FIFA's response to refereeing gaffes

[dww]

I'm not really pro the introduction of technology but I find it hard to understand why FIFA doesn't go further with it's experiments with extra officials etc. if it set against the idea.

The refereeing at the tournament started out really well and some aspects of it have been excellent still in my view. The willingness to book for cynical tactical fouls in particular has pleased me.

I wonder what the rate of 'howlers' is compared to any other set of games or indeed world cups.

[Kenneth]

In other words it doesn't matter if it's Blatter or some other utter rotter. This rule is a dead letter and FIFA need a go-getter to put his imprimatur on something better insteada some jet setter getting fatter flattering Sepp's ****ter with his chitter-chatter.

[Neil Young]

I've softened towards using it. I think more officials obviously helps but, like I said before, no-one is infallible, for various reasons.

TV replays can't always help but if they sometimes do then it's fine.

The clinching argument for me has nothing to do with Lampard's goal but with the idea that all other major sports use it, sometimes during play and sometimes afterwards, to review decisions, etc.

I don't think it undermines the referee at all, just like having assistant refs and fourth officials and flags and radios and other aids don't.

[MrsB]

I think the referees want it, which should be enough reason to at least give it a try.

[dww]

I've softened towards using it. I think more officials obviously helps but, like I said before, no-one is infallible, for various reasons.

TV replays can't always help but if they sometimes do then it's fine.

The clinching argument for me has nothing to do with Lampard's goal but with the idea that all other major sports use it, sometimes during play and sometimes afterwards, to review decisions, etc.

I don't think it undermines the referee at all, just like having assistant refs and fourth officials and flags and radios and other aids don't.

I'm not sure that I have ever really worried that much about undermining the referees.

The problems I have is that all too often the evidence is inconclusive anyway and I think that it's introduction would lead to a stopping of the flow of the games. That and the 'thin end of the wedge argument'. The sports in which it works seem to be those where the action would naturally come to an end anyway - cricket and tennis obviously and rugby as well.

I suppose what I could accept would be some sort of hawkeye type thing as opposed to video evidence for goal line decisions only. That would eliminate the thin end of the wedge problem and happen at points in the game when it was highly likely to be a set piece anyway allowing for some sort of review system if people feel it is necessary.

In a way while it annoys at times me I tend to feel that human fallibility is part of the game for both players and officials.

[Harv]

Goaline technology will never be brought into place.

If it is FIFA/UEFA wouldn't be able to fix games anymore

[Neil Young]

I'm not sure that I have ever really worried that much about undermining the referees.

The problems I have is that all too often the evidence is inconclusive anyway and I think that it's introduction would lead to a stopping of the flow of the games. That and the 'thin end of the wedge argument'. The sports in which it works seem to be those where the action would naturally come to an end anyway - cricket and tennis obviously and rugby as well.

I suppose what I could accept would be some sort of hawkeye type thing as opposed to video evidence for goal line decisions only. That would eliminate the thin end of the wedge problem and happen at points in the game when it was highly likely to be a set piece anyway allowing for some sort of review system if people feel it is necessary.

In a way while it annoys at times me I tend to feel that human fallibility is part of the game for both players and officials.

I think the coach's challenge idea would be OK. Perhaps you could challenge when the ball next goes dead, whenever that may be. If the challenge is successful then the game time restarts from the point of the incident reviewed. If not, then it carries on from where it left off. That would necessitate an external timekeeper.

I don't think football is well served by bad decisions like the other day (I mean the disallowed goal, not starting with Jermaine 'Invisible' Defoe). It just looks foolish when there are alternatives.

I think allowing video evidence-based retrospective judgement on bookings and sendings off (in both directions) would improve things too. The referees could be involved in this process.

[dww]

I think the coach's challenge idea would be OK. Perhaps you could challenge when the ball next goes dead, whenever that may be. If the challenge is successful then the game time restarts from the point of the incident reviewed. If not, then it carries on from where it left off. That would necessitate an external timekeeper.

I don't think football is well served by bad decisions like the other day (I mean the disallowed goal, not starting with Jermaine 'Invisible' Defoe). It just looks foolish when there are alternatives.

I can see that. I'm just not sure that the alternatives (as presented most of the time) offer a better, more enjoyable future for the game.

I think allowing video evidence-based retrospective judgement on bookings and sendings off (in both directions) would improve things too. The referees could be involved in this process.

