BBC BLOGS - Tim Vickery
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Palmeiras appeal could decide club's destiny

Post categories:

Tim Vickery | 08:37 UK time, Monday, 5 November 2012

All's fair in love, war and relegation battles - or Palmeiras seem to think so.

The Sao Paulo giants, the team of the city's Italian community, are in trouble. Back in July they won the Brazilian Cup, guaranteeing a place in next year's Copa Libertadores, South America's Champions League.

However, results have since suffered in the domestic league and they now need to make up a seven-point gap with just four rounds of the season left.

Their hopes could perhaps rest on the outcome of a hearing to be held in the next couple of days. The focus of their appeal is a disallowed goal from Argentine centre-forward Hernan Barcos against Internacional on October 27.

Palmeiras

Palmeiras claim referee Franscisco Nascimento allegedly used television images when deciding to disallow their equalising goal against Internacional. Photo: Getty 

Barcos diverted a corner into the back of the net with his hand. The goal was disallowed, and there is no doubt that it should have been, but there is a strong suspicion that in order to make the decision the wrong means were used.

At first neither the referee nor his assistants appeared to see anything wrong with the goal. Then came the change of mind - allegedly because the referee had been informed of the handball by somebody watching a television monitor. This, of course, is a resource that is not officially available to referees.

Palmeiras, who lost the game 2-1, made a formal complaint and they are hoping the match will be declared void and a replay ordered, giving them a chance to get three points closer to safety.

Launching a complaint because an illegal goal was ruled out would seem to contravene football's unofficial rule 18 - the request that common sense be applied in the application of the 17 laws of the game. Some people, though, think Palmeiras have a case - and even if they do not, the seriousness of their situation justifies such desperate measures.

The issue here is the role of technology in the decisions taken by football referees and, perhaps an even bigger issue, the limitations of the use of technology in decisions taken by officials.

The laws are full of references to "in the opinion of the referee" and "in a manner considered by the referee...." Even off-side is a matter of interpretation.

This means that a utopia of footballing justice can never exist, however much technology is employed because there will always be different interpretations.

The easiest proof of this is to contrast the opinions of opposing players and coaches. It is one of the great truths of football that everyone always thinks the referee is favouring the other side.

Such a state of affairs is not hard to understand because football people live a life of constant insecurity. The easiest way to deny or avoid unwelcome truths is to blame the referee.

Diego Alonso stands out in this respect - one of the reasons for believing the 37-year-old Uruguayan is one of the most promising coaches in South American football.

A target man centre-forward in his playing days - good enough to have won senior international caps and to have had a fair career in Spain - Alonso knew from an early age that he wanted to be a coach.

After a short spell in charge of Bella Vista, the Montevideo club where he both started and ended his playing days, he took over Guarani of Paraguay this year, moulding an aggressive team who are closing in on a rare league title - only their second in almost 30 years.

"In training sessions," he told Uruguayan newspaper 'El Pais' last week, "we practice situations where he have had a man sent off and are in numerical disadvantage. We also stage games with biased refereeing so the players can get used to it."

He is attempting to foster a mentality where his men take full responsibility for their own performances. "The message that I pass to the players is that there is not a referee in the world who can make them lose a game. I don't deny that sometimes the referee has a bad day. But if you have real players, a referee is not going to tip the balance."

Alonso's preparation was put to the test on Sunday, when Guarani had two men sent off in their visit to Sportivo Luqueno. In the circumstances, a 1-1 draw was perhaps not a bad result. But it is Guarani's third game without a win and their lead at the top of the table has been cut to four points with seven games remaining.

As the pressure mounts, it will be fascinating to see if Alonso can maintain his line of conduct and if Guarani can keep doing the things that took them to the top of the table. As Alonso is aware, if they are overtaken they will have no one but themselves to blame.

Comments on the piece in the space provided, questions on South American football to vickerycolumn@hotmail.com, and I'll pick out a couple for next week from last week's postbag;

Q: You have talked of the dearth of full backs in the Argentina national team but Pablo Zabaleta has been one of the most improved players in the Premier League. A firm fans' favourite, he is also well loved by his teammates and backroom staff alike. He speaks excellent English and has adapted well to life in Manchester. This season, along with Joe Hart, he has been City's most consistent player. He is now a regular in the Argentine team, so why don't you rate him and how is he viewed in his native country?
Alex Walton

A: Former Argentina coach Carlos Bilardo recently commented that Argentina could find 10 possible presidents of the country, but not one full-back - which goes some way towards answering your question.

I've always seen him as a useful player. It's probably worth remembering, though, that he's not a natural full back - he was a right-sided midfielder who has been converted. As far as I'm aware, all the praise that you give him is spot on. He does seem to be an excellent character - I think the fact that he is doing well in top level football has more to do with the strength of his mentality than with any outstanding talent.

He is clearly an important figure in the Argentina squad, not least because he is prepared to play full back on either flank. It is a position, though, where Argentina need to improve. National team coach Alejandro Sabella was talking recently of the pros and cons of playing Lionel Messi, Sergio Aguero and Gonzalo Higuain. The big disadvantage, he correctly identified, is that it leaves the team vulnerable down the flanks. Left exposed, Zabaleta had an awkward time against Chile last month.

Tim Vickery is a regular guest on BBC Radio 5 live’s World Football Phone-in, which is available to download as a podcast.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Here's an interesting fact.Christiano Ronaldo is 869 days older than Lionel Messi.Now thats normal but the weird or lets say extraodinary fact is that Lionel Messi's son who was given birth to last thursday/friday is 869 days younger than Christiano Ronaldo's son.

  • Comment number 2.

    firstly, really good blog Tim - it's one of the most interesting and fair i've read regarding refereeing decisions and how they are applied. It's certainly true that fans of the 'sinned against' team will see most calls that go against them as a sign of bias - i've been guilty of this, joining in the shouts of protest and ironic cheers whenever decisions go against my team. In fairness, my team is Wycombe and we're actually just a bit rubbish - it must be a thankless task being a ref, whichever decision you make, you're bound to be unpopular with 50% of people watching the match. With Palmieras though, it's an interesting situation. Certainly, if the ref was influenced by television replays, which he shouldn't have access to, they might have a case - even though technically the right decision was made, as you say, that sort of retrospective decision isn't allowed. However, to say that it's of huge importance to Palmieras is a little one-sidd, it would surely also be of huge importance to the team who, if their appeal succeeds and they win the replay, would theoretically be relegated in their place! That would certainly make for an interesting situation. I wonder if that team would consider an appeal against their circumstances if they were relegated because an 'unfair' goal was ruled correct. Thanks, Tim, keep us updated - fascinating situation!

  • Comment number 3.

    Does not matter whether the goal is valid or not, the ref should not break the rules otherwise the game could be ruled as void.
    Palmieras have a case otherwise its one rule for them and another rule for other teams and thats is unfair.

  • Comment number 4.

    The debate about technology and the impact it will have on decisions is extremely complicated.

    Many people (including me) think that technology can have a place - especially in instances such as whether the ball has crossed the line.

    However, it does throw up issues.

    A good example is the "goal" that was not given when the ball crossed the line in the England vs Ukraine match at Euro 2012. If technology had been used the goal would have been awarded to Ukraine. However, the goal should not have been awarded because of an offside earlier in the move which was missed by the linesman. So in that case two wrongs made a right.

  • Comment number 5.

    2 wrongs make a right? Depends if it is in your favour or not I suppose..

  • Comment number 6.

