Technology in soccer: Yes or No?

[Omega Phoenix]

For me, football is the sport it is because its fast paced game with minimal stoppages.

As such, i don't really support the introduction of any technology into the game that would affect this pace. The goal line chip, sure it doesn't take any of the speed out of game or cause unnecessary stoppages. However, when it comes to the aspect of replaying or challenges, i am completely against it. Referees are there to do their job, and the best they can of it. As i play the sport myself, i can attest to the fact you get as many calls in your favor as you do against you. Referees are human, occasionally they make mistakes, get over it. Holding up a game repeatedly to check if the right call was made for me ruins the game entirely.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

To save stopping and starting the game throughout the ninety minutes, both managers/teams should be given three "challenges" per game. A "challenge" can be used after each time play has been stopped (whether it be a foul commited, whatever), where video evidence is called upon for the officials to make the correct decision.

Assuming both teams use all three of their challenges, the game will have been delayed but not to the extreme it could've been if both sides were to challenge every single decision.

It wouldn't cure the problem 100% because if a decision goes against a team and they have no challenges left, there will still be a media frenzy and injustice after all is said and done.

If a challenge system was ever to be implemented, I would prefer that both teams only had 2 challenges each, but the challenges would only be used up if they turned out to be unfounded. It would make no sense for a correct challenge to be penalized just as much as an incorrect one, as that is 'justice'. This would make teams think twice about making constant frivolous claims and would hopefully achieve two things: firstly, only four stoppages maximum for incorrect claims, after which no more such stoppages can happen in the match, and secondly, any huge number of stoppages from challenges would be mainly as a result of the match officials' incompetence, which would be FA / UEFA / FIFA's problem to solve.

During most incidents there are 2-4 players that are directly involved in the incident who will know what happened better than anyone else. Therefore when deciding to make a challenge, the team could directly consult one of their players before making a decision, as they would have the best idea as to whether their team has been hard done by or not. With the knowledge that video technology would have a very high chance of revealing the true extent of the incident, players would be compelled to be as honest as they can be. This concept could also be connected to incidents where a player knows they have done wrong (e.g. Henry and "that" handball) but the decision has gone their way. If the player immediately admits their indiscretion and takes their punishment to save everyone the time, they could give their team a challenge back, or something similar. Of course nothing would be perfect, but if it makes the game even a little bit fairer, or encourages a little bit more honesty, it would be worth it.

The biggest question of course is with the time factor: how much is too much?

 

[Stylish Interval]

I see it as, everyone is expecting football to keep being this fast paced. Personally, I wouldn't mind another extra 20 minutes onto the game. It's still faster than most other sports, so if we gained 20 total minutes from reviewing things, I wouldn't care. It's 20 minutes. American Football games have like 12 minutes quarters and take 4 hours to finish. Soccer matches take an hour and 45 minutes to two hours to finish up, so twenty minutes isn't that bad.

As for what should be reviewed, I think it shouldn't be things that are stupid like who kicked the ball out. It should be for goals, big fouls, and position of fouls (like if it was on the line or close to in the eighteen to decide whether it's a Penalty Kick or not).

 

[DarkendFearz]

Being a soccer player myself I think it is a decent idea. I am both in the yes and no of technology on the field.
Pro
~No awful calls that can determine the game
~Less fighting
~More protection for the refs (although its fun yelling at them)
~Players will hopefully be less dirty and no more Ronaldo status of "diving"
Cons
~Being a fan it'll take a bit of the emotion from the game
~Waste of time and slows the pace of the game.

 

[Nailo]

Well as a brazilian and a fanatic soccer fan, I think they could make something similar to tennis where every team has like 2 chances of stopping the game and asking for the computer to decide in a doubtful play. I am tired of seeing my team lose a game(btw I am a fan of Santos, Pele's team you guys should know) because the judge made some wrong decision or something like that. So I say YES to technology

 

[rbygsc kid 251]

The largest argument against technology is usually the fact that it slows down the game. But seriously, technology should be used in every sport. I don't watch a ton of soccer (futbol), but I am quite aware of a handball between Ireland and France (correct me if I'm wrong on that), and technology would have greatly aided that game.

Also, I was in Honduras in May and June of 09 and I saw a game between the U.S. and Honduras on TV, and I'm pretty sure there was a bad foul called in the box (in favor of the United States), and the result was a U.S. penalty make, which turned the tide of the game.

After watching the NFL (American Football) virtually my entire life, I would never take instant reply away. EVER! Yes, it will slow down the game, but its completely necessary.