What in the late 70s and early 80s was seen as a good challenge for the ball is nowadays deemed as a reckless and rash challenge.
There is no denying that football, like other sports, has evolved over the years. Pulling up dangerous tackles, post-match reviews of red cards and the latest review of goal-line technology are but a few changes made.
They seem so little and so late in this era of high technology. With time, it is very important for a particular sport to evolve. It is highly recommended and expected for it to embrace change. Like other sports all around the world have accepted the use of technology, it is time for football to do the same. After all, football is no exception, correct?
I am in no way against removing the human judgement effect that the game has. Nor am I in favour of frequent stoppages in the flow of the game. Hence, I believe in better and a more comprehensive post-match referral system.
With the way referees are assessing each game today, it seems that even a hard but fair challenge for the ball will result in a card for so called malicious intent.
Football is a fast-paced game which is most enjoyed when it is played end-to-end and non-stop. The referees have to play more advantages and let minor tackles go so as to try and let the game flow. The games in the recent past have not been smooth with whistles being blown quite often resulting in a break in momentum that is unappreciated by both players and fans. Other sports like cricket and tennis have a camera referral system, does football need one too?
If we take this season into consideration, various Chelsea fans would say that they have been on the wrong end of decisions more than six or seven times. The recent high profile clash that had loads relying on it, between Southampton FC and Liverpool FC, had more than four cases where the referee seemed to have made wrong decisions.
In fact, the Chelsea manager, Jose Mourinho, who has been very disgusted with refereeing decisions against his team throughout this season, said: “If the referee can’t see a penalty three metres in front of him, an official in front of a screen can’t miss it. If we want to protect the integrity of the referee and believe that the mistake is the consequence of misinterpretation or a bad position, I think technology can help”.
On many occasions, teams are allowed to contest the decision of the referee after the game to try and reduce the punishment given to the player who was reprimanded. Should there be a post-match referral system in place for referees who make blatant errors as well? The threat of post-match detailed review will go a long way towards increasing honesty.
Comment if you believe that like red cards, yellow cards should also be contested in a post-match review. Many fans would like if this started purely for Premier League Fantasy reasons!
Today’s referees seem to be shielded from the media. They do not need to publicly explain their decisions. Maybe, the referees should be made part of the post-match press conference too?
There have been a lot of errors made by referees that in the short term, affect results, and in the long term, the entire season. All I am questioning is the use of technology which has so graciously been accepted by other world renowned sports.
It is high time that the large football bodies of the world introduce a referral system with the help of technology, just like they happily embraced goal-line technology.
Another use of post-match reviews is to reprimand players who blatantly dive in order to win a cheeky penalty or a free kick in a dangerous area. Then with use of the post-match referral system, action can be taken against the player and in the long run it will surely force players to reduce simulation.
The introduction will have many supporters, as well as detractors, what do you think?
Zubin Daver
Roar Pro
Ciudadmarron, I completely understand your opinion. But in my opinion, a 'post match referral' can be used in order to punish those players when a reckless tackle is missed by the referee or withdraw those cards that the referee issues by mistake. It can also be used to reprimand players who blatantly dive. Something like this will not alter the score line. If this kind of a system is put into place, the game will not have to be stopped during the run of play. Giving a ban to a player for simulation and correcting a wrongly issued card is certainly a start. Just like the goal line technology, this will certainly aid the referees and not undermine them.
Zubin Daver
Roar Pro
Freycinet1803, the assistants and the on field referee are in constant touch on radio. On many occasions the linesmen have called a foul, penalty and also asked him to issue a card. Using a camera whether in slow motion or real time will need the game to stop; even if it is for a short time. Hence, that may not work for a game that needs fluidity and therefore a post match referral could help.
Zubin Daver
Roar Pro
The reason for using video replays is not only to accommodate fans, but also to ensure that things like simulation and bad tackles likes the one on Nemanja Matić get pulled up; at least later. Hence I have clearly mentioned for a post match referral system and not one that stops the game in between.
ciudadmarron
Guest
There you go... It's pretty limited though. Previously the chief umpire could decide to go to review in limited scenarios. Now the team manager can ask for 1-2 a match and the chief umpire can too if they have been used up.
c
Guest
various comments below indicate that maybe i'm older then all of you guys " when you're on a good thing stick to it"
Freycinet1803
Roar Rookie
I think we should perhaps be looking to rugby for the "answers". I love the referee cam. This shows you what the ref is seeing and showing it in real time. So don't watch the slow motion replays twenty times from thirty angles and judge the ref. Watch it from their perspective and at real time. This may help refs realise where to best position themselves. I also think a simpler system is to give the linesmen (now called assistants) more of a role. They may be in a better position than the ref. They could press a button on a watch that notifies the ref that it was a penalty (or wave their flag as currently is the case). Also the ref could consult with the assistant on whether it is a red card or not. Rugby do all this and it works great. No slowing down of the play and gives the ref another set of eyes to help them.
