Video Evidence Used Against Diving (1 Viewer)

aressandro10 · Oct 4, 2003

i personally opossed the use of video evidence during football matches. :stuckup:

football should stick to some basic simple rules that can all be followed wherever around the planet, no matter weather it is played in a high tech stadium or a normal village field... the shouldnt be any exception when it involve the rules..

beside the game will be boring if u take away the drama...

Meow · Oct 4, 2003

But don't those rules need to be implemented in order to have a fair match?

I don't think any player or any team should be disadvantaged because some of the rules are not (or sometimes not) implemented.

gray · Oct 4, 2003

Why not use technology to make the game fairer when available. It's (kind of) like the use of superior equipment, floodlights and electronic signboards in richer countries... they're used if available, but if they're not available, the game can still be played...

Martin · Oct 4, 2003

alessandro, I disagree with your premise. Soccer played in a village is not a fast paced game with impeccable timing and close calls for the refs. I don't need replays when I play, but the professional game does IMO.

aressandro10 · Oct 4, 2003

you are making exceptions... why? football is a beaitiful sport becoz everybody can play it in the same way ...

the football we saw on tv is the same footbal that we play on our own field.. if u want to alter the rules according to the quality of the game, then not only we would have different football between countries, but also different football between divisions in the same country..

it is the standardzization that i want to stress on... its ok for FIFA to put video evidence in the football rule book but also aply it everywhere else..
no sure it would go great with everyone else.. what used to need only a ball and posts to play football, but now we also need a high tech camera and a cameraman as a asisstant referee...

i am ok about making the game fairer, but the only thing a referee can do only to be more sharp, do yoga or something, improve their positioning, their finess and all... thatsa all.. lets keep this game as human athleticsm as it could be shall we...

plus this game is highly influenced by luck.... a referee misjudgement should only be considere as a miss shot .. tough luck..hope u understand what i am saying..

Martin · Oct 4, 2003

Refs won't improve, studies have shown a referee is physically unable to make a complete precise offside call because it's just too fast. So why not help them out? As I said, when you play the game yourself, it's a lot easier to make the call, why do you need a camera? The camera is only purposeful when it's needed, otherwise there's no point in having it.

gray · Oct 4, 2003

It's not like there aren't so many cameras recording at every possible angle :rolleyes:

Yes, it's already about these things, but the video evidence comes into question when the position and fitness of the referees fail..

Oh come on, a referee misjudgment is very different from a missed shot, which is all a player's fault. I think the inconsistency in refereeing is harsh to players a lot of the time, and the more 'luck' you eliminate from the game, the fairer it becomes.

Hydde · Oct 5, 2003

It would be cool, but i think it will slw down the game,,like in american football,, whemn the ref is always waiting for the replay in the screens to judge. I can see 7+ minutes of injuery time in every half .

slack · Oct 5, 2003

I didn't express myself very well; what I meant was those 2 will cost their teams points in the way of suspensions later, not a direct docking of points. Its important that there will be an eventual retribution and not getting away scotfree.

Also, I don't see why the game shouldn't move with technology especially if its towards improvement. For example say video replays. While I agree that it should NOT interrupt the real time flow of the game, hauling someone up for a despicable act (diving, sly kick, sneaky off the ball antics) through video will be done AFTER the match. Professional football needs to clean up its act because there're few easier things to learn than bad ones. Hell, I was quite mad to see some of the younger kids here learning all those unsavoury shirt-tugging crap. Of course, this becomes a more contentious issue when it comes to offsides. My take on the matter is PLAY ON when in doubt. By the time the next stoppage arrives, the panel will have ample time to deliver the correct verdict (ie to allow the goal or not) based on the video evidence. That way, it doesn't spoil the game through unnecessary interruptions.

Overall aressandro, I see your point in being concerned about excessive interference with the game. Mistakes are part and parcel of it. However, we've got to realize the game is no longer what it was. Honesty, integrity and the ethical part of it plays 2nd fiddle to results nowadays. The pressure to deliver is immense and the tolerance level for such have all changed. Yes, you may say this is merely addressing the symptom rather than the root-cause but hey, one has to start somewhere ... agree?

aressandro10 · Oct 5, 2003

we cant help them buy using video evidence because there is no way people can provide a video equiptment for every official match that happened in this planet..

u cant definately say that referee misjudgement dont happen in non professional match.. it happens in every level of football...

video evidence will only curb the problem that involve matches that are held in stadiums only... where as games that are held in, school field for example dont... it will an inconsistency on FIFA's part if they put that in football rules book... teams that feel misjudge in a non video equipted match will go as far as taking legal action beacause that rule is stated in FIFA'S football rule book...

if we start deviding that professional football players can play like this, while other normal people have to play like that, football will not be an everybody's game anymore... untill we found a rasional solution where everyone ,everywhere can apply it, i guess we just have to cope with a normal human refereee....

gray · Oct 5, 2003

I think that what he meant was, for those who can afford it, why not help the refs out?