    @ 2. At 10:32 5th Nov 2012, Anthony of Christmas wrote:

    However, to say that it's of huge importance to Palmieras is a little one-sidd, it would surely also be of huge importance to the team who, if their appeal succeeds and they win the replay, would theoretically be relegated in their place! That would certainly make for an interesting situation.
    ______________________________________

    Internacional are in no danger of that, but they're 8 points off the copa libertadores places, so there's a [very small] chance that losing any prospective replay could affect their chance of qualification, if they were to win the rest of their games and other results go their way!


    I do see the point about Palmeiras having a case, if the rules were broken. But it just seems to lack so much common sense given that we all know the decision was blatantly correct in the end!

  • Comment number 7.

    @ 4. At 11:11 5th Nov 2012, BaggiosPonytail

    I personally like the idea of having each team having set numbers of appeals during which the referee can look at video replays, like they do in SO MANY other sports. It would only add a few minutes to the game and would enable theoretical situations like the Ukraine vs England one you gave to be resolved.

  • Comment number 8.

    Tim a good and interesting post.

    This was always going to happen at some point although I suspect that it has happened before.

    How a match is refereed, is surely a massive issue.

    If a decision is made either way, will there be a situation where it will not stop at that point. Is there a chance it could end up in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

    I believe the Republic of Ireland appealed to them after the World Cup qualifier against France, when Henry's deliberate handball effectively led to them being eliminated.

  • Comment number 9.

    @7 BH_blue

    The challenge concept certainly works in Cricket and Tennis although there are defined points in both sports which makes it a little easier.

    In the example above if each team had 2 challenges a match (a further one in event of extra time perhaps) then assuming they had not already used them Ukraine could have appealed. That would have shown the ball crossed the line but also there was an offside earlier in the move. Outcome = no goal but Ukraine keep their challenge because they were correct on their part.

  • Comment number 10.

    That is absolutely crazy. A dangerous precedent could be set. I can remember a few occasions in International football (I am not sure what matches they were though.) where the referee blatantly used video technology. One was in the case of mistaken identity when a red card was shown. Only for it to be then rescinded. Maybe Euro 2008. Think Israel also had tried to sue another federation or something due to bad officiating mistakes. Fifa should get it sorted out once and for all because it certainly makes officials, clubs and leagues start to look corrupt.

    I know you don't comment to much on the european game Time but I would love to know what your views were on Manchester Uniteds dominance of the PL. After defeating Chelsea they now have a positive Head to Head record against everyone in the league except Chelsea where they share an equal head to head record. I can't imagine one team having such a positive record against all their opponents in SA. Yet in europe I think having one team dominate a league is fairly common. I'm thinking France, Germany, Holland and I guess even Spain.

  • Comment number 11.

    @8 Londoner

    The thing is I think the decision has to be made at the time. If we go down the route of retrospective action for controversial decisions it opens up a can of worms.

    In the Henry example we don't know whether France would have gone on to score another goal anyway so it would be unfair to remove them from the World Cup on that basis.

  • Comment number 12.

    In the mid-90's the A Soccer League in the USA trialed the use of "peremptory" challenges in the course of a game. Each team was allowed to challenge 3 decisions by the officials. A fourth official (arbiter) was empowered to rely on video evidence to reach an instant decision. I'm not sure if this was FIFA approved but the A League lived by it's own rules anyway. The rule proved disruptive because it was overused to dispute basic stuff like free kicks, corner-kicks etc. Me thinks that the referee's decision should be final.

  • Comment number 13.

    "Does not matter whether the goal is valid or not, the ref should not break the rules otherwise the game could be ruled as void.
    Palmieras have a case otherwise its one rule for them and another rule for other teams and thats is unfair."

    If their allegation is proved, you're dead right. But AFAIK, it's still just an allegation, although Tim saying that 'there is a strong suspicion" implies that he thinks they do have a case.

  • Comment number 14.

    @12 Falcaocerezo

    I don't really see how it can be disrupting if each team is only allowed 3 per game. It works in tennis, cricket, the NFL...

    You could even limit to incidents/plays that lead directly to a goal if it was that much of a concern. Anything to stop these stupid situations where almost everybody can see something that the officials didn't. Ie. clear offsides, hands of God, goals that actually went wide and bounced off the ads boards behind the goal rather than going in the net, etc.

  • Comment number 15.

    This is surely the issue that those so heavily in favour of widespread use of 'technology' in football fail to address... The subjectivity of most decisions!

    The argument for technology seems to be that it will stop tight, borderline decisions going the wrong way. Presumably it is taken as read that officials already in place are usually capable of spotting someone who is 5 metres offside or who punches the ball into the net. But rather technology allows officials to identify the glancing handball during the fast paced 6-yard box melee or the striker 3cm offside. Yet these are never as clear cut as techno-advocates will admit and countless Saturday arguments in pubs and in front of TV's pay testament to this.

    The ball to hand rule is frankly one of the hardest rules to apply in football and no amount of super slow motion, multi angle HDTV replays will remove the element of deciding that is interpreting intent.

    Equally, the frankly infuriating introduction of the 'passive player' into the offside rule has meant there is no longer simply an offside line of play. The officials must, on occasion, look at a player in an offside position and subjectively assess their (again) intent.

    Technology solves none of these issues. I don't deny for a second that were replay technology used by officials there would be decisions made and overturned that were initially incorrect. But they would be balanced out by decisions that people say are even worse because having seen the replays the official doesn't come to the same decision as them.

    Either way, FIFA needs to rule categorically on this one way or another. The technology is out there, has been for years. Either use it or announce that you have decided that the game will not be better with it and make it clear it won't be introduced.

  • Comment number 16.

    baggioponytail @11

    I agree.

    The Henry incident, once it reached the Court of Arbitration for Sport was always destined to fail.

    To be fair CAS has had very little involvement with football but that does not mean, clubs or nations won't be going there in the future. It will be sad if they do but I can see both sides of this issue.

    I do not like the idea of retrospective action, if it affects the result of the game but there again I do not like seeing games decided by decisions that were wrong.

    We may need this issue to clarify the future of football and its use of technology.

  • Comment number 17.

    I doubt the appeal will succeed because if you look at the basic requirements in the Laws, "the referees decision on points of fact is final". If the referee deems a goal to have been scored - or not - then that's it.

    The only sanction I can see here is that the referee will be punished for using technology without approval. But his decision would not be overturned. Especially as it's apparently the correct one.

    I seem to remember a similar case in the Premier League a little while back where there was a suggestion that the 4th official had noted a TV replay from a convenient monitor and alerted the referee to change his decision. Nothing was proved but I think it resulted in monitors being banned from the touchline.

    Anyway, if you think about it, its only the same as the referee being influenced by a mass appeal by one side before changing his mind on a decision. He'd get hammered by the assessors etc. but his final decision would still stand.

    The only time I think an appeal would be valid is if the referee is wrong in law, eg: if he sent a player off for a first cautionable offence such as time-wasting and his team went on to lose the match.

  • Comment number 18.

    @12 & @ 14

    Good points both. Theoretically, a team could use their 3 appeals and still have many decisions go against them during the match. That would lead to the same outcrys we have in football today such as biased refereeing and ghost goals. Even though I approve of technology to help referees, it's got to be complete change or the status quo - a mixture would not work out.

  • Comment number 19.

    The Palmeiras case has an interesting parallel with the resignation of a high-profile ref in Scotland 2 seasons ago - Dougie McDonald: who incorrectly awarded a penalty for Celtic against DUtd but then almost immediately changed his mind claiming it was the linesman who helped change his view. The problem? Once given the penalty decision really could not be taken back (even though it was correct) and the linesman then said that he was not consulted. The result? Bye bye Dougie!

    Ref resignation will be a likely outcome in this case but wouldn't be surprised if a re-match was ordered.

