". One idea I'd do is that when ever the ball is not active, the timer is stopped. That way managers can stop moaning about the added amount of time because there should be no dispute then. Then spectators will actually get 90 minutes of football rather than seeing players time waste by being simulating.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Yep, or may be three. Depends if a successful appeal uses up the reviews like cricket or not. But expect opposition to this with lines like "Yeah but in cricket there are natural stoppages in the game". One idea I'd do is that when ever the ball is not active, the timer is stopped. That way managers can stop moaning about the added amount of time because there should be no dispute then. Then spectators will actually get 90 minutes of football rather than seeing players time waste by being simulating.
    Yes you'd keep your review if successful. Potentially 6 with extra for correct decisions might seem like a lot for technology haters.

    There are loads of stoppages in football tbh - throw ins, freekicks, corners, goal kicks etc. The latter especially regularly takes ages.

    I like that idea of stoppage too but:
    1) Could the players handle the extra fitness? At the moment it's 55-65 mins of football and they run like 9-12km a game. Adding an extra 1/3 to that would be like 12-16km a game potentially? Or less quality as they try and keep their fitness.
    2) Logistical difficulties for traveling fans esp getting the train since it would be unknown how long a game will last. Could be 90-100 mins or could be 120+ mins.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    I think a big part of the problem is football's insistence to not stop the clock when really replays could be played to the referee who could then decide but the clock would need to be stopped or just add a load of injury time the current system is ridiculous- a lot of the time the referee didn't get to see what happened and just has to guess what happened and make decisions accordingly.
    The players usually waste around a minute arguing when a contentious decision is given, so they could probably not stop the clock and it'd make little difference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    I like that idea of stoppage too but:
    1) Could the players handle the extra fitness? At the moment it's 55-65 mins of football and they run like 9-12km a game. Adding an extra 1/3 to that would be like 12-16km a game potentially? Or less quality as they try and keep their fitness.
    2) Logistical difficulties for traveling fans esp getting the train since it would be unknown how long a game will last. Could be 90-100 mins or could be 120+ mins.
    I appreciate that there are differences between the two sports, but none of these became issues in rugby when it introduced video stoppages.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    Yes you'd keep your review if successful. Potentially 6 with extra for correct decisions might seem like a lot for technology haters.

    There are loads of stoppages in football tbh - throw ins, freekicks, corners, goal kicks etc. The latter especially regularly takes ages.

    I like that idea of stoppage too but:
    1) Could the players handle the extra fitness? At the moment it's 55-65 mins of football and they run like 9-12km a game. Adding an extra 1/3 to that would be like 12-16km a game potentially? Or less quality as they try and keep their fitness.
    2) Logistical difficulties for traveling fans esp getting the train since it would be unknown how long a game will last. Could be 90-100 mins or could be 120+ mins.
    1. Possibly not but downsizing 'actual' game time should prevent that since squeezing out non-active play is the idea. So if there was an average of 70 minutes actually played in a 90 minute match, then reduce it down to 70 but add the timer stoppages.

    2. That happens with cup games anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i agree, in some circumstances it would be great for football to have video ref as in some situations it would aid the referee to get it right, however as a massive rugby league fan i get pretty pissed off about the video ref. so much stoppages. ref goes to video for just about everything he can. plus to be truly fair, you have to have it for all matches in a competition or none at all, which then might require more camera angles than untelevised matches usually have. i dunno, i just feel like sometimes you see a sending off and think, if there was a video, he wouldn't be off, or vice versa. and then sometimes you're stood there for 5 mins while they decide whether or not to award a try, and you're like "god ref just use your eyes". so i think there are benefits and disadvantages to it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: September 14, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.