The latest argument for video technology in football

Yup - I'd be happy with such a system and I can imagine the IFAB approving such a system in principle. Some have suggested this 4th official looking at behind the scenes video was operating at the 2006 WC finals & resulted in Zidane's red card for head butting Materazzi.

Fourth official with a TV screen to let ref know about clear cut video evidence, which is done on the spot there and then, is the way to go. No way to challenges, or pausing play, or whatever.

Agree, Bondy. No challenges!

Some excellent points IMO, Nordster, two in particular. For games with TV coverage (and a fourth official), the four refs are miked up to each other, and the fourth official could quickly let the ref in the middle know if there's a clearer answer from a replay -- and if the fourth official can't do that quickly, then the ref's decision stands. I also very much like your point about common rules at all levels of the game. It's not totally achievable even now of course, as many low-level games don't even have two ARs (linesmen), let alone extra-sharp and wise men (and ladies) in the middle, but I guess your idea of the fourth official being able to tell the ref what the video replays are saying (without the public being very aware of it, if at all) is a good one. (And as you say, it might even be happening already!)

just three bigguns? In how many years? The % of really obvious calls that could be overturned would be minor. I suggest proponents of this actually go back and watch games to see how and when it could be applied. I think it would be less than u might think. To add it for a world cup perhaps, only a tournament by tournament basis imo. I just doubt that across the whole sport its worth adding. Depending on how its implemented, adding video review could also have more of an effect on 'the game' than an extra couple of assistant refs.

I support a restricted use of video referee. It would be strictly in the domain of the referee (no manager challenging decisions). It is there to overturn goals, penalties and red cards and there should be a time limit on the video referee to make the decision correctly. I wrote the article two years ago defending the usage of video referees that I think is still relevant and I copy and paste it 1. Human errors are part of the attraction of the game and removing referee mistakes will cause football to lose some of its spectacle because the game will become less human. Human errors are part of the attraction of the game. However, the human errors that makes compelling viewing is from the players and the coaches. In my opinion, sport is about testing the ability of the competitors and it’s the actions of the players that create the spectacle. Referee mistakes cheapen the spectacle as we see an outcome that wasn’t due to the ability of the competitors. Sport should not be used as a vehicle to test referee ability. As much as I respect the difficulties of the referee’s job, I don’t watch the game to see how good the referee is. If the referee makes a really good decision, I don’t go “Wow, that’s a great decision. He’s my favourite referee, I’m going to watch every football match with that referee just to see him exhibit his brilliant decision making skills.” The human element of the decision making of the referee isn't part of the entertainment of the game in my opinion I see the role of the referee to be the same as the roles of administrators. They are essential to the running of the game, but they are not part of the spectacle. Let's remember that the video technology will be operated and interpreted by human beings and therefore subjected to the intrinsic flaw of human nature such as making mistakes. This is no different to the on field referee asking their assistant what did they see? It just happen that in this scenario the assistant has access to video footage. 2. The game would be boring without controversy to be discussed. Well football is in absolutely dire states that the game itself isn’t entertaining enough or discussable enough without the need of referee mistakes to spice the game up. 3. Football is a reflection of life and society. Life isn’t fair and neither is football. It’s true that life isn’t fair. However, it’s also true that in most just societies, there’s a drive by humanity to make life as fair as possible. I don't see many people in real life saying "life isn't fair" and then think it's a good idea to do nothing to ensure life remains unfair. People generally try to make things as fair as practically possible and there are numerous people campaigning to improve the fairness of society. The desire of the football community to make the game as fair as possible by reducing referee mistakes is a reflection of societies’ aims to always improve itself and to become as fair as possible. 4. Football unlike other sports does not have a natural break in the game. Therefore, introducing video referees will slow down the game. There is a natural break in the game that can be exploited. When a team scores a goal or when a team is awarded a penalty and to rescind red cards. How long does it take for a team to celebrate a goal? How long does it take to set up a penalty? How long does it take for the game to resume after a send off? Surely the time it takes the team to celebrate a goal, complain about a penalty or red card will give the video referee ample time to review the legality of the decision. Now, there may be some decision that enter the shade of gray territories. Where it could be argued either way whether the goal is fair or not, and will require multiple viewing of replay to get the correct decision. This can be addressed by putting a time limit on the video referees, such as 30 seconds for them to make the decisions. Have the benefit of doubt go to the original referee decision. So they will not pick up all mistakes they will pick up the clear-cut mistakes. Fans are generally forgiving about shade of gray decisions. However, they are more likely to be enraged about clear cut mistakes from referees. 5. That system may prevent illegitimate goals. However, what about penalties that should have been given to attacking sides that the referee misses? Yep, this system is not going to solve that issue (at least without introducing stoppages to the game) and will not solve every type of referee mistakes. So if the onfield referee misses a clear cut penalty and the game continues then that is a mistake that will continue to not be rectified whether with video referee or without video referee. Or they may be a goal that was incorrectly disallowed offside that can't be reversed because it would be unfair to the defending team because they play to the whistle (they will stop defending properly after the referee blows offside even if the attacking team was onside and therefore the goal can't be retrospectively rewarded fairly) Is that a reasonable argument to scrap video referees because it can't pick up all mistakes? No because the goal of video referees is to REDUCE mistakes, not remove it completely. The mistake up there will still occur with or without video referees but the video referees will fix up other mistakes that they can change and therefore producing a overall net improvement in decision making. 6. Video technology has to be perfect and produce no errors, otherwise it shouldn't be used There will be occasions where the video referee will miss out an infringement. 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. The goal is to improve decision making not remove errors completely from the game. We never used the logic that something has to be perfect or we shouldn't use that in real life (we probably would have to refuse all forms of technology and medicines with that logic) and we shouldn't use that same logic in football. I find it strange that anti-video technology points out a few scenario where the video referee makes a mistake as evidence to not implement video technology whilst ignoring countless mistakes that happen by the on field referee that could easily be solve by video technology and dismissing it as part of the game. Either referee mistakes is something is part of the game or not. If you can accept on field referee mistakes then you should be able to accept referee mistakes made by video referee as part of the game as well. The reason why people want video technology is so there will be less mistakes but there will be some mistakes committed by video referees that still be "part of the game". That shouldn't diminish video referee as a whole if it resulted in less mistakes being committed. 7. Some countries don’t have the technology to implement video referees. Then make the video referee an optional choice for the leagues’ to implement. Just because the American Samoa league can’t afford to implement video referees doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be implemented in major leagues and the World Cup. Right now zero countries can implement video technology. If laws are change to allow some countries and competition to used video technology to improve decision making. Then there is an overall net benefit in global terms. It's better to some countries better off then no countries be better off with video technology. 8. The game should be adjudicated the same way at elite level then at park level. Well lets get rid of 4th officials then. Also in elite competition, referee has access to audio communication technology (yes they used technology) so that the referees can communicate with their assistance to ensure that they can hear each other over the loud crowd noises to ensure decision making is improve and the referee makes the right decision. This isn't present at park level either, should we get rid of this technological aid to ensure standardization with park levels? In the end, if a video referee will improve decision making at the elite levels, but leaves the park level unchanged, then that’s a net benefit in decision making overall.