    On technology, its't it time to admit that what 4th officials see on TV monitors is already informally used by some refs to help their decision-making?

  • Comment number 20.

    @15 Joe G

    “This is surely the issue that those so heavily in favour of widespread use of 'technology' in football fail to address... The subjectivity of most decisions!”

    Technology has to be the way forward as the implications for getting decisions wrong at the top end of the game get increasingly serious. In order to address the ‘subjectivity’ element I think FIFA should be following the path that the NFL have taken in terms of the use of video replays. They have set down very clear guidelines on when video replays can and can’t be used and, most importantly, the underlying basis of all video replay decisions is that the ruling made by the on field officials can only be changed if there is CLEAR evidence from the replay that the original ruling was incorrect. If there is any doubt the on field ruling stands. This application of technology would ensure that the obvious howlers are dealt with, for example Reading’s phantom goal against Watford would have been overturned, the Mendez ‘goal’ for Spurs at Old Trafford would have been awarded and (to pick a more recent example) the Arteta goal for Arsenal against QPR would have been disallowed. Equally where decisions are marginal or subjective (for example the yellow card that led to a red for the alleged Torres dive) they are allowed to stand as originally called by the referee.

    In the case of Palmeiras I really can’t see the game being replayed. I agree with @17 Bobartist that if the referee deems a goal to have been scored - or not - then that's it and that possibly the referee will be punished for using technology without approval. However even that may be doubtful as I’m sure the four officials in charge of the game could collude and come up with an alternative reason for why the goal was disallowed and why there was a delay in coming to that conclusion.

  • Comment number 21.

    To my mind, the introduction of technology has to satisfy 3 main criteria:

    1) The decision has a major bearing on the outcome of the game
    2) It does not happen often and therefore will not lead to constant delays
    3) A definitive conclusion can be reached

    The only incident that satisfies all 3 would be whether the ball has crossed the line or not. Such a decision is crucial to the outcome of the game, can be settled easily (i.e. it's pretty conclusive whether the ball has crossed the line or not) and rarely happens in a game.

    The rest I would leave down to the officials to decide. So many decisions are open to interpreation and there are so many incidents these days that I cannot see how anything else could be brought in without it seriously impeding the flow of the game.

    In respect of the Palmeiras incident I would be amazed if the game is replayed. The referree got to the right decision, even if perhaps using means that are not allowed.

  • Comment number 22.

    the thing is alot of the other sports that use the tech are stop start games. tennis cricket nfl rugby even. these games are often stopped anyway by officals and then the videos are checked.

    where does this happen in football. for example if one side score but the ball is thought to not have gone over the line but the ref and the other team then have a chance to counter quickly where can the game be stopped?

    as this will then hinder counter attacing quick play football that main sides use. my point is that football is a qucik free moving game (most of the times) will teams use the tech as a excuse to break up play?

  • Comment number 23.

    Very interesting situation. Please keep us updated with any outcome.

  • Comment number 24.

    the truth is that for Inter its almost worthless (from a league standing pov) fighting over this game, it may soon be so to Palmeiras also.


    Depending on the result of their next match and parallel results, they may be relegated regardless of having the chance to win a rematch of this particular game.

  • Comment number 25.

    The biggest issue with refereeing in my view was picked out in the article. It is simply down to the different interpretations within the game. While this may allow for a fluid system where the referees can have some leeway with the decisions they make, the problems occur when they go against the collective opinions of everyone else. Which is where the whole thing about refereeing for the other team comes about. A great example is the Chelsea vs Man Utd match the other week with the second yellow for Torres. What I saw from home was a challenge with studs showing scraping down Torres' shin. Even though you could only see the foot touch the shin in the slowmotion replay, I definitely saw the studs up at full speed. It appears the referee didn't see that, and the theatrics of the fall didn't help Torres. But I think here is a big decision where external means may be necessary, and the benefit of a slow motion replay at such a stoppage would outweigh the stoppage time in play that the FA seems to fear. Rugby seems to cope just fine with it, so do other sports like American Football. In fact I think the way the rules of American Football are defined are much better. They do not leave much to interpretation at all. Rules are clearly defined and they have several referees and video reviews and challenges for when coaches think that a wrong decision has been made. Now I'm not saying have all of these in our game, because it would turn 2 hours into 4. But I think there is a happy medium to be reached by more clearly defining what is and isn't acceptable. Especially with regards to diving, penalties and offsides.

  • Comment number 26.

    @ Rob04, that is actually incorrect. The referee can change his mind until the game has restarted (as done in an Old Firm game when the ref gave initially a penalty for Rangers before booking the striker for a dive (correct decision). The only reason Dougie McDonald left was Lennon, as Celtic started the infamous campaign. McDonald lied about the linesman (which was wrong as he only wanted to cover his back), but he was notheless correct with the decision and I still cannot believe he is not refereeing any longer.

  • Comment number 27.

    I am sure they will make it. They are great club with great history.

  • Comment number 28.

    While I understand that people want to have replys for some decisions, and quote other sports to do so, however they miss a big difference between all these sports. Football is far more fluent than rugby or american football. We have nowadays so many quick free kick and throw-in in football, if we now have challenges for decisions they need to be made before any restart of the game. So the ref probably need to check that no challenge is raised, potentially slowing down the game. But the biggest issue for me is, when do you stop the game for a challenge. If a penalty is given this would be easy, or if a goal is scored. But what if a goal is not awarded or a penalty is not given and a team challenge it? Does the ref need to stop the game immediately to review the challenge? If this is the case, what happen if a counter attack is already underway and the opponent team has a 1 against 1 situation. You cannot stop the game then (imagine the challenge is not given??? - i had this in a game when there was a collision in a box between striker and defender, and both went to the ground. Goal keeper got the ball and kicked it to the other half immediately and the team scored 10 seconds later...the conceding team was unhappy that the game was not stopped to check the players...just shows how quick the game can be).
    If you wait for the next stopage for reviewing the challenge you could have another 10 open play before the game is stopped. If the challenge is succesful, do you restart the game 10 min added at the end?
    And the last point is, the big decision need to be taken by the ref...otherwise you have inconsistency in a game if one decision is taken by the ref, and the next one by a TV ref, who might be more leniant or stricter (different interpretation).
    If we get this introduced, football as we know will change forever, at least at the professional level

  • Comment number 29.

    If the Internacional vs Palmeiras result stands, you open up Pandora's box. Rule of law must be maintained. Illegal goals and situations occur all the time (not that it's a good thing) but external interference very seldom. "Allowing" it based on the argument that "justice was made in the end" (i.e. an handball goal was disallowed) is just plain crazy.

    More on this - including comments on and from Brazilian sports journalists - on my blog http://anythingpalmeiras.com (in English).

    Keep up the good work, Tim! Really enjoyed the read on Diego Alonso's methods!

    Cheers,
    Kristian

  • Comment number 30.

    #21 - your three point criteria show how difficult it is to implement retroactive decision making in a team sport that does not rely on points accumulation.

    In addition to your only example (i.e. whether the ball crossed the line), I can give you a number of credible scenarios that satisfy your criteria and which cumulatively have the potential to lead to further disputes, bad blood etc.

    1. A foul that starts on the penalty line may be ruled a penalty or non-penalty depending on what the officials see. If granted it will have a major bearing on the outcome of the game (your criteria No. 1), It does not happen often and therefore will not lead to constant delays (your criteria No. 2), and a definitive conclusion can be reached i.e. the penalty results in a goal or a save (your criteria No. 3).

    2. A disputed foul on the edge of the penalty box can be as good as a penalty for some teams with free-kick specialists.

    3. A sneaky punch to the testicles, an elbow in the face, a kick in the ankle etc. are all deserving of a red card which can have a bearing on the game and lead to a conclusive outcome.