Towser
Guest
Yes thought I'd seen it somewhere Uncle Junior. Two coach challenges per half maybe a bit much,but two challenges per game, don't see that as stopping the game anymore than some player injuries at times. A coach in these circumstances is only going to challenge IMO for the "big decisions" anyway.
RBBAnonymous
Guest
Baseball has a review system in place. I think its much like in tennis where they get 2 active challenges.
ciudadmarron
Guest
Interestingly baseball doesn't have it. I don't know about other American sports. It's stop start and the kind of sport where it could easily be used (was he on base? was he tagged?) . They probably don't want to open up the potential for it applying to the strike zone, I don't know. But I also am not a fan of the idea, in any sports. But particularly football. When does the review take place? Take an offside call. A player is called offside... but he wasn't. Is play stopped to check it out? For those that say, no, it's not important, or it can only be used when there is already a break in play - why? Why shouldn't it be used when there isn't a break in play - say, a bad foul, or a lack of an offside call - excuse me Mr Ref, stop the play, check the video please? As a three-D game, the cameras can't capture the exact angles required. Often it's easier to tell about fouls or dives in real time than it is in slow motion, which exaggerates certain parts of movement and disguises others. My favourite review system is in the AFL which is just too ridiculous. 99% of the time there are any question marks about a goal it is not about crossing the line, but about being touched. They spend aeons looking at different angles and replays which cannot possibly reveal a fingertip scraping the ball, and refuse to accept the decision of a person right on the ground whose job it is to watch the ball in real time. ANyway all that is actually a diversion away from the thrust of the article. If we want to build respect for refs, we need to communicate that the refs version of events is the official version. No matter what. It is their final opinion - they are the ones on the ground who see the events in real time and make the call. It's not about if the ball was in, it's about if the ref saw that the ball was in. That's how it works. The final scoreline goes in the book, and despite what managers the world over will have you believe, is not dependent on individual incidents in a game. "If, if if". You can never say what would have happened had a decision been made differently. So what's the point of going in and saying - this was actually a penalty, or this player should have been sent off - it's done, the scoreline can't be changed, and all it will do is serve to undermine refs.
Uncle Junior
Guest
Yesterday it was reported that Fifa's International Board who are responsible for changes to the Laws of the Game will meet this week and a vote on possible trial of video technology is on the agenda. http://www.news.com.au/sport/football/a-league-to-volunteer-as-guinea-pig-if-fifa-consider-video-technology-trial-for-big-decisions/story-fnk9a3dc-1227236423894 If IFAB give the green light to trials, the FFA will put its hand up to have such technology used in the A-League. There are 2 types of possible video technology that may be trialed: 1) coach has 2 challenges per half, unlikely since Fifa has always been opposed to such stoppages to the game. 2) model being trialled in Holland for past 18 months, has a video ref watching the match in real time surrounded by multiple screens offering multiple angles & reviews any contentious decision. The video ref must give a decision within 15 seconds if an error has been made. The Dutch trial has been hypothetical only and is restricted to 'big decisions': red cards, penalties and goal opportunities.
AZ_RBB
Guest
Not a fan of video review in football. Actually hardly a fan of it in any of the sports i follow. In cricket, it is very good for run outs which imo can be equated to goal line technology in football. But the rest is very controversial, and the Indians who are opposed to it are shown to be right time and time again. Tennis is probably the one sport where it has helped significantly but even then hardly a match goes by where a player isn't infuriated by its use during a point. But this pales in comparison to how it used to be before video review. In rugby league it is a complete joke and can often be the reason I turn off games as they start to look at the 15th replay of the same thing and still can't make anyone happy. American sports seem to spend half the time looking at reviews. But most American sports are already very stop start anyways so it kinda works for them.
Towser
Guest
Aren't FIFA supposed to be trialling Video technology in various leagues around the world? Hasn't the FFA put up its hand for the A-league?
c
Guest
the reason this is by far the most popular game in the world is because of its skill, beauty, simplicity and stability. the world game does not to 'adjust' to accommodate its fans