FIFA's response to refereeing gaffes

[Neil Young]

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?

It's the risk you take if you use your challenges before the last kick of the game. There's an issue of whether you have a rule like in cricket or the NFL where you have a limited number of challenges or like tennis where you have a limited number of failed challenges.

Even in the circumstance you say, it would be no worse than the way it is now after the challenges have been used. For as long as at least one team has one challenge left it means decision-making could be better and 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 don't think no limit would be a good idea at all as it would inevitably be abused.

[Resu]

I like the Europa LEague thing with two extra refs. An extra man to see if the ball is in, and it opens up play in the penalty area.

[washDCRed]

I'm all for using the available technology.

Another option would be to simply add another referee.

Keeping a watchful eye on 22 players over a huge area of play is a lot to ask of one man.

Take basketball as a comparison - there are less than half the players on a court that is roughly 5% the size of a football pitch and there are 3 referees on the floor.

Or hockey - again, about half the number of players, considerably smaller playing surface and there are 2 linesmen and 2 referees.

If there were two referees along with two linesmen, each ref would essentially be assigned a half of the pitch. So at all times, there would be an official at, or in front of the play and one trailing the play, keeping an eye on things happening away from the ball.

I understand that there may be differences in style and interpretation among two different officials but I am sure players would adjust.

[Kenneth]

I'm all for using the available technology.

Another option would be to simply add another referee.

Keeping a watchful eye on 22 players over a huge area of play is a lot to ask of one man.

Take basketball as a comparison - there are less than half the players on a court that is roughly 5% the size of a football pitch and there are 3 referees on the floor.

Or hockey - again, about half the number of players, considerably smaller playing surface and there are 2 linesmen and 2 referees.

If there were two referees along with two linesmen, each ref would essentially be assigned a half of the pitch. So at all times, there would be an official at, or in front of the play and one trailing the play, keeping an eye on things happening away from the ball.

I understand that there may be differences in style and interpretation among two different officials but I am sure players would adjust.

There already ae 4 officials in normal games. In the Europa League there were goalline refs.

[Fernandinho]

2 referees isnt great, i much prefer the extra 2 goal line officials

[Harv]

Won't happen.

Games can't be fixed as easily when technology is introduced.

[paulg]

What does the 4th official actually do? Apart from tell managers to calm down.

[SK]

he's there as a reserve if any of the refs get injured