    4. Extreme verbal abuse (e.g. Zidane/Materrazzi; Rijkaard/Voeller; Suarez/Evra) can be disputed and punished with a red card. This occurs rarely, can affect outcomes and the sending off is as definite as you can get.

    I can go on, but my point is that a crucial part football's appeal are the endless permutations created by 22 men running around for 90 mins, chased by 3 officials who are expected to have 360 degree x-ray vision, all being shouted at by team officials who purport to understand strategy and formations. The joy is in the uncertainty and that is why fans celebrate a scrambled goal as much as an elegant chip. It gives us stuff to talk about, brings us to Tim's blog, relieves the tedium of daily life etc. Remove the uncertainty and you remove some of the essence and joy of the game.

  • Comment number 31.

    The case is a bit more complex than just "technology being used by the ref". The allegation is that the ref overturned his own decision because the 4th ref was told by a third-party (in this case, a football authority from CBF, who was present at the game) that Barcos used his hand. This authority supposedly asked journalists for confirmation that it was a handball. What Palmeiras must do is prove that all this happened (and in the correct order too). And here in Brazil we have a rather dumb sport justice court and a specific sport code of laws, which only makes things worse.
    And there's even talks that the 4th ref being told by someone else that the goal shouldn't stand doesn't count as an interference, because (supposedly again) the laws of the game only mention the 1st ref.


    But I agree with #14 regarding the use of technology. It wouldn't be easy to introduce it, but having a mandatory review of any goal, including interpretative fouls (like handballs), would be much better. And for other non-interpretative things, challenges like in other sports could help, but for me that wouldn't be the priority.

  • Comment number 32.

    #26
    Stand corrected on the technicality around the decision but the suspicion was that he'd used the opinion of the 4th official (which he couldn't do) and then unfortunately targeted his unsympathetic linesman. I agree with you that the subsequent campaign mounted against officials was not helpful at all - well beyond confirming that when they brought in foreign officials to cover the strike they too were (not surprisingly) just as prone to human error. McDonald was a decent official most of the time, if too quick to blow the whistle at times and it was ironic that a normally very officious ref had to resign when caught lying.

  • Comment number 33.

    The problem is, as shown even in these comments, that largely the entire footballing community, from Sepp Blatter down to the fans, is very resistant to change. People come up with perceived difficulties and ways in which technology might not help or might not work, and use them as a reason not to introduce any technology at all.

    If that's the way people want it and they don't want anything to change or improve then fine, but people then can't complain if the ref misjudges something. He isn't omniscient.

    Building on what I said earlier, and on #31, it wouldn't be that difficult to do a mandatory video replay check of any events that lead to a goal or red card. These are the two things most likely to severely affect the course and result of a game. Play has stopped anyway, and it would only add 30 seconds to the game in most cases because in most cases the review would show no problems.

  • Comment number 34.

    28.
    At 14:39 5th Nov 2012, MeWeeOpinion wrote:

    And the last point is, the big decision need to be taken by the ref...otherwise you have inconsistency in a game if one decision is taken by the ref, and the next one by a TV ref, who might be more leniant or stricter (different interpretation).
    If we get this introduced, football as we know will change forever, at least at the professional level
    _________________________________________

    The "it doesn't happen on Hackney Marshes" argument doesn't stand up though. There will always be differences between Sunday League football and Champions League games whether it's the quality of the pitch or something else.

    If we want more decisions to be correct (which I believe most people do) then at some point technology has to be considered, especially when a good "goal" has been scored or visa versa.

  • Comment number 35.

    if Palmeiras go down it is becuase they have been poor in the league, i hope the brazilian footballing authorities find for the 1st time in ages some common sense and stand by the result becuase it will open a paradora's box where all the clubs in every league will appeal against every dodgy goal and decision which would ruin the league also it would then spread around the world.

  • Comment number 36.

    This reminds me of the 2006 WC final, when Zidane aka God, was sent off- correctly- but only after the 4th official told the ref. So the argument here is does 'morals and ethics' take precedent over 'procedures'. Wouldnt have minded the 4th ref having a say in the 82 semis but there you go...

  • Comment number 37.

    There are too many "Luddites" in football.The world has changed and you can't keep living in the past.In all sports we all want a fair result and all available means should be taken to insure the integrity of any game.Today, there is just too much at stake to use 19th century ideas in the 21st century,it does not make sense.You could have a challenge system as is now used in several sports,you can use technology which is readily available too.Changes are overdue.

  • Comment number 38.

    Just last week Liverpool had a late goal disallowed against Everton on a bogus offside call. No one wants the flow of the game disrupted, but at the same time bad calls being corrected would be a good thing.

  • Comment number 39.

    @34, I didn't mean that the reason not to introduce it because we would have different set ups in professional and amateur sport. I just wanted to point out but that the use of tv challenges would change football in the professional leagues (and in my view in a negative way).

    But it would probably means a different Law of the Game for professional football (which wouldnt stop an intorduction)

  • Comment number 40.

    @37, it is easy to say that people that are not for changes live in the past. But I pointed out a few issues that could result of the challenge system, and what the differences are to other sports.
    I would really be interested to hear how you could overcome these problems (I have these discussions with fellow referees and players, and I am always glad to see other views...)

  • Comment number 41.

    @32 actually the laws of the game has been amended and the fourth official is now allowed to support the referee (he assists the referee to control the match in accordance with the Laws of the game. The referee, however, retains the authority to decide on all all points connected with play).
    So even if the fourth official has helped, it would have been ok. The main problem was the lie used by the ref

  • Comment number 42.

    Tim
    Really interesting to get an insight into South American football which you obviously know inside out.
    You say that the issue is one of technology, but surely the real issue, which doesn't seem to have got much of a mention, is honesty.
    Palmeiras are saying in effect, "Yes we cheated but we should be allowed to get away with it".
    There have been many similar incidents I am sure all over world football. I remember Man Utd being given a penalty that replays showed should not have been awarded and most of the players seemed to be aware that it was a bad decision by the ref.
    In an interview after the match, Wayne Rooney, who scored from the spot, said " The ref gave a penalty so what could I do, except take the kick?"
    What about telling the ref it wasn't a penalty and refusing to take it?
    I know this sounds ridiculously naive and it would need a brave (or stupid, or perhaps even admirable? ) player or manager to do that. Too much money at stake; jobs on the line etc etc.
    But wouldn't it be refreshingly different and wouldn't we actually admire someone with enough backbone and integrity to do that?
    You can't get away from the fact that we ( spectators, players, managers... ) get the game that we collectively create and deserve, so if there is corruption and dispute it's we who brought it on.

  • Comment number 43.

    Good stuff as usual Tim, this will be an interesting decision indeed. There can be no doubt that referees are already being assisted with information "in their ear", and it must surely come to a head sooner or later.

    A Spartak Moscow player was sent off against Celtic a few weeks ago, but only after a long delay when the referee looked certain to book Gary Hooper for diving. The linesman gave nothing - it was obvious. So it's definitely happening at CL level. The whole thing needs to come out in the open and guidelines will ultimately need to be set on this.

    All the talk of using technology is pure fantasy, goal-line apart - it just can't work in a game like football. Other sports are by their nature stop/start, and that's what football would become.

    Even if you want that, it won't stop you disagreeing with the video referee. You can't get around the subjectivity of decisions. Things like handballs, pushing / contact in the box, blocking / body-checks etc - there can never be a definitive position as there are too many permutations. A nice idea, but usually put forward by people who don't have an answer to the detail.

