As a proud Queenslander, I was thrilled to see the Roar lift the trophy once more. Yet for all my joy, I admit that a video referee system must be introduced to make sure last night’s controversial penalty never happens again.
When Besart Berisha fell in the box in injury time, and Jarred Gillett pointed to the spot, I rejoiced alongside my fellow Brisbane fans.
However, one controversial decision has now left a scar on what is Australian football’s biggest occasion.
Was it a penalty? Probably not.
We can debate this for as long as we want, however if there is no introduction of a video referee or fourth match official the A-League will almost certainly face another debacle like this one.
The FFA should follow the example of international cricket and tennis, where players are entitled a limited number of challenges to a refereeing decision.
In football, the challenges should only be used for penalties.
Alternatively, the referees should have the option of going upstairs before making the crucial decision.
Even the AFL has a new goal-line decision review process which has proved to be beneficial since its introduction this year. Yes it may slow the game down, but I’m sure the infuriated Perth Glory fans who travelled back across the continent this morning would see its value.
There has been an outpouring of emotion and opinion on the Australian football front since the decider. Referees boss Mark Shields defended Gillett’s decision while an emotional Tony Sage, owner of Perth Glory, today strongly advocated the need to introduce new technology.
A lasting memory I will take from the match was the reaction of the 50,000 Roar fans, upon seeing the replay of the questionable tackle on the big screen.
Joy and cheering was suddenly entangled with gasps, murmurs and disbelief.
I was standing among a sea of orange and red, and could not imagine how the small but passionate Perth fans were feeling.
Berisha then stepped up to the spot, and the rest is history.
And as for whether he was onside or not…
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
TC According to your figures, because there's a 4% chance the field umpire might be wrong, you think it's worthwhile to interrupt the flow of the Game and seek assistance from video technology? To me, that is ridiculous over-regulation and all liberal-minded (small "l" liberal) folk should rise up against over-regulation by pompous, self-absorbed administrative bodies.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Yes, of 22 video reviews in 45 games, one error was known to have been made by the video ref.
Ian
Guest
gee still with the its not a penalty view by some..........on post analysis.....all the football programs i watch the people with more knowledge than me said it was a penalty.......there is no further argument. accepting the refs decision is part of sport. i was at the game.......the first replay (from 120m away) i didn't think berisha was touched........then after the game i thought he was touched and a legitimate penalty. as did fox sports and the world game. where's the controversy? its only because it was the 95th min and not the 5th. berisha was likely to score a goal - (a good chance after beating 4 defenders) which was ruined because of the foul. this didn't decide the game. the foul decided the game and berisha still had to convert the shot. its like the roar never actually scored in the 84th minute. that has been forgotten. time to move on.
dasilva
Roar Guru
There will be occasions where the video referee will miss out an infringement and will not pick out every mistake the on field referee makes there will be situation where the video referee incorrectly overrules a decision and therefore makes things worst After all, the video referee is only human and will make mistakes like any other referee. However as long as the errors they overturn greatly outweighs the errors the make and overall reduce the error rate the referees make in the game. Then it's a net benefit.and an overall improvement to the game.
Mahler
Guest
Even if a video ref had taken a look at the Roar penalty decision would he not have been as confused and in 'two minds' as everyone else, and wouldn't he have been more or less guessing no matter what decision he made? I'm a devoted Roar fan but my opinikon is that yes, at first glance it looked a dead-set penalty - on a more substantive view, well, it was one of those 'yes it is' and 'no it aint' matters. The one piece of video technology that really would be useful is goal-line, for those few occasions when there is debate over whether the ball has crossed the line.
legend
Guest
a video ref shouldnt take over the game but supliment it. the captains should be able to make 3 apeals each so that it become strategic and not a time waster!!
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
On Twitter someone has said there has been a goal line controversy in today's AFL match? Apparently Collingwood's Goldsack may or may not have made contact; also uncertainty if defender touched the ball & whether ball touched the post - is this true? Video referee disallowed the goal, but people on Twitter adamant it was a goal.
apaway
Roar Guru
Fear not Smithha. All that the video evidence last Sunday would have provided was that the referee got it right and you and the rest of the Roar fans had every right to celebrate to your heart's content. Congratulations, the Roar are a credit to the game.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Can I say, I was extremely sceptical that the new AFL video system would work, but now that it has been in operation for four rounds, it's clear it has provided a lot of benefit. About 2 or 3 decisions per game are going to video, and it's happening within a few seconds, and it has meant that we've had the right decision in each case, it's hard to argue with that. I stress that that is only for determining scoring, and we're talking about things that other sports don't have to worry about, e.g. whether the ball has been touched or whether it has touched the post, etc. But it's now clear to me that if you are going to video only 2 or 3 times per game to determine the more important decisions, e.g. offside, penalties or whether the ball has crossed the line, etc, then it can only be benficial to the game - there's no downside at all.
smithha
Roar Pro
ok. But the point is that at least there will be an opportunity to review a decision in depth, and that big games will not be decided by a split second refereeing decision.
peter
Guest
> "Was it a penalty? Probably not." Probably yes in fact ! Certainly according to Bosnich Slater Foster Zdrillic and Shields it was a penalty - I am happy to go with their judgement. As for video technology, generally I am in favour of using technology to help the ref however in this instance a video ref may still be looking at replays !! and in any event if the video ref had agreed with Gillett would that have ended the controversy ? I doubt it.