[ITA] Serie A 2013/2014 (23 Viewers)

[Buck Fuddy]

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.

You just know the majority of these challenges will be saved up until the end of the game, where you'd get one after the other. Fun.

And take into account that instant replay can only be used for moments where there can't be any discussion at all, for example whether or not the ball has crossed the line, most offsides. For which the technology is already available to implement without disrupting games, if I'm not mistaken.
It's of no use at all in every single situation where there is room for discussion or interpretation. Hell, how often are people discussing certain events that happen during a game, for hours or days after the game has ended. And in the end, despite the many replays, no agreement is ever found. It will ultimately still be the ref making the call, not the technology. Fun for refs having to deal with 50-50 situations, can't see that going wrong.


And most important of all: whatever's best for the people attending games should be the main rule. TV audiences have been catered to enough already. And, as someone who attends games on weekly basis, I wouldn't like to see games being paused an additional 8 times.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ragazza]

Yeah, challenges/timeouts are one of the reasons why most American sporting events last 3+ hours, and then there will be the TV networks that would want to use the time spent on reviewing calls to show more ads (like in American sports). I still can't believe when I went to see Juve v Everton here in San Francisco, in the stadium they were literally showing commercials on the jumbotron while the ball was in play.

But it was just an idea I was throwing out there, I've discussed it on other forums & it always yields interesting debate. There really needs to be some sort of middle ground that can improve this aspect of the game without ruining it at the same time, I have no clue what that would be though. The best I could think of is like I said, implementing it but limiting it to one challenge per team per half (and if they don't use their first-half challenge, it doesn't carry over).

And I agree there should be retroactive punishments for chronic diving, that should already be in place by now whether or not there is any new technology or not. It's insane what some players get away with on a regular basis in that regard, yeah certain refs hand out yellow cards during the match but not every ref gets behind that policy & there are still plenty of times when they are fooled on the pitch.

 

[Badass J Elkann]

milan primavera beat milan's first team

inzaghi is trolling allegri hard

 

[Klin]

fascinating story

Indeed it was a riveting tale.

Quite the page turner that was.

indeed, truly enthralling, left me holding my breath

I was in tears writing it, truly I am a master of language and communication.

 

[rounder]

You just know the majority of these challenges will be saved up until the end of the game, where you'd get one after the other. Fun.

And take into account that instant replay can only be used for moments where there can't be any discussion at all, for example whether or not the ball has crossed the line, most offsides. For which the technology is already available to implement without disrupting games, if I'm not mistaken.
It's of no use at all in every single situation where there is room for discussion or interpretation. Hell, how often are people discussing certain events that happen during a game, for hours or days after the game has ended. And in the end, despite the many replays, no agreement is ever found. It will ultimately still be the ref making the call, not the technology. Fun for refs having to deal with 50-50 situations, can't see that going wrong.


And most important of all: whatever's best for the people attending games should be the main rule. TV audiences have been catered to enough already. And, as someone who attends games on weekly basis, I wouldn't like to see games being paused an additional 8 times.

In the NFL, they've recently adopted a rule that says every touchdown is reviewed. In football, that could be done with every goal. By the time players are done celebrating, a verdict would have been made. Now, it doesn't have to be 100 percent accurate. There are a lot of situations where the situation is very subjective and open for debate.

However, what would happen is that referees can at least get a replay, and most of the time, they'll be able to confirm or reverse the decision. This can be a start. And also, referring to one of the points you made about all the challenges being used at the end of the game, well, it doesn't work like that. A challenge isn't a time out, and If you only can use it when there's a red card, goal(automatic), and offside, then how many times can teams really use them at the end?

I don't really see a problem there but regardless, they should at least start with the goal review system. That alone, would make a huge difference.

 

[JuveJay]

Why would you need to review every goal? 95% of football goals are clear cut. You'd essentially just stop celebrations, and everyone would just stand and wait for officials to state the obvious.

 

[Fint]

Mexes looks like sean penn

Jeremy Renner, rather.

some resemblance but nah.. a young sean penn more.

He looks like Shia Lebeouf on this pic.

You're all wrong lads, he looks like a bad case of blue waffle

 

[rounder]

Why would you need to review every goal? 95% of football goals are clear cut. You'd essentially just stop celebrations, and everyone would just stand and wait for officials to state the obvious.

Not at all, you wouldn't stop celebrations. The players would be convinced it's a goal and celebrate. In the meantime, there is a small chance it isn't, and If that's the case, they'd stop their celebrations.

Watch any game in the NFL, they players score a TD, and celebrate while a reviewing both looks at the replay. There's no down side. It's just giving refs a second chance and usually, it's all they need to make a decision that's better informed.

 

[Enron]

Why would you need to review every goal? 95% of football goals are clear cut. You'd essentially just stop celebrations, and everyone would just stand and wait for officials to state the obvious.