    I think Alex Walton makes a great point, Zabaleta is on top form and for me his attitude and application makes him a very good player. In my opinion very few ever start out as a right-back Tim, any any isolated full-back is always going to be in trouble. People would be surprised how difficult a slog it is to play that position well, getting forward but still defending well - I think very few are as consistent in both respects as Zabaleta right now.

  • Comment number 44.

    Richard thomas @37

    There are too many "Luddites" in football.The world has changed and you can't keep living in the past.In all sports we all want a fair result and all available means should be taken to insure the integrity of any game
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'd agree with that.

    But you ask for a fair result and that can only be achieved one way. The accuracy has to be as near as one can get to being 100% correct regarding decisions. Only incidents made where the decision is non debatable can be accurate.

    Offside was once clear cut but is now debatable at times, handball is certainly debatable, some fouls are debatable. The cards red or yellow are certainly debatable. Technology will not necessarily make these issues easier.

    That more or less leaves goal line decisions. I expect those decisions to be near 100% with technology.

    The use of the word integrity, i am sure most match officials have that but it is the interpretation of what they actually see, that is important.

    Football grows beyond the norm because of the Monday morning talking points, the ref got it wrong to the referee was blind.

    There is something to be said for living in the past with a non sterile game that was not perfectly managed by match officials. Supporters had a reason for a defeat, the ref got it wrong, if they were honest they would also see the same reason for a win too, at times.

    I wonder in a perfect world with perfect refs making perfect decisions, the game may finally end with the correct result but fans of football will be left with nothing but a clubs tactics to talk about.

    In other words football thrives on debatable decisions made by refs with integrity.

  • Comment number 45.

    Really excellent debate on use of technology - thanks to everyone who is taking part. It's clear that people have really thought about this subject.

    For what it's worth, I'm totally against any measure that gives coaches the right to challenge decisions. I think it would be totally counter-productive. Coaches would use it as a resource available to them in their quest to win the game - i.e 1-0 up in the last few minutes and under pressure - time to use all your remaining challenges in an attempt to take the sting out of the game.

  • Comment number 46.

    Tim

    Firstly, excellent blog as per usual.

    Secondly, its not relevant, but what has happened to Ganso? A year or so ago, he seemed to be one of the hottest properties around, and barely a week went by when one of Chelsea, Man Utd, City, Milan, Real etc. weren't linked with him. Now, he seems to have disappeared completely off the radar. Has he been injured, or is it just a case of another South American player not reaching their potential?

  • Comment number 47.

    Great article. Is there a precedent here with zidanes sending off in the World Cup final. I seem to think the ref missed that and is was spotted by the fourth official on a TV. No action was taken by France to over turn the decision.

  • Comment number 48.

    #41
    You are clearly a referee and I will avoid any references to Specsavers because having worked alongside some refs in their day jobs I appreciate how thankless a job it can be at times. From a supporters viewpoint, however, I think anything that can help improve decision making by officials is probably a good thing. I'm against challenges done on an ad-hoc basis for decisions for much of the same reasons as Tim outlines: coaches will just use these cynically to break up the flow of the game at times when it most suits them. Perhaps though there are instances when the refs themselves might want another opinion on their decision (e.g. at a penalty award, or at what looks to be a potentially 'dangerous' tackle) and in these instances having the 4th official or someone else quickly give an opinion using a TV monitor might be more helpful than not, without breaking the flow of the game or taking away the authority of the officials on the park.

  • Comment number 49.

    This is typical of Brazilian sport, politics getting in the way of the game. Palmeiras need to grow a pair and act like men, if you are going to go down, go down shouting and fighting, kicking and screaming, basically going all out to win their remaining games. The way it is turning out, they are going to ruin their reputation by going down with a bitter whimper.

    I honestly do not see their argument, you admit you score an illegal goal but because the referee allegedly, it has yet to be proven, disallowed an illegal goal using illegal methods then what? That goal should be legal? You replay a whole match due to one incident? Ireland did not get such a luxury after France qualified by beating them with a double Henry handball.

    Palmeiras are being hypocritical, unsporting and they are trying to use their popularity and influence as a big club to get things in their favour. Atletico-PR last season were relegated in the last game due to what looked like a dubious game between Cruzeiro and Atletico-MG. No appeal. They had a goal wrongly disallowed for offside some games before against Cruzeiro which could have saved them. No appeal. Palmeiras need to come to accept, like other teams such as Atletico-PR, that if you are relegated over 38 games, it is because you have been sub-par over those 38 games.

  • Comment number 50.

    Agree with that Tim, and IMO it would quickly spiral out of control. Start with 3 appeals per side and sooner or later down the line there will come a call for there to be 5 appeals, or for every goal or penalty appeal to be reviewed.

    I watched an NFL game last night being held up for about 5 minutes to review an obviously good touchdown, a product of the new rule to automatically review every scoring play - another new rule brought in this year. They had to be totally sure, even though 90% of people wouldn't have questioned it. Their jobs are on the line, they have to make sure the call is completely correct. No doubt every play will be reviewed in the future.

    It's gone way too far in that direction IMO, and this is the problem when you start using video technology. NFL can just about get away with it due to the stop/start nature of the game and the general 'showbusiness' element to it - but football couldn't retain the same essence that makes it so enjoyable if 5 to 10 decisions got appealed every game.

    There are also still poor decisions in the NFL, a favourite being where a score occurs after a play is called 'dead' - ie when the ref blows the whistle too early, eg thinking the ball has gone out of play, and then someone scores a second or two later. This can't be appealed as when the whistle is blown the other team are deemed to have stopped playing. Surely a bigger problem for a flowing game like football rather than the NFL where each play ends within 10 or 20 seconds.

    It could also result in a more negative game. Obviously the benefits of less 'howlers', but referees might be less inclined to award a penalty generally - human nature would tell them to err on the side of caution as the coach can always appeal it anyway. Better not to give a 'proactive' decision when they risk being proven wrong in front of the world? They can always say they never had a great view when the alternative is a video replay - no comparison.

    You would also see appeals all the time when a goal is scored, especially at set pieces. IMO the most likely outcome will be a safety-first approach and to disallow goals where contact is minimal. If a headed goal goes gets appealed on the basis of 'climbing' or something, more likely that is over-turned than allowed to stand when technically you can see the attacker's hands on the defender when slowed down. I don't see it working the other way, with penalties being handed out due to minimal contact. That's the nature of the game most of the time.

    All of which would lead to more negative football and more stoppages. Can't we just have more accountable referees?!

  • Comment number 51.

    @50 stevie_bhoy

    You make a good point about a challenge system being open to abuse.

    It happens in other sports. I remember at Wimbledon some players would use the challenge system knowing that they had lost the point but as they were losing and had a 'spare' challenge why not use it to break up the play.

  • Comment number 52.

    Technology should be introduced to football, if only to stop people whining.

    It doesn't have to be an aid for refereeing ... just some sort of device to deliver the supporters a sense of perspective (either at the time or retrospectively, I'm not fussed).

  • Comment number 53.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 54.

    Don't get me wrong with my NFL comparison, I wasn't suggesting that there be coach/manager challenges in football, just that some of the rules be a lot more specific with examples in the rulebook.
    While eating dinner tonight I think I had a good idea for an answer to the problem..
    When play is stopped for something the referee might think is a sending off offense, or a penalty and play is stopped, they could ask the 4th official who has access to the replays. The fourth official has maybe 30 seconds to a minute to help the referee make the correct decision. With regards to the gametime, what's the issue with having a stopping clock instead of added time, wouldn't it stop time wasting too? I think the question the referee should ask, like in rugby, "is there any reason this should not be a penalty" or "is there a reason I shouldn't send him off?" I think the good thing with those types of questions is that players wouldn't unnecessarily be sent off. For sending off decisions that get completely missed they could go to a panel that retrospectively bans as is the case currently. No system will be perfect if the fluidity of the game needs to remain paramount, however I think we need to move with the times. Either we have correct decisions and the game is delayed, as officials will never be as good as slow motion replays. I'm sure the number of bad decisions hasn't increased over the years, just our ability to spot them has.

