footballitalia
Video evidence used against diving
Friday 3 October, 2003
The Italian Players’ Association has announced it will expand video evidence to catch players who are “dishonest and divers.”
“In this moment in time when football is working to recover credibility among the public,” announced AIC President Sergio Campana after recent fan violence, “it is necessary for players to show professionalism and proper conduct on the field.”
“Therefore we ask our members to avoid improper conduct and blatant dissent. We have always battled to help referees and improve the rapport between officials and players.”
The statement from the Players’ Association follows a series of unfortunate incidents over the last few weeks.
Bologna were able to score a crucial goal in their 2-0 win over Udinese after Andre Guly’s obvious handling offence went unnoticed.
Last week Inter players, including Mohamed Kallon (pictured), were seen pushing a referee in protest at what they considered to be a harsh red card for Luciano.
“We at the AIC,” added Campana, “therefore propose that the Federation introduces video evidence to sanction clear simulation and serious dishonest behaviour that has not been witnessed by the referee.”
Currently the use of video evidence in the Italian game is very limited, used only for off the ball incidents that were not seen by the official.
If the referee claims in his report to have witnessed an incident, even if he did not see the foul clearly, then video evidence cannot be used.
------------------------------------------------------------
I know I could've posted this in the Serie A thread, but I just thought we could take this opportunity to discuss video evidence in football in general.
I think the video evidence for diving thing is a good idea. This discussion extends to other aspects of football...
IMO, I think video evidence should be used in certain offside situations. Of course, it'd be stupid for the ref to blow a whistle when he suspects a player's offside, then give him the ball back when the video referee decides that it wasn't offside, because this removes the advantage from the player and interrupts the flow of play. However, I think they should just let the players continue playing until the action comes to a stop, then go to video evidence to verify the goal.
It happens here in Rugby, and the umpire doesn't break the play, but once the play is complete, he goes to video evidence if he decides that it's a dubious situation.
I also think video evidence should be used for situations such as "did the ball cross the goal-line" situations, as well as penalties, because it's way too much pressure on the referees to make the correct decision as soon as he sees an incident, especially if there was a big crowd of players and there's confusion everywhere.
What do you guys think?
Video evidence used against diving
Friday 3 October, 2003
The Italian Players’ Association has announced it will expand video evidence to catch players who are “dishonest and divers.”
“In this moment in time when football is working to recover credibility among the public,” announced AIC President Sergio Campana after recent fan violence, “it is necessary for players to show professionalism and proper conduct on the field.”
“Therefore we ask our members to avoid improper conduct and blatant dissent. We have always battled to help referees and improve the rapport between officials and players.”
The statement from the Players’ Association follows a series of unfortunate incidents over the last few weeks.
Bologna were able to score a crucial goal in their 2-0 win over Udinese after Andre Guly’s obvious handling offence went unnoticed.
Last week Inter players, including Mohamed Kallon (pictured), were seen pushing a referee in protest at what they considered to be a harsh red card for Luciano.
“We at the AIC,” added Campana, “therefore propose that the Federation introduces video evidence to sanction clear simulation and serious dishonest behaviour that has not been witnessed by the referee.”
Currently the use of video evidence in the Italian game is very limited, used only for off the ball incidents that were not seen by the official.
If the referee claims in his report to have witnessed an incident, even if he did not see the foul clearly, then video evidence cannot be used.
------------------------------------------------------------
I know I could've posted this in the Serie A thread, but I just thought we could take this opportunity to discuss video evidence in football in general.
I think the video evidence for diving thing is a good idea. This discussion extends to other aspects of football...
IMO, I think video evidence should be used in certain offside situations. Of course, it'd be stupid for the ref to blow a whistle when he suspects a player's offside, then give him the ball back when the video referee decides that it wasn't offside, because this removes the advantage from the player and interrupts the flow of play. However, I think they should just let the players continue playing until the action comes to a stop, then go to video evidence to verify the goal.
It happens here in Rugby, and the umpire doesn't break the play, but once the play is complete, he goes to video evidence if he decides that it's a dubious situation.
I also think video evidence should be used for situations such as "did the ball cross the goal-line" situations, as well as penalties, because it's way too much pressure on the referees to make the correct decision as soon as he sees an incident, especially if there was a big crowd of players and there's confusion everywhere.
What do you guys think?
Buy on AliExpress.com