I agree that this is a very sensible idea. I think that some sort of Rugby style citing system or having a specific meeting where the referee reviews the video of a game seems like a very sensible way of moving forward. Handled well I think it could also improve people's opinions of referees as well.

[Kenneth]

I'm not sure that I have ever really worried that much about undermining the referees.

The problems I have is that all too often the evidence is inconclusive anyway and I think that it's introduction would lead to a stopping of the flow of the games. That and the 'thin end of the wedge argument'. The sports in which it works seem to be those where the action would naturally come to an end anyway - cricket and tennis obviously and rugby as well.

I suppose what I could accept would be some sort of hawkeye type thing as opposed to video evidence for goal line decisions only. That would eliminate the thin end of the wedge problem and happen at points in the game when it was highly likely to be a set piece anyway allowing for some sort of review system if people feel it is necessary.

In a way while it annoys at times me I tend to feel that human fallibility is part of the game for both players and officials.

Players yes, officials no. Strawman alert, it's like an exam, nobody expects to get every question right, but they do expect the answers they give to be marked accurately. Not exactly relevant, granted, but hey.

I think there should be a flashing blue light (like an old-school police car light) on the top of the goalposts. If Hawkeye says the ball crossed the line, it should flash and a siren should go off. Would be cool for about 5 mins.

[CJ]

As i watch hockey which is a quicker game than football i was surprised when watching the hockey world cup and seeing them use video tech that it didnt slow it down at all.

if you think of how much drogba rolls around after a tackle the amount of time the scum players surround a ref when they dont agree with a descision.

if done properly the technology is actually quicker than that.

it wont solve everything but a mix of hawkeye for goal or not goal and video evidence for everything else. with a limit on when it can be used.

[paulg]

It's as if FIFA (and the FA) consider any questions about the game or how it's run to be a direct attack on them, rather than criticism for the good of the game. They then just dismiss out of hand, seemingly.

Very unprofessional.

[Neil Young]

As i watch hockey which is a quicker game than football i was surprised when watching the hockey world cup and seeing them use video tech that it didnt slow it down at all.

if you think of how much drogba rolls around after a tackle the amount of time the scum players surround a ref when they dont agree with a descision.

if done properly the technology is actually quicker than that.

it wont solve everything but a mix of hawkeye for goal or not goal and video evidence for everything else. with a limit on when it can be used.

The ball is only in play for about 65 mins or something on average. There's lots of time to review decisions.

For Blackburn games they could also review decisions when the ball is in the air.

[Mattshark]

The ball is only in play for about 65 mins or something on average. There's lots of time to review decisions.

For Blackburn games they could also review decisions when the ball is in the air.

[SK]

I think the coach's challenge idea would be OK. Perhaps you could challenge when the ball next goes dead, whenever that may be. If the challenge is successful then the game time restarts from the point of the incident reviewed. If not, then it carries on from where it left off. That would necessitate an external timekeeper.

I don't think football is well served by bad decisions like the other day (I mean the disallowed goal, not starting with Jermaine 'Invisible' Defoe). It just looks foolish when there are alternatives.

Ok, the coaches challenge might be an answer but if you go that route, and lets say the manager has 2, or 3 challenges and he uses them all very early on, the opposing team might take advantage of that situation - constantly being on the line of offside, challenging the goalkeeper harder in aerial challenges etc..would that make the game fairer? or would the idea of no-limit challenges be a better one? that would slow down the game even more so.

I think allowing video evidence-based retrospective judgement on bookings and sendings off (in both directions) would improve things too. The referees could be involved in this process.

i'm all for post match reviewing of bookings, dirty challenges and retrospectively punishing(or pardoning) players. That's one thing where the game has a chance to improve without actually affecting the game itself during play.

As i watch hockey which is a quicker game than football i was surprised when watching the hockey world cup and seeing them use video tech that it didnt slow it down at all.

if you think of how much drogba rolls around after a tackle the amount of time the scum players surround a ref when they dont agree with a descision.

if done properly the technology is actually quicker than that.

it wont solve everything but a mix of hawkeye for goal or not goal and video evidence for everything else. with a limit on when it can be used.

hockey is fast but you have so much pauses during it that video analisys doesn't affect the natural flow of it all.

[peekay]

The ball is only in play for about 65 mins or something on average. There's lots of time to review decisions.

For Blackburn games they could also review decisions when the ball is in the air.