  • Comment number 55.

    Having lived in South America for so long, is there anything you miss about old England or English football in general?

  • Comment number 56.

    Tim, I ask myself why isn't the international press giving more attention to this case. There's been a debate about the introduction of technology in football for a long time and this could be a game changer on it. Myself, I am against it, and I will only say that as this is not what we're talking about. But if this match isn't replayed or there isn't any sort of punishment against the referee (who, let's admit, failed at least twice), this will mean that FIFA, or at least CBF will be legalizing the use of television monitors in matches. Due to several reasons, the quality of refereeing in Brazil is quite poor, and at least 2 or 3 blatant mistakes like the ones in the Chelsea - Man Utd match happen per round. After this, the players will have every right to demand the referee to watch the replay and correct his decision, after all, if one team had it, everyone must have. I do think that Palmeiras has the right to recourse to FIFA, as I think that probably CBF as usual will prefer anything than admit that the brazilians referees are as blind as Mr. Magoo and the football in this country is a complete mess, and reject their appeal. I don't know if I made my point clear, but I do think this case could change FIFA's stance about technology at football.

  • Comment number 57.

    Since there are already people discussing about technology in football, I will explain my opinion: apart from the rational reasons described already, I may be a romantic but for me football is a sport played by humans and I want it to keep like that. The referee must be a human and as prone to errors as the players. I'd rather one thousand times the huge mistakes of our horrible referees than games stopping for 5 minutes for the referees to see the game again in a monitor. There are a lot of things that could be done to improve the referees' accuracy while keeping the job of ruling football to humans. You europeans may complain about the decisions against your teams, so I dare you to watch our matches while being emotionally involved to one of the teams and see amateur b***ards ruining the game completely with their lack of preparation and arrogance, only to complain after the match that they were being "harassed" (sorry, I think I didn't make it clear enough already how much I hate those jerks). There's a reason why top quality referees don't fail as much as these guys: training, both physical and mental, support, professionalism, and clarification of the rules. By following these points, 99% of the matches won't need any technological stuff to be fair and we could happily live with some errors in the other 1%

  • Comment number 58.

    “Our Earth is degenerate in these later days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end, bribery and corruption, dishonesty and cheating are common, children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”

    This is just another small brick crumbling in that wall...............................

  • Comment number 59.

    Tim , i always read your articles , you do touch on important issues...however i think you made a point here but seemed to duck away from it.....technology now must be used on certain decisions ..they have warmed up to goal line technology , and the next step would be certainly to use technology on decisions which can change the entire match.... off sides are something which require immediate attention .
    i give kudos to linesman who get it right but when so much is at stake do we really want to disallow getting us to the right decision....there is enough time to review while players are running off celebrating for a referee if he needs to review a decision....

  • Comment number 60.

    Thank you for sharing this very useful information
    Share All Info

  • Comment number 61.

    I see video technology has reared it's ugly head again!

    The best way to look at it is to compare the use in other sports. For my example I have used 3.

    Cricket: Hawkeye and other technology used for major wicket decisions (eg major rule). Up to umpire's discretion and captains have limited numbers of challenges.
    Tennis: Hawkeye used for line calls (eg major rule). Players have limited numbers of challenges.
    Rugby: Video replay used for try decisions (eg major rule). Discretion of the referee.

    It would seem fairly logical then that including goal line techology would be the only way of bringing football up to speed. You are essentially looking to use technology as an aid for football's major rule, "Is it a goal or not, did it go over the line or not". This is a measurable rule and would be easy to implement.

    Using it for fouls or allowing managers / captains the ability to challenge decisions would disrupt the flow of the game and question the authority of the officials. Also, we've seen from blogs on here, that other decisions, fouls, corners, even offsides are debateable and therefore open to interpretation. In that instance there would be no benefit in using video technology.

  • Comment number 62.

    Giving the ref access to video replays for all goals (to check for OBVIOUS fouls/handballs/offsides) would be easy, flow of the game would not be interrupted and disruption would be minimal.

    I don't see how you can argue against that.

  • Comment number 63.

    61.At 10:16 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:
    It would seem fairly logical then that including goal line techology would be the only way of bringing football up to speed.
    ______________________________

    Morning ESG
    I dont agree with that statement , there are logically other uses other than goal line incidents.

    The replay can also be used to validate that a goal was scored without infringements. If the 4th official sees something wrong while the players are celebrating he can contact the ref on the pitch with the details well before the game restarts.

    This also helps the linesman , if he is uncertain of a player being offside while scoring a goal he can keep his flag down and give a nod to the 4th official who can review it before the gme restarts.

    For bad tackles the incident can be reviewed by the 4th official as well. The stoppage time is usually a couple of minutes for player treatment. Nothing wrong with the ref keeping his cards in his pocket until he receives some dialogue on the incident from the 4th official.

    These examples will not result in any game stoppage or broken play.

    PS
    Where are Drastic´s tables !!!

  • Comment number 64.

    63.At 11:01 6th Nov 2012, repo wrote:
    ___________________

    Morning mate. But here is my problem. Those examples you mentioned are all still about interpretation.

    "if he is uncertain of a player being offside while scoring a goal he can keep his flag down and give a nod to the 4th official who can review it before the gme restarts." - This is still largely up to interpretation and could well strip any authority the linesman has. Also what if for example it's flagged offside, the other team scores, and the 4th official tells the linesman it wasn't offside? You'd be opening a can of worms and killing fluidity.

    OR are you suggesting just limiting it for goal incidents? In which case, you'd have the next argument about including it for all offside calls....

    "For bad tackles the incident can be reviewed by the 4th official as well. The stoppage time is usually a couple of minutes for player treatment." - But this is again all about interpretation. Take the shelvey / evans one for example. You could get 5 different officials and they could all come out with 5 separate variables. That would just discredit the use of technology.

    Indeed, where are Drastic's tables. I have no idea how I did, I haven't seen anything of it.

  • Comment number 65.

    I disagree, ESG.

    The referee would still have the final decision, he would just be far more empowered to make an informed (and thus, correct) one.

    Of course there are always cases of interpretation. But it's much easier (in general) to interpret something with video replays, than without!

  • Comment number 66.

    64.At 11:35 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:
    Morning mate. But here is my problem. Those examples you mentioned are all still about interpretation.
    ________________________

    But you are talking of only a fraction of the incidents, the majority of cases are cleared up after a replay.
    In my opinion anything that gives us a fairer result should be implemented.

    In Rugby you have the same thing with the replay . When a mass of bodies fall over the try line and there are several hands on the ball it is impossible to see 100% if it is a try or not , the ref just gives his best decision.

  • Comment number 67.

    64.At 11:35 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:
    Also what if for example it's flagged offside, the other team scores, and the 4th official tells the linesman it wasn't offside? You'd be opening a can of worms and killing fluidity.
    _________________________

    I did not say that , I said if the linesman is unsure of offside he keeps his flag down and gives a nod to the 4th official to check it out.

  • Comment number 68.

    66.At 11:49 6th Nov 2012, repo wrote:
    ______________________

    But that's just it. In Rugby you have replays for tries only. Is it a try or is it not a try. Did the scorer touch the ball with his hands and press it on the ground?

    Where in rugby do they have video replays on high tackles during the match? Where do they have video replays for offsides or knock ons? Nowhere? So why include it in football?

