Technology in soccer: Yes or No?

Broth3r

(I know it's football, I just didn't want to have half the american fanboys falling on me)

This has been dicussed for a long time, but I'm posting this now because here in Portugal, a petition just reached the 10k signatures needed for discussion in the parliament. Of course it won't have any effect, afterall we're a (I hate myself for saying this) peripheral country in Europe, but it would be nice to set an example.

The FIFA bastards continue on saying that football must have a human element. I think that's absurd. Football will always be played, coached, and enjoyed by humans, not machines. Furthermore, how is that an excuse for the mistakes we see everyday? Banning technologies that would help the refs because of that is utterly insane.

I am 100% in favor of the goal-line chip and video referee, and it's about time. I believe everyone is sick of the awful decisions we see everyday. From goals that were but then they weren't to defenders knocking the ball away from the box with a header and being sent off for handball.

It's about time, no?
 
Well, I'm upset by the calls but I don't get mad at the ref (and no one has the right to do so either unless you're a fellow ref). But yes, it's about time we got some technology on the field. Almost every other sport has technology to help with calls, especially game changing ones, so why shouldn't we?
 
I think this would be an outstanding idea. Being a soccer player myself I've seen my fair share of questionable calls. I can't say I've ever seen an instance that decided the outcome of a game though, and I've played for a very long time. I do think that the introduction of technology like that could only help the sport, so why not try it?
 
The problem is they'd need to restrict it (like cricket has) since it takes a long time to do, and I mean restrict in terms of how long the video ref has to make the call and/or restrict how many times a team can ask to have the call checked out. Be fair on the refs though, it's hard to make calls when the players seem to be tripped over by a grain of sand, you can never be too sure.

I really couldn't care less tbh. Football is fine how it is, albeit somewhat frustrating at times.
 
Even though having video referee seems pretty cool, it's not very effective. What I mean is that it just takes too much time for the referee to observe each replay an take a decision. I don't see why you should be bothered by bad calls from a referee, after all he's only human :/

football must have a human element. I think that's absurd. Football will always be played, coached, and enjoyed by humans, not machines.
Click to expand...

This argument is pretty flawed and doesn't make sense at all to me...
 
If it'll help cut down on bad calls and stupid fans whining about ones that may or may not have happened (though they'll continue anyways), I say go for it. I mean, most sports use some sort of technological help, right? And it's not like they're abolishing all referees.
 
Well, didn't we see a dubious call from the video referee in cricket recently?

I am not against the use of technology for football refereeing in principle. However, football is a fast-paced, fluid, moving game. We don't want to lose that. Even a fairly small delay in refereeing per foul will result. And if a ref blows the whistle, and it turns out to be no foul, then blowing the whistle has nonetheless had an effect, in breaking the flow of the game.

I think an initial usage restricted to fouls in the penalty area might be best. Such fouls tend to be the most game changing. A wrongly-given free kick, or corner instead of goal kick, rarely impacts directly, but a wrongly-given penalty (like any penalty) almost always results in a goal.
Possibly also red-card offences, since there'll be a delay while the player leaves the pitch anyway, and again, the penalisation has a major impact.
 
I don't know if this happens in other leagues, as I don't follow them often anough to see cases like that.
But here in portugal, 90% of the times an extremely dubious call is made, the protests of the team that was ripped off usually stall the game for more than a minute. Which would be more than enough time for a call to be made by a video ref.

This argument is pretty flawed and doesn't make sense at all to me...
Click to expand...
What I meant was that using the need for a human element in football to deny the use of such technologies is absurd. Football will always have a human element. Having "machines" helping the ref with it's decision makes it no less human.

In other terms, is it acceptable to trade off the "human element" (which would anyway bepresent) for a significantly reduced (not zero, as it will never be) margin of error?

I think an initial usage restricted to fouls in the penalty area might be best. Such fouls tend to be the most game changing. A wrongly-given free kick, or corner instead of goal kick, rarely impacts directly, but a wrongly-given penalty (like any penalty) almost always results in a goal.
Click to expand...

Well, they have to start somewhere.
 
Broth3r said:
(I know it's football, I just didn't want to have half the american fanboys falling on me)

This has been dicussed for a long time, but I'm posting this now because here in Portugal, a petition just reached the 10k signatures needed for discussion in the parliament. Of course it won't have any effect, afterall we're a (I hate myself for saying this) peripheral country in Europe, but it would be nice to set an example.

The FIFA bastards continue on saying that football must have a human element. I think that's absurd. Football will always be played, coached, and enjoyed by humans, not machines. Furthermore, how is that an excuse for the mistakes we see everyday? Banning technologies that would help the refs because of that is utterly insane.

I am 100% in favor of the goal-line chip and video referee, and it's about time. I believe everyone is sick of the awful decisions we see everyday. From goals that were but then they weren't to defenders knocking the ball away from the box with a header and being sent off for handball.

It's about time, no?
Click to expand...
Well Duh I mean its almost like:
"The player runs with the ball the other team members takes a knife and kills the other player in the box but the ref decides to play on!"
I definately think there's gotta be a change... and Sir Alex Ferguson is doing the right thing
 
I think that they should implement this - but only for penalty incidents and dubious goals(cough ThierryHenry cough). That should reduce the major bad decisions - and also help us judge whether it takes too much time away from the game.

I play soccer, I've had bad calls both benefiting my team as well as screwing us over. I fwe can reduce these bad calls, then let's do it.
 