Not really. If they did it they'd want to have an official in a room somewhere who watches the goals in slow-mo and if there's an issue buzzes down to the referee to wait for an official review. In college football, every single play is reviewed. They only stop the game if their is something questionable.

Even so, sometimes they miss calls. Big ones.

 

[89man]

milan primavera beat milan's first team

inzaghi is trolling allegri hard

At least we have a bright future

 

[Buck Fuddy]

However, what would happen is that referees can at least get a replay, and most of the time, they'll be able to confirm or reverse the decision. This can be a start. And also, referring to one of the points you made about all the challenges being used at the end of the game, well, it doesn't work like that. A challenge isn't a time out, and If you only can use it when there's a red card, goal(automatic), and offside, then how many times can teams really use them at the end?

I see. Only challenges in certain situations.

For example: Mexes hits Chiellini in the face. Conte has seen it & would like to "challenge". But since none of the refs have seen it, there is no red card & play isn't stopped. So the challenge can not be used.
Or how about offsides. You can only challenge when they are given & not when they're not going by your proposal. And even when you can challenge an offside situation, what are you gonna do? As soon as the play is stopped, the situation is over. Whatever advantage the attacking team had at that point is gone. And there's simply no way to turn back time & restart the situation, is there?


Look, I'm not against helping the refs. And, judging by a few documentaries, etc I've seen there are already a number of (software) solutions available: 100% certainty over whether or not the ball has crossed the line, software that can instantly tell you whether or not it is offside, etc
These are things you can implement without altering or messing up the game. Which makes a hell of lot more sense than allowing challenges to stop play.

 

[JuveJay]

Not at all, you wouldn't stop celebrations. The players would be convinced it's a goal and celebrate. In the meantime, there is a small chance it isn't, and If that's the case, they'd stop their celebrations.

Watch any game in the NFL, they players score a TD, and celebrate while a reviewing both looks at the replay. There's no down side. It's just giving refs a second chance and usually, it's all they need to make a decision that's better informed.

What we have in rugby union is basically what would work best, rather than looking at every goal. For the 5-10% of contentious decisions that are either debated by the conceding team or decided by the ref you could then go to video replay. This has been spoken about before and probably will come in at some point.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. If they did it they'd want to have an official in a room somewhere who watches the goals in slow-mo and if there's an issue buzzes down to the referee to wait for an official review. In college football, every single play is reviewed. They only stop the game if their is something questionable.

Even so, sometimes they miss calls. Big ones.

I know how it works as I watch the NHL, and their network is crazy, but that sport is a lot more contentious.

NFL and its variants are a stop-start sport, so it has little impact on them. Football is not, it has to be done quickly or not at all.

 

[rounder]

I see. Only challenges in certain situations.

For example: Mexes hits Chiellini in the face. Conte has seen it & would like to "challenge". But since none of the refs have seen it, there is no red card & play isn't stopped. So the challenge can not be used.
Or how about offsides. You can only challenge when they are given & not when they're not going by your proposal. And even when you can challenge an offside situation, what are you gonna do? As soon as the play is stopped, the situation is over. Whatever advantage the attacking team had at that point is gone. And there's simply no way to turn back time & restart the situation, is there?

Look, I'm not against helping the refs. And, judging by a few documentaries, etc I've seen there are already a number of (software) solutions available: 100% certainty over whether or not the ball has crossed the line, software that can instantly tell you whether or not it is offside, etc
These are things you can implement without altering or messing up the game. Which makes a hell of lot more sense than allowing challenges to stop play.

First, the red card. Conte uses his challenge and stops the game to review. He can do that with the challenge. Edit: waits for stoppage of play to review what the cunt did to Chiellini.

Second, the Offside rule. In this case, the linesman would raise his flag of he thinks it's offside but the play would go on to the end, unless the offside was extremely obvious. However, in close situations, the ref would allow the play to continue until the end thus giving the attacking team the Advantage they need if the offside call was wrong.

I'm not against using technology that would decide plays. Anything that moves us away from the current very avoidable system is good in my opinion.

 

[Buck Fuddy]

Second, the Offside rule. In this case, the linesman would raise his flag of he thinks it's offside but the play would go on to the end, unless the offside was extremely obvious. However, in close situations, the ref would allow the play to continue until the end thus giving the attacking team the Advantage they need if the offside call was wrong.

Don't you see how problematic this would turn out to be?

Never mind that you're asking the ref to decide how obvious the situation is, instead of the linesman who's better positioned anyway. What you're suggesting is that more than 90% of the time when the linesman raises the flag, play just goes on initially.
After which you need to review the situation:
- the attacking team scored: need to check if there was an offside. Fair enough, shouldn't take long.
- ball goes out of play: need to check if there was an offside or not first, before we can decide which team can resume play.
- tackle is made: first need to check if there was an offside, then we can continue to verify whether or not it was a foul
...