Phil Where does it all end? Will your system allow player to ask for video referral for every off-side they don't like & every alleged handball? Here is one example of why I NEVER want video referral interrupting any game - even when players are protesting. Scene: The biggest football match played in Season 5 - the 2010 HAL GF at Docklands. With 30 minutes to play MVFC v SFC , scores are locked at 0-0. After an MVFC corner, the ball is pushed forward to Roddy Vargas & he puts the ball into the net. The Docklands crowd are delirious for 5 seconds before we see the linesman has his flag raised. Apparently, Vargas was off-side. The ref says "no goal". MVFC players protest. Whilst the fans & MVFC players are trying to argue with the ref; Bolton releases the ball and, within 15 seconds Mark Bridge has put the ball into the back of MVFC's net and SFC lead 0-1. Now, if there had been a video referral system, MVFC would have challenged the offf-side & the game would stop. The video ref would check the video footage & would have seen Vargas was off-side. He would relay the message to the ref & the game would recommence. And, 2-3 minutes later. Bolton would take the free-kick to restart play. What would the video referral have achieved? For sure, Bridge wouldn't have scored the opening goal on the counter attack b/c the game would have stopped, preventing Bolton from releasing the ball quickly. SFC would have suffered a terrible injustice when the linesman was correct all the time.

Johnno True football fans - the billions around the world - accept that the Beautiful Game is not perfect. The players aren't perfect; the fans aren't perfect; the match officials aren't perfect. But - for all its imperfections - it's the most popular sport on the planet. Lampard & England team mates had over an hour to score get over the linesman's mistake. They didn't. Instead, Lampard & his England team mates went on to concede another 3 goals. If you don't accept ESP as the legitimate 2010 WC winner - far enough. I'm sure Cassilas, Puyol, Iniesta, Xavi et al couldn't care less. PS: If people gambling on football matches are upset they've lost money, here's a bit of free advice... don't gamble on football matches if you think the current officiating is flawed.

fuss, here is the point, you ask is it worth interrupting the game ... the game is already interrupted. The players are protesting, the crowd is in uproar, that match has usually stopped momentarily. I have given more examples that 2 in 25 years, but if you think it will only be used that often there is nothing to fear. If you think it will only fix 2-3% of controvercial decisions that are definately incorrect, shouldn't we fix them if the means exists to do so? Shouldn't Maradona have been booked for his handball instead of Argentina qualifying for the next round? Shouldn't Rivaldo have been booked for his play acting instead of Ulsan being sent off? Shouldn't Ireland have qualified for the W cup instead of France? The 2or3% are critical decisions that effect players, clubs and nations -it not a matter of life and death, its much more important than that!

