Is it time to change the rules?

[Bootle Buck]

Every week it seems there are more and more decisions that cost teams points or players yet these desicions are made in a split second and in many cases were the official doesn't have a full view. Is it time to bring in video review like the NFL were teams are allowed to challenge a play and the Ref allowed to view the incident on the sideline. Chris Coleman was sent off for diputing an offside that he viewed immediately on a monitor pitchside and was adament the wrong decision was made. Maybe teams would get 2 challenges per game or per half so we don't have to have matches ruined or players suspended for nothing. The incidents could be cleared up in a minute rather than cost clubs dearly.

[Falconhoof]

Yes. I'm amazed there's even a debate about it.

 

I believe Sepp Blatter is adamant it won't happen on his watch.

[Gunga Din]

Yes. I'm amazed there's even a debate about it.

 

I believe Sepp Blatter is adamant it won't happen on his watch.

 

 

i dont want to see it being brought in at all

[Maldini]

I'd rather sit in the stadium for four hours and watch a game in which the decisions are right than keep watching ridiculously bad decisions in almost every game.

[Guest DanTheDaggerman]

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but I'd be in favour of a fourth/fifth(?) official with the same TV replay facilities as the TV broadcasters and a microphone link to the ref. It would take a few seconds to replay footage and could be done in the time that teams take to argue the decision currently.

[Runehammer]

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but I'd be in favour of a fourth/fifth(?) official with the same TV replay facilities as the TV broadcasters and a microphone link to the ref. It would take a few seconds to replay footage and could be done in the time that teams take to argue the decision currently.

 

 

Spot on and 90%+ of fans wouldn't even know it happened.

[Scally the Wag]

Rugby wins hands down regarding innovation and technology...

[Tyler]

Forget technology (apart from whether ball has crossed the goal line or not)

 

They need to go back to the old offside rule or else just scrap offside - forget this active/inactive nonsense as it is making a mockery of the rule

 

a player who is on the pitch is always active

[Bootle Buck]

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but I'd be in favour of a fourth/fifth(?) official with the same TV replay facilities as the TV broadcasters and a microphone link to the ref. It would take a few seconds to replay footage and could be done in the time that teams take to argue the decision currently.

 

Even better

[Tosh]

Rugby wins hands down regarding innovation and technology...

 

Except of course for Ireland's try this weekend.

[Leo No.8]

I'm not in favour of any further technology - refereeing decisions for and against are part and parcel of the unpredictability of football for me.

 

I would certainly support a video evidence crackdown on 'simulation' like Robben's the other day though - I think all the diving and cheating is a far more unsavoury part of the game than refs making the same old mistakes...

[Gilps]

Rugby wins hands down regarding innovation and technology...

 

It's also a game with far more natural breaks in play than football, making it easier to refer to an off-pitch official.

[Cobs]

It's also a game with far more natural breaks in play than football, making it easier to refer to an off-pitch official.

i don't see how that (if true) has any relevance whatsoever in deciding whether a goal has been scored or a try has been scored?

[Gilps]

i don't see how that (if true) has any relevance whatsoever in deciding whether a goal has been scored or a try has been scored?

 

I wouldn't be entirely against goal line technology, but I'm not sure how you fairly restart play if the defending team is shown to have cleared the ball off the line and would've been on the break before play was halted.

[Cobs]

I wouldn't be entirely against goal line technology, but I'm not sure how you fairly restart play if the defending team is shown to have cleared the ball off the line and would've been on the break before play was halted.

you don't stop play, you play on and at the next break of play, which let's face it, is rarely far away you refer to the Video Replay blokey who's now had time to tell you what's happened i.e. Goal or not.

 

Rocket Surgery it isn't.

[realtarragona]

I wouldn't want anything brought in. Mainly because of what may seem like a daft reason but what would you talk about? Controversy is part of football. Also I'm quite sure that at first it would be goal line technology, then it would go to penalties, then something else. Before you knew it, it'd be all over the place.

 

Also, Cobs, I don't see how you can play on after a goal line decision. What if the other team goes up the other end and wins a penalty? Or worse, scores? What then? A goal to each side?

[Cobs]

I wouldn't want anything brought in. Mainly because of what may seem like a daft reason but what would you talk about? Controversy is part of football. Also I'm quite sure that at first it would be goal line technology, then it would go to penalties, then something else. Before you knew it, it'd be all over the place.

 

Also, Cobs, I don't see how you can play on after a goal line decision. What if the other team goes up the other end and wins a penalty? Or worse, scores? What then? A goal to each side?

jesus

 

it's simple.

 

If the original incident was a goal - you award a goal. The team that conceded that goal then resume play with a a normal kick off, their subsequent 'penalty' or 'goal' will not stand.

 

If the original incident wasn't a goal - then the side who have just gone up the other end of the pitch and got a penalty or score get a penalty or a goal.

 

The players play to the whistle at all times.

 

 

Rocket surgery it still isn't.

[realtarragona]

Is that meant to sound convincing? I obviously know that could be done but the idea of players running around for a minute or two while a goal might have already been scored doesn't exactly sound ideal to me.

[Cobs]

well, it's far more ideal than legitimate goals not being given, or vice versa, surely?

 

Besides, if , as a player you think you've just scored i sense you'd be attempting to stop play or get the ball out of play PDQ to see what the video shows hence the idea 'of players running around for a minute or two' wouldn't happen in practice.

[realtarragona]

Well I don't really want any changes so probably not the best person to ask.

 

Don't you think it would be a bit of a farce to see a team just get the ball, launch into the stand then stare at the referee waiting for a verdict? Then, a minute after it's happened, the crowd celebrate if it's given...

 

I can't think of any alternatives to be fair but it's not exactly perfect...

[Cobs]

Well I don't really want any changes so probably not the best person to ask.

 

Don't you think it would be a bit of a farce to see a team just get the ball, launch into the stand then stare at the referee waiting for a verdict? Then, a minute after it's happened, the crowd celebrate if it's given...

 

I can't think of any alternatives to be fair but it's not exactly perfect...

well I've been at Twickenham in an England v Australia international when lain Balshaw looked to have scored a winning try in the last minute. I was right by it and convinced he scored. the ref didn't have such a good view it was referred to the video replay, the crowd waited on tenterhooks for a minute if not less, the try was correctly given, 70,000 people went ballistic and we beat the feckin Aussies with a legitimate score that might not otherwise have been given.

 

happy days.