    Leave it for goal line incidents and let the officials do their job.

    Like I said, how would offsides work?

  • Comment number 69.

    65.At 11:45 6th Nov 2012, BH_blue wrote:
    I disagree, ESG.
    __________________

    I don't know what you're disagreeing with?

    "The referee would still have the final decision, he would just be far more empowered to make an informed (and thus, correct) one." - But it's not informed to him, he's given his power to the 4th official to make the decision. He may have a different view to the 4th official in reality.

    "But it's much easier (in general) to interpret something with video replays, than without!" - Course it is, but even with a dozen replays in slow mo and maginfied at a dozen angles, you'll still get debateable decisions. Just read a blog on an EPL game!!

  • Comment number 70.

    68.At 11:54 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:
    But that's just it. In Rugby you have replays for tries only.

    Where in rugby do they have video replays on high tackles during the match? Where do they have video replays for offsides or knock ons?
    _________________________

    Sorry mate , in Rugby they use the replays for kicks at goal as well if they have a doubt.

    High tackles , knock ons, offsides are actually quite obvious to spot, so there is no need for replays.

  • Comment number 71.

    69.At 11:57 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:
    but even with a dozen replays in slow mo and maginfied at a dozen angles, you'll still get debateable decisions. Just read a blog on an EPL game!!
    ________________________________________

    You are talking about isolated instances , not the vast majority of cases which can be justly dealt with without disturbing the flow of the game.

    Besides EPL blogs are very partisan so that is not a good example to cite.

  • Comment number 72.

    70.At 12:04 6th Nov 2012, repo wrote:
    Sorry mate , in Rugby they use the replays for kicks at goal as well if they have a doubt.
    _______________

    So they use it for points scoring basically. Did it score a point or not. To me in football terms that's "Is it over hte line or not".

    There's still controversy in rugby. But is it not true that the coaches tend to look at their own team rather than the officials?

  • Comment number 73.

    72.At 12:08 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:
    There's still controversy in rugby. But is it not true that the coaches tend to look at their own team rather than the officials?
    __________________________________

    There is controversy in all sports , but nothing compared to the level in football due to the number of errors officials make.

    Just read an EPL blog to see that :D

    Also as you are in one of your pedantic moods today we should change the subject maybe discuss Drastic´s slide rule instead :)

  • Comment number 74.

    @69. At 11:57 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_

    I am suggesting that replays are checked (by the ref), after goals, to check for offsides, handballs, fouls, etc. Play is stopped after a goal anyway, so there is no disruption.

    All talk of objectivity or whether or not to extend it further is arbitrary, since extending it just to this point would be a great improvement. Anything else is just excuses and people unwilling to consider change.

  • Comment number 75.

    73.At 12:14 6th Nov 2012, repo wrote:
    ________________

    Hahaha not really mate! I'm just saying there's no hard and fast rule for this. The first step should be goal line technology and wait and see how that goes before implementing even more changes.

  • Comment number 76.

    74.At 12:16 6th Nov 2012, BH_blue wrote:
    @69. At 11:57 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_

    I am suggesting that replays are checked (by the ref), after goals, to check for offsides, handballs, fouls, etc. Play is stopped after a goal anyway, so there is no disruption.
    ____________________

    Ah that makes more sense, but for example of handballs, fouls etc they're open to interpretation so you would still get controversy would you not? And there's no guarantee that it was a correct / incorrect decision....

  • Comment number 77.

    @36

    The 4th referee is part of the team, and his pointings to the main official are a fair part of the game.

    However, in the case of the Internacional-Palmeiras match, it was not him to tell the referee about the irregular goal - it was a sort of "delegate" send by the Brazilian FA only to evaluate precisely the standard of refereeing, but with absolutely no powers to call off any decision. And it is quite clear that he was tipped by some journalists of what happened before getting to the referee.

    Yes, I am a supporter of Palmeiras, and yes, I want the game to be replayed. It would certainly end up in another defeat, and relegation is unavoidable, so it is not anymore a concern to me, but at least it would make it clear that such a way to interfere in a match is not legal. If there´s a problem with that, then the rules should change. But for what it´s worth now, I support the club´s appeal, however much it makes me sad.

    And, just to add to the story, the very same referee was involved in a similar mess two months ago in the Brazilian 2nd division, when he called a penalty but took it back after a lineswoman and the 4th referee told him it was a wrong decision with the support of a TV.

  • Comment number 78.

    72.
    At 12:08 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:

    70.At 12:04 6th Nov 2012, repo wrote:
    Sorry mate , in Rugby they use the replays for kicks at goal as well if they have a doubt.
    _______________

    So they use it for points scoring basically. Did it score a point or not. To me in football terms that's "Is it over hte line or not".
    __________________________

    In Rugby they will refer to the video referee if there is doubt about a try being scored. It could be:

    Was there a marginal forward pass?

    Was there a knock on?

    Did the attacker have a foot out of play?

    Was the ball over the line?

    Was it grounded properly?

    Not all of these are always spotted on the field but the video evidence will generally be pretty conclusive.

  • Comment number 79.

    76. At 12:29 6th Nov 2012, Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost wrote:

    Ah that makes more sense, but for example of handballs, fouls etc they're open to interpretation so you would still get controversy would you not? And there's no guarantee that it was a correct / incorrect decision....

    ________________________________________________

    Some are still open to interpretation, yes. But the referee's decision after viewing replays is not gonna be MORE wrong than before. The result would be that fewer close decisions would be called wrongly and zero obvious decisions would be called wrongly.

    I still see that as a great improvement. Just because it isn't 100% perfect doesn't mean it can't be much, much better than the current system.

  • Comment number 80.

    Reviewing every goal will simply mean fewer goals. I don't think the majority of sporting injustice is done when a goal isn't chopped off, it's usually the other way about surely? There is already a negative environment of referees and linesmen chopping off goals when they shouldn't, that would just make it worse.

    Referees will be under pressure to disallow goals for the slightest, most contentious little thing, because they have a video replay to hand. A hand on a shoulder for a headed goal, part of a player's arm being offside etc. Then if you chop a goal off for some minor issue in one game, you need to do it consistently forever more or other fans feel hard done to when it isn't chopped off against their team.

    It's naive to think that it wouldn't put referees under even more pressure, or that situations could be resolved quickly. Referees will need to be absolutely sure they are getting it right.

  • Comment number 81.

    @8 Londoner

    Just to set the record straight, Ireland did not appeal Henry's handball to CAS.

    They made an unofficial request to FIFA to have the second leg replayed which was rejected. They considered CAS but ultimately decided against it.

  • Comment number 82.

    80.At 13:44 6th Nov 2012, stevie_bhoy wrote:
    There is already a negative environment of referees and linesmen chopping off goals when they shouldn't, that would just make it worse.

    It's naive to think that it wouldn't put referees under even more pressure, or that situations could be resolved quickly.
    ______________________________________



    I think you will find that ref´s dont agree with you , this is a quote from Keith Hackett about bringing in video replay technology.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    "Because of the importance of the games we are involved in and the importance of getting the big decisions right it is a natural progression,"

    "It has to be introduced. There are natural breaks in the game that allow key decisions to be made correctly."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • Comment number 83.

    @82 repo

    How long though until the next natural stoppage in play?

    What happens if a team scores what looks like a goal but the other team has broken away and scored a goal of their own at the other end before there is time to look at the first incident?

    I am not against technology, but there are some anomolies that need to be made clear before it is introduced.

