[ITA] Serie A 2013/2014 (31 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dostoevsky
- Start date
Well, is it really disputing the flow of the game. There are a few things to consider. First, is the benefit of implementing replay and challenge technology more than the cost?
The cost is supposedly the disruption of the flow. However, coaches can get only a limited number of challenges per game. Say 3 or 4. That isn't too bad. Second, because challenges don't exist, how much time is wasted by players who complain to the referee and plead with the linesman? Third, how much time would it take to review a Dubious decision? A minute? So per game, you have around 8 minutes at most wasted by revising the play. This is contrasted to at least 3 or 4 minutes of players arguing.
The cost is 4 or 5 minutes. Is 4 or 5 minutes worth the benefit of making football a more fair sport where nagging is completely eliminated, and wins that could decide championships based on human error completely gone?
So at most, you waste 5 mins a game and the result is a more fair and enjoyable game, not to mention referees cannot cheat anymore. I think it's very hard to make a case against implementing this kind of system.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, is it really disputing the flow of the game. There are a few things to consider. First, is the benefit of implementing replay and challenge technology more than the cost?
The cost is supposedly the disruption of the flow. However, coaches can get only a limited number of challenges per game. Say 3 or 4. That isn't too bad. Second, because challenges don't exist, how much time is wasted by players who complain to the referee and plead with the linesman? Third, how much time would it take to review a Dubious decision? A minute? So per game, you have around 8 minutes at most wasted by revising the play. This is contrasted to at least 3 or 4 minutes of players arguing.
The cost is 4 or 5 minutes. Is 4 or 5 minutes worth the benefit of making football a more fair sport where nagging is completely eliminated, and wins that could decide championships based on human error completely gone?
So at most, you waste 5 mins a game and the result is a more fair and enjoyable game, not to mention referees cannot cheat anymore. I think it's very hard to make a case against implementing this kind of system.
The cost is supposedly the disruption of the flow. However, coaches can get only a limited number of challenges per game. Say 3 or 4. That isn't too bad. Second, because challenges don't exist, how much time is wasted by players who complain to the referee and plead with the linesman? Third, how much time would it take to review a Dubious decision? A minute? So per game, you have around 8 minutes at most wasted by revising the play. This is contrasted to at least 3 or 4 minutes of players arguing.
The cost is 4 or 5 minutes. Is 4 or 5 minutes worth the benefit of making football a more fair sport where nagging is completely eliminated, and wins that could decide championships based on human error completely gone?
So at most, you waste 5 mins a game and the result is a more fair and enjoyable game, not to mention referees cannot cheat anymore. I think it's very hard to make a case against implementing this kind of system.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, is it really disputing the flow of the game. There are a few things to consider. First, is the benefit of implementing replay and challenge technology more than the cost?
The cost is supposedly the disruption of the flow. However, coaches can get only a limited number of challenges per game. Say 3 or 4. That isn't too bad. Second, because challenges don't exist, how much time is wasted by players who complain to the referee and plead with the linesman? Third, how much time would it take to review a Dubious decision? A minute? So per game, you have around 8 minutes at most wasted by revising the play. This is contrasted to at least 3 or 4 minutes of players arguing.
The cost is 4 or 5 minutes. Is 4 or 5 minutes worth the benefit of making football a more fair sport where nagging is completely eliminated, and wins that could decide championships based on human error completely gone?
So at most, you waste 5 mins a game and the result is a more fair and enjoyable game, not to mention referees cannot cheat anymore. I think it's very hard to make a case against implementing this kind of system.
