Video Referees in Football?

[Neil Young]

Go on....

Mainly because I'm not sure they're a good option to have in a poll.

[Shaggy]

So there's a corner, disputed handball, ref waves play on, defending team has the ball, breaks in numbers, it's four against two, they must score...

Stop, the other manager threw a flag and the captain of the team that's about to concede a goal wants a decision up the other end reviewed.

Handball in the box? A penalty issue? Cos if it's just a handball outside the box then it wouldn't normally be the sort of thing that would be challenged, it'd be frivolous.

If it's a penalty decision the challenge would be made before the other team had time to break.

Also maybe you could have a certain amount of time in which to register your challenge.

[Buzzo]

So there's a corner, disputed handball, ref waves play on, defending team has the ball, breaks in numbers, it's four against two, they must score...

Stop, the other manager threw a flag and the captain of the team that's about to concede a goal wants a decision up the other end reviewed.

Ok, ok. So it needs some fine tuning. But I think there is still a way to work it.

[Buzzo]

Handball in the box? A penalty issue? Cos if it's just a handball outside the box then it wouldn't normally be the sort of thing that would be challenged, it'd be frivolous.

If it's a penalty decision the challenge would be made before the other team had time to break.

Also maybe you could have a certain amount of time in which to register your challenge.

... and that is the way I still maintain this is still better than how things work just now. You'd still get contention - but less of it...

[Buzzo]

Mainly because I'm not sure they're a good option to have in a poll.

Would you have voted if 'not sure' wasn't an option?

[baitman]

the game wouldnt stop on the say so or flag throwing of a manager, but only once the ref calls it.


tricky one, though... maybe the ref could stop for dubious hand balls in the box, and refer directly to the video ref, with no appeal needed by either side. this could just be a back up/safe guard to ensure they are getting it right.

the ref could call stop once the attacking team has either scored [in which case things can be left as they are] or once the attacking team have lost possession and the ball comes out of the box in the possession of the defending team.

if it was hand ball then peno.
if not hand ball then give the ball back to the defending team.

[Neil Young]

Handball in the box? A penalty issue? Cos if it's just a handball outside the box then it wouldn't normally be the sort of thing that would be challenged, it'd be frivolous.

If it's a penalty decision the challenge would be made before the other team had time to break.

Also maybe you could have a certain amount of time in which to register your challenge.

The time thing doesn't fundamentally change it. We could easily come up with a scenario where just a couple of seconds has elapsed before it's happened again.

Why is a handball or any foul outside the box necessarily frivolous? What if it stopped a goalscoring chance, so it's a potential sending off? Or might be deemed a dangerous challenge so the same applies? And even if it didn't, a free kick in the D is worth having.

I'm not against it, I'm just saying the effect would be quite far-reaching, more so than the backpass rule, etc.

[Neil Young]

Would you have voted if 'not sure' wasn't an option?

Don't know.

[Shaggy]

The time thing doesn't fundamentally change it. We could easily come up with a scenario where just a couple of seconds has elapsed before it's happened again.

Why is a handball or any foul outside the box necessarily frivolous? What if it stopped a goalscoring chance, so it's a potential sending off? Or might be deemed a dangerous challenge so the same applies? And even if it didn't, a free kick in the D is worth having.

I'm not against it, I'm just saying the effect would be quite far-reaching, more so than the backpass rule, etc.

If it's a foul or a deliberate handball which is outside the box and denies a goalscoring opportunity, then it's definitely what I'd describe as a big decision and one absolutely worth challenging. What I meant was in terms of your example...if it's just a bog standard handball outside the box and all the challenging team has to gain is a free kick. That would clearly be frivolous. If you had only one challenge per half then no team is gonna risk losing their only challenge if they only stand to gain a free kick 30 yards from goal.

[Neil Young]

One challenge per half. So teams are going to be loath to use them early in a half, unless (a) it's 'important' and (b) they have a good chance of winning it. But that won't hold true when it's the 44th minute. Or even more when there are two minutes of injury time left, you're 2-1 up and the other team is breaking on you, etc.

I reiterate, I think the intention is sensible but I'm concerned that in practice it would be exploited in all sorts of ways that we wouldn't find an improvement.

[baitman]

three per game would be great.

they might overuse them and need an appeal for later in the match, but too late matey

one in the first half, one for normal play, and one for DBF time

it would be good to see the managers having some more input during the game, like a 12th man...

[The Birdman]

I think 3 is too many, will encourage them to chance their arm like the number 11 batsman refering a plumb LBW in case of a no ball.
2 would be fine, I'd be happy with 1 as well as it means only the ridiculously bad decisions would get reviewed.

[Shaggy]

One challenge per half. So teams are going to be loath to use them early in a half, unless (a) it's 'important' and (b) they have a good chance of winning it. But that won't hold true when it's the 44th minute. Or even more when there are two minutes of injury time left, you're 2-1 up and the other team is breaking on you, etc.

I reiterate, I think the intention is sensible but I'm concerned that in practice it would be exploited in all sorts of ways that we wouldn't find an improvement.

I get that

My idea with being only one challenge per half is that it would ensure no frivolous or tactical challenges - you would have be to near-certain to press ahead with a challenge. It's a fair point about incidents occurring in injury time or the 44th minute. So why not make it one challenge per game? Obviously in theory a team could make four challenges in any one game provided it was upheld every time. But if you **** it up, you lose your right to challenge.

[destinydude]

Two challenger per game and if you get the 1st one wrong, you'll lose the right to use the second one. That way teams will be more careful.

[baitman]

ahh, i was forgetting that someone mentioned you'd keep your challenge is it proved successful...

then one challenge per half would work just fine.

who was that

this could only help ensure more consistency and better standards from the refs and linespeople. they dont want to be seen as giving wrong decisions that might then be overturned, so they would have to try a little harder, not take bungs, not sit at dbf's table, keep opticians appointments, etc...