All kinds of world football news goes here. This thread is not about clubs or country, but all about the rules set by FIFA.

EDIT: First post will always come out with latest news around the globe about football.

Video replays would kill the game, says Platini

Have your say.

This post has been edited by Belphegor: Oct 13 2007, 10:20 PM

I believe that the addition of video replays can benefit the game depending on it's application. Currently video replays are already used as evidence against players who resort to dirty tactics while the game is being played. I do agree with Platini to an extent because I do feel the flow of the game will be interrupted if players are to challenge every call. A lot of the games appeal stems from the fact that there are contentious decisions for fans to discuss and debate over. They may be game changing instances and they may not but it gives fans something to talk and argue about. I do however think that if camera replays are to be implemented it should only be limited to checking 2 things;

a) If the ball has crossed the goal line
b) If there was a penalty

There are other alternatives to the above of course. Point a) can be solved by the addition of a chip in the football, while point b) can be helped by the addition of a 5th official. Not fool proof but it definitely eases the pressure on refs.

Yup you're spot on Duke Red. If there is too much interruption it will somehow disrupt the flow of the game. It should be introduce to the game if it improve the sports overall but not if it create more controversial points and make it more difficult for the official to control the game.

i add 2 more

c) A challenge that deserve a straight red card, or not
d) Offside that could lead to a goal

I might miss out others but every decision that could change the whole game should be included

The thing is if you include too many incidents, there will be stoppage for sure, which is why I limited my options to those involving goals. Perhaps they could follow how it is applied in rugby. The ref is the only person that calls for replays and he only does so when he really cannot see what had just happened. The game doesn't stop all that much but then again, I would like my football to be as free flowing as possible.

There is actually a massive debate going on now about video refereeing as well in Rugby. Who should be given the right to give out the ruling when a Video Ref is called upon? Would the Video ref be able to give recommendations only or what? And yes, if you were to limit it to goal line disputes and so on, sooner or later, fans would call for the using of the video for other things. Diving for example.

Personally, I think there are still so much more to refine when it comes to video refereeing. It should be done with care and after a lot of consideration of possible disputes as a result of introducing video refereeing. The last thing you want to have is more controversies as a result of video refereeing.

Goal line technology though is a totally different thing and should be implemented without much problems as there is no variables involve. WYSIWYG.

Here's another angle. There isn't a doubt that corruption exists in the game just like in many other sectors. With the addition of video technology, won't it make it harder for punters to 'fix' the game? This is a little far fetched and I would not like to think that a game, especially in the EPL given how much they make, can be fixed but it is still food for thought, no?

IMHO, having one player less at times is even worse than having a goal down...which is why i include the red card decision. But i do agree that having too many incidents will certainly disrupt the game flow. At the same time, i believe major decision should be included, its not fair to include just 2 and ignore others.

I would love to think that the bookies have more subtle ways to influence the way a game pans out. Maybe like manager's team selection? Or players not running at 100%? With the amount of time fans like us spend on watching replays plus with the emergence of youtube, I'd say that there is just simply too much at risk to just throw the game in such a balant manner.

Video replays?

The thing is, if they start to introduce such tech for, let's say, goalmouth incidents, more and more factions will then push for tackles lah, offsides lah, etc. Then the whole thing would be a mess. I think this is the principal reason that FIFA is very much against video tech to be fully introduced into the game.

But one thing though, would love for some common sense to be applied when refereeing. Sometimes some debates can be dismissed if the persons concerned can just come out and admit their mistakes, right their wrongs. Case in point, THAT goal Spurs v Man U that didn't count.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that TV Replays are good for the game and it's a matter of applying it so that the flow of the game is not interrupted. As viewers at home, we get to see replays almost instantaneously and with the exception of a few rare incidents, it's usually quite clear if a player has dived, the ball has crossed the line or whatever. If we station one personnel who's job is specifically to monitor the replays, I do think the response time can be quite quick and I do not think play will have to be stopped all the time. Imagine these scenario's:

a) Player goes down in agony but ref waves play on. As play is going on, the TV replay personnel will be reviewing the incident. If there was indeed a foul, the personnel will inform the ref via his ear piece. The ref will then take the necessary action and caution the offending player the next time play is stopped. He need not have stopped play the moment the incident occurred.

b) In the event a contentious goal is scored, there is ample time for the TV replay personnel to review the incident even if the ref blows for a goal. As it is, referees often reverse decisions after consulting his linesman anyway. While the player who thinks he has scored a goal reels away in delight, there is a good 10 - 15 seconds for the TV replay personnel to have a closer look at the incident.