I disagree, I don't think people in poorer countries will be saying "Oh man, we can't play like the pros anymore... I wish we could have videos that show what really happened. The only reason that professional leagues would get this would be to increase the number of correcet decisions in any way they can. Again, I'll use the rugby example. The video ref is used in pro. matches, and it's good because the correct decision is usually made. When it comes to non-pro or school comps, nobody complains about the lack of video ref, they don't even notice the absence of it. It's simply a 'tool' used in the professional games to increase the probability of making a correct decision.

btw I guess the Bologna game puts a new twist on the whole video evidence for diving thing, eh?

Meow · Oct 5, 2003

Nuh.....If they do it on every match every team....it's fair.

At least we're not the notorious diving team.

What happened today with Bologna was sad but I'll have to watch the replay to see how intentional was that dive....:undecide:

vitoria_Ally · Oct 6, 2003

The idea is good, but I'm wondering about sth:
1. To what situations would it be used: diving, hand in penalty area, off-sides?

2. About technical aspect of this: how referee will be able to watch such video? Every time to run to the line and look at this?
It will take ages, if let's say he will be have to go to screen in every situation I mentioned about: even if only some of them will be controversial: he will spend some time of match running there, looking at this, making decision, coming back...
So how much time will he have to add to match time?

I hope it wont be like in hokey: 20 minutes of clear game is played for 50 minutes of real time

gray · Oct 6, 2003

Yes, exactly those things. Though for off-sides, the rule should be to let play continue, and then make judgments afterwards.... but the only problem is, if the team scores a goal and then the video ref decides it's offside, they'll be very :fero:

Okay, here comes the Aussie rugby example again :rolleyes:

: What happens is, they use the big screen in the stadium to show the incident, and then a screen comes out and says "TRY" or "NO TRY" (Goal or no Goal)

vitoria_Ally · Oct 6, 2003

I was thinking about that too...
But there would be such a need to install such screens on every stadium.
Or maybe they have such screens already?

Martin · Oct 6, 2003

alessandro, I've repeated my arguments and so have you, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

About interrupting the play, I like chinq's idea about applying it after the game. Have a review commision go over the video or decide, if there's any doubt they can always publish the controversial footage. Then offer sanctions/retribution based on that. If the coach and players prepare for a game knowing they could lose a win post game, based on video evidence, they might go a little lighter on the diving and shirt pulling.

aressandro10 · Oct 6, 2003

hahaha.. i was ready to say the same thing ... at least we can agree on that :thumb:

now that is totally ok with me... the video evidence dont interrup the game directly but used as a tool in admistrative work which include how much points you get in the league and the suspension stuff . in fact FIFA dont have to be involve in this as that is under the power of respective national professional league admistration...

Ivy · Oct 6, 2003

The option to be able to use video camera's to aid with decision is a good thing. It will be able to help make a game more fair.

But, the question is how to impliment it and when to use it? i feel that It's this problem with the rules that video camera's have not really come into play yet. There are just too many questions surrounding it.

When do you use it? Through out the entire game? Only after a match? In all cases? In only selected cases to be reviewed?

And then like in the zambro case. Even if you've detected the fault. What do you do? How to you impliment the correct punishment? You can't take a goal back can you? What happens if a player admits to diving before officials have a chance to review the video? will that result in him getting a lighter punishment?

So, proper rules and punishment terms as such have not even been established, how can you have proper use of the viodeo camera?

Then what/ how would you award the opposite?

Eg. .......

During the game = no dive

after video = dive

so player gets some kind of scantion/retribution....ok.....but what if

During the game = dive

after video = no dive

?

vitoria_Ally · Oct 6, 2003

++ [ originally posted by Sunshine ] ++

Then what/ how would you award the opposite?

Eg. .......

During the game = no dive

after video = dive

so player gets some kind of scantion/retribution....ok.....but what if

During the game = dive

after video = no dive

?

Great point Ivy! :thumb:
What if we had opposite situation?

Ivy · Oct 6, 2003

It's not my point Vit. It's Fliakis Point. He said something similar to this about offside/no offside somewhere in these threads.....

Video Evidence Used Against Diving (1 Viewer)

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Minimiliano Tristelli

Junior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)