Video referee for the A-League? No thanks!

The NRL is beginning to sort their video referee system out now that referees give their view. I'd still like the referees to make a call and stick to it, with only the really dubious tries sent upstairs. Most league supporters, including myself, have always questioned why football hasn't introduced a video referee. The number of offside goals, handballs and balls either crossing/not crossing the line that occurs is ridiculous. I used to referee football for five years at a district level and occasionally at a higher level when needed. It's impossible to be correct 100% of the time but a second look can help, it can ensure that the correct call is made. Personally I would've loved a video referee when your view gets obscured at a very inopportune moment. Although you try to be as close to play as possible sometimes there is just so much movement that you can't see everything. What the A-League should look at is a video referee for goals only. The on-field referee must give his opinion before sending it upstairs after conferring with his assistants. Because right now one of the oldest sports in the world is still stuck there in terms of officiating. NRL, Rugby, AFL, NFL and even sports such as cycling have someone to refer to for a video review.

The video ref in league is also disruptive, it's dead air, and too many can become exasperating. But the benefits are perceived to outweigh the costs, which I consider a tenable position. I know little of soccer, but what are the chances that the ensuing play after say, a Lampard type incident, are game-influencing? It doesn't seem statistically significant. So the benefit (correctly awarding of a goal) should trump the negative (a short delay of a play that will be unlikely to be of great import)

Or 4 linesman, so they are always in line the with play, and bad decisions can be rectified on field. If one isn't sure the second can confirm or disagree.

No system will ever be perfect, but the video review system in any sport does minimise officiating error rates and there are stats to back it up. People have a tendency to cling to a few howlers and claim the system isn't working, but that's just the "availability heuristic" (to borrow Khaneman's phrase) at work. The reality is that accuracy is improved, and not diminished by the presence of video review. I suppose it comes down to whether you're comfortable with human error having a greater say in whether your team can win a match. It's always going to be there in any sport, but I for one am generally happy when line-ball decisions get a bit more attention and there is a means to make the decisions more accurate.

"I don't know about that one Harps what does the Hyundai I-30 Hungry Jacks Ballantines sokkah video ref say about that?" "I says it's a great deal whopper sokkah try!" Erm, I think not. I agree, bad idea.

You're right, it took long enough for GLT to be approved, so I doubt they'd go any further. I'm completely fine with GLT, and always will be if it is hidden and instantaneous. As everyone here has mentioned, video replays just slow the game down. One thing I adore about football is that it is uninterrupted for 45 minutes. No ad breaks. Stopping the game will lose pace and momentum, and I don't want football to start turn into a stop-start sport. The refs sometimes do make mistakes, but it can either go for or against the team that you support. It's not as though the ref is in unsure, and therefore gives the benefit of the doubt to the home team or anything. It can happen to anyone at anytime. Unfortunate, yes, but it's just human error.

Yeah, I received an ipod touch as a gift 2 months ago and I'm surprised how much I enjoy receiving updates on news and football related info from various sources. I tried to help you as much as I could last night to identify myself.... ;-) Check my profile photo and tell me that doesn't put Brisbane on the map.

Video ref? Will never happen in Football, unless there is approval by the majority of FIFA's 208 member associations. This can only happen after rigorous research on the pros & cons. GLT took years to get approval. IFAB has stated it wants to always retain the purity of The Game & when reviewing Goal Line options, one of the most important selection criteria was "there must be no interruption to the play". The GLT must provide a decision instantaneously. Let's be honest, video review just means fans & analysts have one more ref to complain about!

The only thing I would like us to eventually introduce is goal line technology. It seems to be working well in the EPL. The cost is the only thing thats stopping it.

If FIFA are going with trialling goal line technology I'm happy with that. But the video ref can be left out. In league I consider the refs overuse it to the extreme and go to it just in case they are wrong. They have lost some backbone and responsibility with making a decision. I'll agree with 'No Thanks' BTW Cameron - Have you figured out yet who sent that tweet to you last night?

IFAB wont allow it and nor should they. The GLT stuff is interesting. The instant AND accurate nature of that technology is no fluke. Years of scientific testing went into its development and it focuses on the one decision in the game that can kill the hope of any fan. I think that IFAB will next revisit technology assistd officiating in the year 2135.

Even so; Are the A league allowed to inplement such changes? Would FIFA allow it?

But it works so well in Cricket, the NRL and the AFL! ;p

I agree Cameron. Not only is there the stoppage and disruption to the game but is seams that the video refs decisions create as much controversy as the original wrong decision.