I guess what I'm trying to say it that the referee still makes the decisions he does just like today. He only stops play when he thinks there has been an infringement and not each time the players protest. While play is going on the TV replay personnel can review the incident. The gist of my point is that if the TV replay personnel is efficient, it doesn't take a whole lot of time to review incidents.

To be honest, I would not want video evidence to be brought into football at all, football is a different game to rugby and say cricket, where there are many stoppages in between the game for the video ref / umpire to review the incidents. Football is a non stop free flowing game (supposedly) unlike the likes of Rugby where there are minor stopages here and there. By having a video ref, it will definitely disrupt the flow of the game, at the same time leaving fans in the stadium or watching around the world impatient while waiting for the decision.

I am all for goal line technology as it could be a simple ship and sensor that beeps into the ref's head piece or an indicator behind the goal that indicates whether it's a goal or not.

I am actually very interested to see FIFA revive the plan to have 2 referees, one in each half like hockey. Most errors in desicions are a result of poor positioning (Rob Styles' "penalty" against Liverpool), tiredness and not able to keep up with play. With player running faster and stronger these days, it is not unusual for the ball to be at one end of the file and then the other end in less than 10 seconds. To be able to keep up with the play, unless the refs are all olympic sprinter with an eye like an eagle, there's no way they could keep up with the play all game long. Not to mention is the team employs long ball tactics which will see the team pinging long balls again and again to launch an attack.
With a referee in each half, it is easy for both to keep up with the play as they would only worry about the play in their half, thus minimise the error through poor positioning and tiredness. This could even be expanded to have 4 assistant referees with two on each half of the pitch, right and left flank, that way, it will also help to eliminate incorrect offside calls.

Many a times we see incorrect offside calls are made on the play happening on the opposite flanks rather than the near flank, or plays starting from opposite flank to the near flank, by having two assistant referees, it will help the decision making process and help the referees in making a less erroneous decision.

Granted, many would argue that it is still human and error will be inevitable, there will be a big revamp of the organisation and referee set up to make this work, in deciding who takes care of which side of the pitch etc etc. However, it is always the human element of football that we enjoy the most, giving us plenty of talking points to debate and discuss about during the week. Imagine a place like LYn if everything is computerise and every decision made by the referee is spot on, we wouldn't have a lot of banters and debate in the forum, how boring.

Just for sake of arguement as well, lets say team A scored a goal on a really swift counter attack that looks like a 50/50 offside decision.

The linesman rules offside. Ref counsults video referee to ask whether or not it is offside. Goal is legit BUT prior to that pass a player from team A controlled the ball with his arm without getting caught. What would the video ref do?

A) Answer the referee no it is not;

or

B) Overrule the referee and tell the referee that there is a prior infringement before the offside controversy came into play.

Which comes to the question, how far can a video referee go back? Would it be fair? There are too many questions yet to be able to be answered definitely.

I'm going to me the assumption that video replays be used to a similar capacity as a ref's assistant. This means that the decision to review an incident rests solely on the referee and only when he feels he didn't see an incident, will he review the said incident. If the ref thinks he's got the call right, he waves away protests as he usually does.

I'd rather have 2 ref's as per what Jonno suggested but at the same time, I will not totally discount video technology until all possible implementation options have been considered.

hmm... i'm not too fond of video technology to be honest... it's already destroyed the appeal of cricket by taking out the 'human' factor

for those who are not too familiar with cricket, it is the only game where the players are supposed to question the referee... something like you need to tell the referee that you've scored a goal when you have scored a goal... otherwise the 'goal' doesn't stand

half the fun was to see the bowlers jumping up and down with joy when a wicket 'falls', only for the umpire to calmly shake his head and wave the celebrations away. the beauty of honest gameplay is diminished with video replays - 'hawk-eye' and 'sound analysis'. Somehow walking out voluntarily (i.e. Adam Gilchrist) when you think that you have nicked the ball with your bat seems less noble when you can no longer get away with it anyways. IMHO this bellitles the honestly of Gilchrist and others like him...

then again, i'm probably just old skool

This post has been edited by madmoz: Oct 12 2007, 01:52 PM

You left out the customary "Howwwzzzzzaaaaaaaattttttttt!"

But he did say, If they implement the system, the referee system would be dead. So how?

yep....agreed