Fuss but why should the beautiful game simply accept the Lampard decsion and just move on. Should England fans move on, it can't . And your quote is exactly why credibility and integrity is being lost in football and why people don't like football and prefer sports like rugby union. Is it worth interrupting our Beautiful Game for such injustices? My emphatic answer is: “definitely NOT”. England could of own the world cup , we will now never know. Many full time professional gamblers who placed sports bets lost money on that England V Germany match, some big money, where is the gamblers compensation. These things are all injustices, and destroy the credibility of football. And if football just accepts human error then it lacks credibility. Technology is not perfect but far more accurate than humans. Cricket with run outs, and cricket with DRS. Any true football fan who believes in ethics and morals and integrity can not accept the Lampard decision, and in that case even accept the winner of the 2010 world cup as we will never know how far England a genuine contender would of gone. 2-2 at half time the match would of had a totally different energy, tension, and tactics by Capello and mindset rather than the panic football they were forced to play, by the most appalling injustice in sport i have ever seen.

I agree. The goal line officials have done nothing ... although maybe their presence has avoided a few dives that might otherwise have occurred. I think that rather than video assistance being the major interference in that game that the naysayers claim, it would only be used infrequently. There are a maximum of one or two really contentious decisions per match, if that. Most games have no really contentious decisions and video wouldn't be used a all. But when it is required it would be invaluable.

Phil You've picked 2 of the most obvious decision controversies from football in the last 25 years years! 45 years after the Russian linesman gave Geoff Hurst the goal in the 1966 FIFA WC, experts are still undecided about whether the ball crossed the line! 5 years have passed and some experts say that Lucas Neill did foul Grosso & the penalty-decision in Kaiserslautern was correct; others say no. In my reckoning 90% of dubious decisions are correctly adjudicated by match officials on the pitch; and, perhaps, 7-8% are inconclusive after 50 years of video scrutiny from every possible angle. So, in my reckoning, of all the controversial decisions across the professional football world maybe 2-3% definitely incorrect & video technology would prevent an obvious injustice. Is it worth interrupting our Beautiful Game for such injustices? My emphatic answer is: "definitely NOT".

You are right.

Roy says "Technology only shifts the locus of decision-making, it does not improve it." How blatantly wrong this statement is. No one would deny that Henry handled the ball in the match against Ireland, no one would deny that the Lampard shot crossed the goal line. Technology would have got those decisions 100% right instead of 100% wrong. No debate, no doubt, and no more time wasted that a quick look at a video replay.

If i understand the case you are refering too, the AFL coatch was unhappy because he didn't understand the operation of the rulel - the afl rule states that if the video is inconclusive the umpires first call stands and in the collingwood case the goal umpire didnt make it clear on tv what his first decision was. as it happened the ump thought it was a point, the video was inconclusive, so it was given as a point. The rule was applied correctly. There will always be teething problems and the AFL is dealing with those - the biggest problem is too many video referrals. Anyone who thinks video will eliminate all 50/50 decisions is kidding themselves but it would eliminate the cases of the Lampard 'non-goal', the Henry handball against Ireland, the incident I refer to above, the Danny Vukovic send off in the a league final a few years back, and many other similar cases where the referee simply gets it wrong and the video can conclusively correct the error.

Fantastic discussion piece - 100% agree with everything Ray wrote.

Roy Hay says no to technology: http://neososmos.blogspot.com.au/p/roys-haymaker.html

I havent noticed a goal line assitant make a call in the Champs Lge, pesonally I think they hide in that position and wont make judgement calls .

I understand where your coming form Phil . There has to be some form of clear mandate in relation to video technoligy,can a Manager use it to waste time in the closing sector of the game the last 5-6 minutes in a game anything in the 18 yard box "challenge it doesnt matter what just challenge " ! . I heard Wenger say he wanted one or two challenge calls per game ,what if he challenges two in the first thirty minutes and someting happens late in the game he's used hi's chances up.or what if he looses a game with a challenge spare or not used forgotten about . Theres some permiatations there . Video Ref only no managers just the fourth official going over things is suffice for me, rational read Phil .

All the talk for the pas week has been to ridicule football - particularly, ridicule the HAL - for the controversial penalty decision. Yet, blatant inconsistent & wrong decisions in other sports are rarely scrutinised with such vigour. I just watched Offsiders (ABC1) and saw footage of from AFL last night, where St Kilda player (Milne) kicks the ball - along the ground!! - and it goes wide of the goal for a point score only. The AFL goal umpire signalled a goal! How can such a rubbish decision occur? How can a match official make such an error or FACT? The AFL goal umpire is standing there - perhaps, 1m away from the action. The AFL goal umpire has 1 job to do all day - watch to see if the ball goes through the big poles or the big & little pole. A few days ago, an AFL coach was unhappy with the decisions made by the video umpire.