  • Comment number 84.

    it could work for offside/onside goals ie Artetas for Arsenal and Liverpools against Everton as either the goal is given or a freekick awarded immediately so there is a break, but what if a long ball is played over the top and the forward is clean through one on one, the linesman may think that it is offside, flag and then the game is stopped for the freekick before the forward has a chance to finish. If it then found to be onside there is nothing that can be done, this would have to leave the linesman redundant as they would have to allow play to continue before a review can be made.

    Its pointless saying they can only make decisions on obvious examples as I'm sure some of the incorrect decisions the linesman would say that it was obvious to them

  • Comment number 85.

    Eduard_Streltsov_Ghost- I agree with Repo that the 4th official should be able to request a 4th or video judge to be able to review plays. Not nod- but maybe an electronic button he can press that forces the review without the crowd noticing. I don't see how this reduces the lineman's authority as he has requested it on a decision where he is not 100% sure. The extra official would be part of the same officiating crew so it would retain the same spirit.

    With the decisions happening so quickly I'm sure most officials would tell you they are not always 100% certain and I would hope they would want to eliminate as many incorrect desicions as possible- especially if nobody blames them. For contoversial offsides there would still be interpretation, but much better informed decision.

  • Comment number 86.

    Referees already chop off goals for the most pedantic of infringements, I don't see that trend being reversed when they have access to the video.

    I don't see how that comment contradicts anything I've said. When I say referees coming under pressure, I am talking about being under pressure to get the call right or chop off a goal upon reviewing the video - in response to the claim that decisions could be reviewed quickly. See my second paragraph, first line.

    Whether the refs want it or not is irrelevant as to whether it is the right thing for the game. It should surely be obvious that some will want it. That doesn't mean it won't lead to a more safety-first approach in terms of giving goals or create more delays in the game, which is the thrust of my point.

    A comment from Keith Hackett would not be my starting point for whether this would be a good or a bad thing for the game. Referees will only want to look out for themselves, just as any employee would.

  • Comment number 87.

    83.At 14:30 6th Nov 2012, Frank Black wrote:
    How long though until the next natural stoppage in play?

    What happens if a team scores what looks like a goal but the other team has broken away and scored a goal of their own at the other end before there is time to look at the first incident?
    _____________________________

    Hi Frank
    According to Keith Hackett who was the chief and spokeperson for the premier league refs there are enough natural stoppages to get the key decisions right.

    For your second point , that does not make sense in most cases ???
    If a team scores "what looks like a goal" the game must have stopped so it is impossible for a team to breakaway and score.
    The only instance that is valid is if the ball is kicked out from behind the line, then unless the other team has Usain Bolt playing for them it would take enough time to see a TV replay before the ball reaches the other end.

    But that scenario would only occur once in a blue moon I would guess. Where every week in the EPL we can see 3 or 4 goals wrongly awarded or disallowed due to officiating errors.

  • Comment number 88.

    86.At 14:38 6th Nov 2012, stevie_bhoy wrote:
    A comment from Keith Hackett would not be my starting point for whether this would be a good or a bad thing for the game.
    __________________________________________

    Really ?... I would have thought the refs opinion would be a major starting point.

    Maybe we should agree to disagree.

    But Keith Hackett was representing the premier league refs at the time and even sent a report in favour of proposed video technology to FIFA.

  • Comment number 89.

    @87 repo

    I thought you meant that potential goals would be verified or not at the next interval.

    It was mainly a hypothetical on my part, I realise it would be extremely rare if indeed ever but we have seen teams go from an opposition corner to score goals in say 30 secs.

    Aside from that, doesn't Bolt want to play for Man United? :)

  • Comment number 90.

    The referee's decision is final. End of story.

  • Comment number 91.

    Well isn't most football controversy about refereeing decisions??? Are you seriously contending that it's usually because the ref didn't see something properly? Why don't we just let referees become footballing powerbreakers? Hackett for FIFA? I do take your point, just my opinion...

    Even if you take the additional delays out of the equation, video replays are just as likely to give refs a platform to cause more harm to the game than good. More goals will be chopped off for the most pedantic of reasons. Reviewing goals scored will reduce the number of goals in the game, this is indisputable.

    I'm all for the use of technology where it can enhance the experience. That wouldn't happen with football IMO.

  • Comment number 92.

    91.
    At 16:26 6th Nov 2012, stevie_bhoy wrote:

    Even if you take the additional delays out of the equation, video replays are just as likely to give refs a platform to cause more harm to the game than good. More goals will be chopped off for the most pedantic of reasons. Reviewing goals scored will reduce the number of goals in the game, this is indisputable.
    __________________________________

    If just "goals" scored are reviewed then that will definitely reduce the number. I'm not sure why that is a valid reason not to have video replays though. The most important thing is for the decision to be correct as often as possible, whether that reduces the number of goals scored is frankly irrelevant.

  • Comment number 93.

    @91

    Agreed, BPT. I'm not sure that the QPR fans/players/management would agree that it was better to let Arteta's offside goal stand, because if it had been correctly disallowed, the game would've been 0-0 and that might have been a boring scoreline.

  • Comment number 94.

    92.At 16:43 6th Nov 2012, BaggiosPonytail wrote:
    ____________________________________

    Hi Baggio
    What do you think happened to Drastic ?

    a.) Hit by a bus ?
    b.) Upset because we mentioned his slide rule ?
    c.) Cant see this blog unless he searches for it due to his cookie settings ?
    d.) Just trying to crank up the tension by delaying publication of his table ?

  • Comment number 95.

    93.At 17:27 6th Nov 2012, BH_blue wrote:
    @91

    Agreed, BPT. I'm not sure that the QPR fans/players/management would agree that it was better to let Arteta's offside goal stand, because if it had been correctly disallowed, the game would've been 0-0 and that might have been a boring scoreline.
    _________________________

    Nicely put :)
    ________________________________

  • Comment number 96.

    The danger with new technology is we turn football into a an American sport where TV takes control. Stopping to check mass jumbo-tron screens is beginning of the end as soon every decision will halt the game for some dreadful replay.

    Some sort of hawkeye based goal line decision would be as far as i would go. Retrospective decisions(even 5 seconds later) takes away the human element to the game. What would fans rants and rave about in the pub later???

    The Shipyard Derby in Guayaquil turned into a rout for Barcleona on Sunday. I went to the Atahaulpa and was sun-burnt again.

    Quito derby tomorrow.

    http://footballintheclouds.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/historic-win-for-barcelona-against-their-biggest-rivals/

  • Comment number 97.

    I agree that the only place in football for technology is goal line decisions and the whistle must blow immediately to stop the game, because the joy of football as someone has already said, is that the game flows, it carries on until the whistle blows and that there could be a lightning counter-attack leading to a goal.
    But games shouldn't be replayed unless there is some genuine proof of corruption by the ref. If the end result was that the decision was right, two wrongs have made a right in the end.
    And I fully agree with the line of this Palmeiras coach, that the players as a team and as individuals are solely responsible for what happens on the pitch.

  • Comment number 98.

    97.At 19:28 6th Nov 2012, RoverOnTour wrote:
    _________________________________

    Out of interest , we have had 100 games so far in the EPL this season , and have we had a goal not not given which goal line technology would have validated ?

    In terms of goals given, or not given for offside, incorrectly, we have had many instances.

  • Comment number 99.

    96.At 18:55 6th Nov 2012, ali mclauchlan wrote:
    The danger with new technology is we turn football into a an American sport where TV takes control. Stopping to check mass jumbo-tron screens is beginning of the end as soon every decision will halt the game for some dreadful replay
    _________________________________

    Funny that ???
    They use TV replays in basketball and the game is not disrupted , and the last time I checked that sport was big in America.

  • Comment number 100.

    tv replays would not upset the ebb and flow of a game if we were to be able to postpone decisions, oh great blog tim much better than mcnulty's dross...

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.