I'd prefer they extend the time broadcasting the game to account for the delays that would make sure the decisions were right, rather than allow incorrect decisions to stand. I couldn't care if it was done for every foul commited, so long as the refereee had the technology available to him so he could make an assured decision each time, every time.

We don't want something outside of the game itself to interfere with the result in any given match. Why stop with just penalties and fouls commited that warrant a red card? In the modern day these issues shouldn't be existant in a game of football, especially considering the money and interest (which generates a high level of importance) that this game brings.
 
If you're worried about breaking the flow of the game, you seem to be of the mindset that the way it would be implemented is that first the ref will make a call unassisted by any machine, and then wait for something to happen, and then they're like "Oh, OK, let's bring out the computers!", or that to make a call with a machine they'll have to watch 20 instant replays with 20 second pauses in between each. With my very limited knowledge of the game, it seems like a better solution might be to have your standard refs making the calls like they do now, and then have another ref reviewing everything as it happens on the computer screen. Then you can make some rules on what happens if a decision is overturned at a certain point.
 
I can see how it could be disruptive to the game when contrasted with rugby which has all sorts of stops and starts. Essentially the only time play stops in football is when a foul is committed or the ball leaves the field. It could definitely be put to good use in the latter instance, particularly for those "on-the-line" goals where a clearance is made just as the ball enters the goal.

For fouls, the rules would need to change slightly as the referee still has to stop the game if they suspect a foul. It doesn't seem too out of the question though, particularly if the 'victim' actually took a dive and was then punished for it - I think we'd see a much cleaner game in general. Take it back to what football is really about.
 
I'm not a fan of this new technology in football. Currently the UEFA have experimented with 5th and 6th assistent referees in the Europa League. I think that is a better solution. Of course it isn't flawless and of course it's still not always fair, but I think that football should stay the sport of humans, not robots and cameras.

If cameras on the goal line, every single 'doubtful' ball would have to be replayed for the referee. This will 1) cost a lot of time if every match has 1 or 2 of these moments. The flow of the match will be killed and the attacking side is disadvantaged and 2) is useless, since we have 1 referee and 1 assistent referee who should see that. Errors are human and since referees are human I think that we should accept it. If a team loses, it's normal too. Why isn't it normal that a referee makes a mistake?

I opt for better training for referees. Train them in sharpness and quick reaction. Let them train with standard situations etc. If a referee makes too much mistakes over and over, then either fire him because he isn't referee material or train him better. It works for footballers, so why not referees. Football players have to train and work to accomplish the best preformance that is possible, so a referee should too.
 
Technology would be perfectly fine and would be easily implementable. Actually give the fourth official something to do rather then just telling the managers to calm down and putting numbers on a board to hold up. That is the extent of their task at the moment so they could easily be given a monitor upon which they have access to multiple angles of live footage, as well as a slew of replays. The referee can then contact them for help, or the burden of contact could be held by the fourth official, to correctly adjudicate the situation.
 
Honestly, it kind of kills the game.

Football/Soccer is meant to be a fast paced, no breaks sort of game, and thats what makes it great. If refs stopped every foul to check the machine, it would be just like american futbol.

I do believe that this will help calls such as Henry's handball goal, but shouldn't be used often. Maybe like two challenges a game such as in football in america?
 
I agree.

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.
 
I believe the "challenge" policy would be a good compromise.

Also (and I don't know if this happens elsewhere, just talking from experience), in Portugal, when a very dubious call is made (specially penalties), the kind that these systems were created for, the players of the opposing team usually stall the match with protests for a minute or more. That would be mroe than enough to review the play and make a final decision.
 
its suppsoed to be fast paced yes, but when you consider things like penaltys and injurys slow the game down, the ref can easily use video to get the correct desicion.
 
If you're trying to keep the game fast paced, then the "challenge" idea seems rather silly. This allows coaches to use challenges to interrupt the flow of the game, which is a pretty hefty advantage in a game where quick throw-ins and kicks from penalties are commonplace.

Obi's suggestion of having additional referee(s) review calls as they are made seems more appropriate, though that would of course be restricted to things that could actually be overturned later in the game (pretty much just the awarding of yellow and red cards). I would not support overturning any other referee calls, as that would interrupt the game too much. Reviews are a huge and annoying delay even in American football, and that game is supposed to have a lot of breaks =(

The goal line chip seems like a simple and obvious step, as it would not slow down the game at all.
 
Yeah, I agree that the chip would be excellent and help out (thinking of Mendes's goal being disallowed against Manchester United in 2005).

I don't really think that Obi's suggestion about having a video ref would slow the game down too much. Don't the refs already wear earpieces? The most experienced and highly trained refs could be watching video and make those calls, telling the field refs what to call. It might slow the game down by 1 or 2 seconds, maybe, but I feel like it would possibly increase time played. Who knows, though, until someone tries it out.
 
When people think "technology in football", they often think that every decision would have to be replayed by an extra official and then the decision would be made. That's simply not the case as I'm sure the video replay would only be brought back in dubious situations. If someone scores a goal from 30-yards away with a wonderful strike, there's no need for a additional replays (despite the game stopping for over a minute while they show countless replays and everyone celebrates anyway!).

Yellow Cards and Red Cards could easily be reviewed by another official as they happen, as let's face it, when all the players crowd the referee for many a foul, that's eating up just as much time as showing a replay and making the correct decision would. The 'is the ball over the line' moments and penalty shouts that are not 'clear-cut' are other areas where technology could and should be used as well.

I'm sure there are other areas where it can be useful without slowing the game down drastically, but we don't have to go over the top about it. It's just obvious that too many wrong decisions are made, and the majority are game changing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top