Would a video referee work in football?

Video Ref/4th Official will work in football as it has just been proven by the Dieago Costa stamp. Basically he has been shown the red card after the game and will now get a 3 game ban. Chelsea went on to win the game and there fore making it to Wembley also making another 10 million +and depriving the other team that oppertunity had video ref looked at the time he should of been sent off during the game not after. It is so not unfair on the other team Liverpool could be the team at Wembly and making more money. I am not a Liverpool fan just a football supporter.

JB, your idea is similar to what I had been musing about over the weekend - not because I had ample opportunity for it but simply keeping boredom at bay whilst weeding/cleaning. But I would suggest that your idea about off-side only coming in to play within 18 meters of the goal line may also help solve Grand Poobah Sepp's problem concerning eliminating the unfairness of the penalty shoot-out. In fact that's how I came to the same idea as yours. What I would like to think is that this change would emphasise attacking play, freeing up attackers and hopefully increasing the opportunity for scoring. If you increase opportunity for goals then you're less likely to need a penalty shootout after 30 min of added time. We shouldn't be afraid to experiment - in fact the off-side rule has been tampered with for some time and often with the view of increasing attacking play.

Like

and then what would happen if its not a goal? Restart anyway just at the old score, goal kick, corner? Its too messy, decisions can be wrong at times and i think that sport is a great way of teaching us that. In doing so it helps us think through decisions in the real world, when we have more time, and determine what the possible consequences could be.

JB That's a very clever idea... not sure at the speed FIFA works if it will ever come to be ... but a very clever idea..

MID. I think you may have misunderstood (understandably) my offering in which I highlighted the "offside rules" as a greater problem to match officials mainly due to the way the law is worded as opposed to the speed at which the game is now played. I was not suggesting that TV technology was the only answer to this for, if it were, the rules would have to be rewritten so that the attacking team,having been "punished" by a "bad" call by the AR, would have to be given some sort of advantage, for,as you rightly pointed out, the defensive team would have re-organised to meet any threat. On the contrary,if rules, or changes to rules have to be envisaged to help in this problem area why not go the "whole hog" & kill off for good an age old tactic that in itself is as destructive to attacking football as is "parking the bus" or, to give it it's proper name, planned "catenaccio". You may ask what could be worse than that & I refer you back to the "offside trap",a ploy set out to stop goals being scored, no argument, end of story. A suggestion for discussion. Extend the penalty box front line out to the touchline & make the resulting "area" at each end, the only area in which the offside law could be applied. The advantages that would be gained from this simple application would far outweigh the disadvantages (1) No forward could be offside in the area between the half way line & the "penalty line". Immediate reduction in offside decisions. (2) It would immediately make coaches change their tactics to incorporate the new "shapes" that would occur. (3) The assistant referees would get help at once only having to "run" an 18 meter box to judge "offside". (4) The game shape would be "de- compressed" at once creating more space for players to perform in. MID- There are many more advantages but I'll leave it it to your imagination & while this would not eradicate what I will call "bad offside decisions",it would,because of the reduced/increased space, more than halve the existing number Your mate jb

PeterK---A toss of the coin? No surly not. Thank God we now have a penalty shootouts .. Watching the UCL final this year we did see two attempt at a toss of the coin to decide which end the penalty shootout was to take place and Chelsea lost that. With both goal ends packed with their fans, it was interesting Bayern Munich with home town advantage also winning the toss to choose their end but still could not over come the Chelsea lads.. As Ditti said later that the Football Gods had chosen Chelsea for the UCL this year because of the heart break in previous years.. It's hard to disagree with him as a Chelsea supporter..

Has anyone noticed that in recent years, even the bit has been removed from the Law Book about what to do at a ground which does not have lights when the light fades sufficiently during a "shoot-out"? For those who might not have known, the old Law said that a coin was to be tossed to decide the winner!!!

JB Understand your offside comments.... however how / when do you use ... I assume only if a goal is scored ... Issue once the play is stopped for an offside call the defence recovers so the advantage to the attacking team is lost ..

NO WAY JOSE, I wouldn't watch football if it was introduced, as the game would become slow and boring like rugby codes in Australia, Don't fix what ain't broke, controversial talking points is what football is about, it adds to the drama and publicity.

Surprised no one has addressed the greatest problem facing referees today (& past days) & come up with a solution to help them in their continuing problem. I refer of course to the "offside" rule which would cause debate at least 5-10 times during a game as opposed to the "disputed goal" which may happen once in every 10,20, or even 50 games. At the highest (televised) levels the awarding of "offside" has been proved wrong time & time again & yet no one appears to have addresses this problem other than enforcing the "not interfering with play" part of the ruling. Take an incident. The ball is passed some 30 metres upfield &, by the time the linesman (AR) alters his vision from the ball player to the "defensive line of play", a world class striker "playing off the shoulder" of his backline opponent, could have moved 3 or 4 metres into what appears to be an offside position & yet in replay from TV it has also been proven time & time again to not be the case. The outcome of goals awarded can now mean millions of dollars to a club so this is by far a more important area to be examined by FIFA than the "goal line debate "and "the finish to an extended game" that are being talked about just now as both are incidents that occur rather spasmodically. "Offside or not?"- happens in EVERY match.This is an area of far greater need in helping match officials. jb