In a game like football, most decisions, including offside, need to made on the spot. That's really the only possible way. It's just the rhythm of the game. Completely different from American football, baseball, tennis, etc

 

[rounder]

Don't you see how problematic this would turn out to be?

Never mind that you're asking the ref to decide how obvious the situation is, instead of the linesman who's better positioned anyway. What you're suggesting is that more than 90% of the time when the linesman raises the flag, play just goes on initially.
After which you need to review the situation:
- the attacking team scored: need to check if there was an offside. Fair enough, shouldn't take long.
- ball goes out of play: need to check if there was an offside or not first, before we can decide which team can resume play.
- tackle is made: first need to check if there was an offside, then we can continue to verify whether or not it was a foul
...

In a game like football, most decisions, including offside, need to made on the spot. That's really the only possible way. It's just the rhythm of the game. Completely different from American football, baseball, tennis, etc

The game I'm talking about won't be devoid of refereeing errors, it will reduce it. If you want it to be automatic, linesman should be replaced with a computer that can detect offsides.

And even if there was a linesman, it's not that complicated. of nothing significant happens from the possibly false offside judgement then no need to review. If it goes to a throw like you said, carry on.

Let me show u what I mean. Tevez passes the ball to vuci, who is offside, but is undetected by the ref. Ball goes out for a Juve throw in. licht passes to Pirlo who gives another offside through ball to Tevez who scores and is undetected offside.

In my game with Challenges, you make one error instead of two, the error being the throw in.

In the current game, there will be two mistakes.

One mistake is better than two, would you say?

What's going on is that you're assuming that whatever replaces the current system should be full proof. That's not what I'm saying, it just has to be better. And it is.

 

[Ragazza]

At least we have a bright future

11 of Berlusconi's hookers could beat your first team.

 

[Buck Fuddy]

The game I'm talking about won't be devoid of refereeing errors, it will reduce it. If you want it to be automatic, linesman should be replaced with a computer that can detect offsides.

And even if there was a linesman, it's not that complicated. of nothing significant happens from the possibly false offside judgement then no need to review. If it goes to a throw like you said, carry on.

Let me show u what I mean. Tevez passes the ball to vuci, who is offside, but is undetected by the ref. Ball goes out for a Juve throw in. licht passes to Pirlo who gives another offside through ball to Tevez who scores and is undetected offside.

In my game with Challenges, you make one error instead of two, the error being the throw in.

In the current game, there will be two mistakes.

One mistake is better than two, would you say?

I'm either missing something here, or I'm fixated on my own line of thinking, but I honestly can not see how in your example there's only one error.


Also, by not acting immediately but only when something significant happens, another issue arises: how long is the disadvantaged allowed to go back in time?

Because you can make your example a lot more interesting:
Tevez passes the ball to vuci, who is offside, but is undetected by the ref. Ball goes out for a Juve throw in. licht passes to Pirlo who shoots, keeper saves, ball goes out of play for a corner. Weak corner (must have been short one ), ball goes out of play for a new throw in. Ball goes to Pirlo again, who still at the corner flag, tackle comes in, ball goes out for a new corner. Better one this time, Chiellini ends up heading the ball in the net. The time that has passed since the first error is now over a minute. Is the opposing team still allowed to challenge. Why or why not?
And if you want, you can make the example even more interesting. Same scenario as above, only throw in an additional referee error somewhere along the line that actually gives the opponent the advantage. & they end up scoring. Are we allowed to challenge, considering that our unjustified disadvantage started with an unjustified advantage? Or do 2 wrongs make a right?

I just don't see how not having an immediate & final solution will ever work.

1What's going on is that you're assuming that whatever replaces the current system should be full proof. That's not what I'm saying,
2 it just has to be better. And it is.

1 - I don't.
2 - I disagree. As everything that takes the flow out of the game is a negative thing for me. And your example(s) do just that. In a very big way, I might add. Unless, of course, you limit it to situations when a goal has been scored but that seems unfair.


What it comes down to, for me, is simple. From what I have been told, the technology exists to take out all clear errors out of the game. Clear meaning anything where there's no need for any interpretation: ball over the line or not, offside. You'd still have your ref & linesmen leading the game, they'd just get signals in real time for them to act on.
And if this can be implemented without changing the game, which is again what I have been told, why would we then go for a worse solution that does interfere with the game?

In the end however, the best we can hope for in the short term is goalline technology. FIFA no longer seems to be 100% against it.

 

[Lion]

anyone who is against using video replay in footballl is insane, or simply lack common decency.

with football being a multi million dollar business i am surprised it hasn't been implemented yet

 

[Red]

Anyone who disagrees with me is a cretin.

 

[Lion]

i can confirm, i am a cretin