posted Nov 21, 2006

Football is free flowing game. Some games already over-run into 95/100 minutes with extra-time... (Reading v.s Chelsea) the example. Also I do not fancy returning home later than I have to when their are midweek games played.

If they are considering introducing the video-replays, I would suggest reducing the time of 45 minutes each half to 40 minutes. All the stoppages should aquate for the 5 minutes lost.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 21, 2006

Video replays MUST be used and the sooner the better. I love football but I am fed up of talking about refs and cheating and not about the football matches themselves (i.e.; the World Cup!). Football has been around for 100s of years but video cameras plastered everywhere have not! If you want to ban cameras from the grounds (you might have a fight on your hands) that is the only reason I can understand for not bringing in evidence to support critical decisions in the Premiership & Champions League - all games that we are able to scrutinise in depth by video already. I would rather bring them in now for cheating and violent conduct (diving, faking injuries, elbows) rather than the ball crossing the line. As somebody said, those decisions are quite rare so why not bring it in for the things that are ruining the game so we can stamp it out? We are putting the poor refs under so much pressure, they constantly get critisized and basically abused on the pitch, if there were replays this would not happen half as much, if at all and we could focus on the game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 21, 2006

"The reason Rugby flows is that the players are not continually trying to con the officials."

---

Rugby "flows"? What nonsense. Rugby - more specifically Union - is one of the most boring, stop-start, fractured sports on Earth.

There's no need for video replays in football. It's funny how the debate only comes up when a whinging manager like Hughes bleats about a referee making a wrong decision. Maybe starting with the rapid Ooijer and Henchoz at the back was the wrong decision as well.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 21, 2006

In rugby the referee only goes to the video replay if they are unsure of a decision. Also, this is only when a potential try has been scored and they wish to check its validity. The video ref is also looking for specifics requested by the ref (i.e. was the ball grounded?).

In football the referee could do the same - I'd rather a confirmation than a guess because he 'did not see it' (to quote a phrase).

Therefore, refs would only go to the video ref to confirm (if unsure) if a goal has been scored (e.g.over the line or offside). As for potential penalties the video ref should only confirm whether it was the right decision to award a penalty based on a specific question from the ref.

This would mean stoppages are kept to a minimum, only when the ref is unsure if a goal or penalty should be given.

All other decisions should be left to the ref and linemen.

I for one would rather be sure than feel robbed.

Although I agree about Ooijer and Henchoz.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 22, 2006

i don't understand all this talk about video technology. Referees are human and make mistakes and part of that is why football is exciting. In football breaks come to everybody and i don't understand why people are talking about video technology. In your work you make mistakes and nobody has asid anything about replacing you with a computer to cut down on errors. The premiership managers are not sincere. They only talk about video tech when decisions go against them. I didn't hear about video tech from mark hues when he got two penalties against bolton. The managers should work harder to get results and teach their players to be civil. Please no video technology. Let's play.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 13, 2006

Its a good idea. People are forgetting that a dive in the box can cost the club on the end of it millions by a cheat. Plus diving has got to be sorted out permanently otherwise players eg Drogba will continue to go down like they have been shot and get away with it!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 15, 2006

if stopped every time the ball goes out, each game would last 3-4 hours, its just ridiculous. Its more appropriate for more structured games like american football and ice hockey (in the latter there are 3 periods of 20 minutes yet games last over three hours
-----------------

Nonsense Flebfor....!
I think it was when Channel 4 covered Italian football when the stats at the end of the game would show the amount of minutes the ball was actually in play during the 90+ minutes.

It averaged at around the 60 minute park. It doesnt take much then to work out that game duration could be monitored with a stopping clock with two 30 minute halves. But that would be far to much like common sense.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 16, 2006

posted 3 Weeks Ago

"The reason Rugby flows is that the players are not continually trying to con the officials."

---

Rugby "flows"? What nonsense. Rugby - more specifically Union - is one of the most boring, stop-start, fractured sports on Earth.

There's no need for video replays in football. It's funny how the debate only comes up when a whinging manager like Hughes bleats about a referee making a wrong decision. Maybe starting with the rapid Ooijer and Henchoz at the back was the wrong decision as well.

--------------------

Spindash:

I was referring to the other form of Rugby. Also, my point was that Rugby (in both forms) is not continually stopping due to diving, cheating and arguing with officials.

I am not a Rugby fan by the way. Just sick of the players and managers of the sport I once loved.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 28, 2008

video technology shouldn't be introduced into the premiership, hughes only wants it for the business and profits he makes nothing to do with the sport. You win some you lose some thats the way football goes its taking the fun completley out of it, decisions go your way or maybe against you so what take it on the chin!
Its not that often it happens to the same team alot, so why ruin the game?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 28, 2008

Why would it ruin the game?

By getting decisions right? Would that ruin it?

People are worried it would ruin the flow of the game.

What flow. The games stops all the time due to the referees whistle & the players surrounding the ref when he award decisions against them.

It would ruin talking about controversial decisions?

Is game so bad now that we would be bored talking about the actual football being played. Do we prefer to talk about the referee? If he is the star of the show, why are players getting paid so much?

Video technology is here already. I hate the fact that a referee is still insisting that he is right when tv cameras have already shown that he is clearly wrong.

WHy is it so difficult to see the truth. What is the point of watching a game of football when you have to sit through five different camera angles, all showing that a penalty is incorrect & then watch the penalty that should never have been kicked into the net.

That is one instance of when the video tachnology can be used. It wouldn't stop play because play has already stopped.

add comment | complain about this comment