Kasey Depends on what you mean "part of the game:": Under normal circumstances, there's roughly one pen given every three or four games, which amounts to maybe one goal out of ten being scored from the spot during games (actual game time). The penalty shoot-out is a relatively modern phenomenon. It was first witnessed in a world cup as recently as 1982, only 30 years ago. So I would argue the penalty shoot out is a recent addition, and when we talk about the "game", it's impossible to say it's part of the game because they do it when the game is over. The point about determining who is best at playing the game is by actually playing the game and being triumphant at the actual game. The penalty shoot out is not the game, it happens when the real game is finsihed.

I support Penalty shoot outs. To say its not a part of the game is disingenuous at best and pot stiring at worst. Pens are so much about holding your nerve after 120 minutes of gut busting effort and despite what some illiterates would perpetuate It is NOT a lottery. Penalties when taken correctly can be taken such that the goalkeeper cannot save them. Failure to practice this skill is what has brought England undone so many times on the international stage. Anybody that 'dislikes' football because of the penalty shoot out is as hopeless a cause as someone who says "I just cant watch Aussie Rules - they give you points for missing!" behinds are a part of the game. Penalties are a part of football. After the 2012 Champions League Final Arjen Robben and the rest of the Oranje would do well to remember this in the lead up to Euro 2012.

Hi Mike - I'm very late on this one, but think there are two different questions here. Goal-line technology for the world game - as in a gizmo that lights up/beeps for a second, presumably relayed to a ref's earpiece (?) then fair enough. Video for every other act on the pitch? Mmmmaybe not. I do like the present UEFA Champions League (and I believe to be used in EURO 2012 this year, too) idea of two extra assistant refs, running the goal line diagonally opposite to the nearest sideline ref. Maybe an extra assistant per touchline is required (so there are eyes - albeit imperfect ones - running the touchline all the way up and down from both sides). That kind of thing MAY have been a help in the Henry situation (maybe) but then we are getting into possible seven-ref territory, which is a bit silly. So, for me, goal-line gizmo? Yep, if it can be achieved within a second or two, and an extra goal line official to assist with penalty area infringements? Yep. Video ref for the entire game while it is being played? No. Post-match video review on selected incidents as required by the controlling body? Yes.

Titus yes, it is a great psychological test, no question about it, the mental strain and challenge would be enormous. But that's a different activity to playing the actual game - that's my point.

I love the hawk eye challenge system in tennis and I think that would work really well in soccer. They just the need the hawkeye technology first, but its available so why not use it? It can only improve the game.

I love the penalty shootout it's great theatre and we all love them---they have to be kept in the game.. To replay a final is an absolute NO.. Best team on the day at all levels, in all departments and that includes mental toughness in holding your nerve to the end---it's all part and parcel of Football.

Maybe, I actually think a penalty shootout is a fascinating psychological battle that places the participants under an extreme amount of pressure thereby becoming a good test of character, however, it doesn't necessarily decide a worthy winner. Maybe something like gradually removing players in extra time until a winner is decided could also work. At the end of the day either method is preferable to replaying games a week later and gauging fans all over again having left them completley unsatisfied on the initial occassion.

Sepp has asked der Kaiser to find an alternative to the tragedy of penalty shootouts. He told the FIFA congress in budapest yesterday that football loses its essence when matches are settled by penalty kicks. This is the single greatest idea to ever come out of HQ, and almost makes up for decades of corruption. That the biggest trophies in the world can be decided by a little side activity AFTER the actual game has finished has been a blight on the sport for decades. Only theatre goers can truly enjoy penalties, I find it hard to believe that true soccer fans would see anything worthwhile in a penalty shoot out. I support Sepp's moves 100% on this one. Always remember - you decide the best in the game by actually playing the game, to do anything different is to demean the actual game.

that's a great vid, thanks for posting. I also think option 2 looks much simpler to implement and is thus more likely to get up. Hawkeye wouldn't have helped Chelsea's dodgy goal in this years FA Cup Semi finals and of course Neither option would have picked up on Maradona's infamous effort in WC 1986 against the Poms or Thierry Henry's effort in qualification for WC2010 that knocked out the Irish, which is why I have an extra AR patrolling the 18yd box and the goal line as my preferred 'solution' to the problem of getting more decisions correct. If FIFA consider both option 2 of GLT and 2 more ARs is overkill.* The game was never designed to be perfect. When you think about the woman you love, you know she is not perfect(perfection is impossible) but what you love about her is actually that in her, you cherish her imperfections as what makes her unique and so loveable. Football should not be perfect. It already so accurately reflects life as we know it and this is why I feel it is so popular a game across the globe, not as the other code zealots will tell you because it is the only sport available. *perhaps only reserved for the knockout stages of major tournaments onwards?