The mancityfans.net football forum

Jeff Stelling wrote:West Brom chairman Jeremy Peace has written to the Premier League to ask for video technology to be used for reviewing penalty decisions.

He says they've been happy enough to install goal-line technology at huge costs which will rarely be used, whereas the use of technology on penalty or non-penalty decisions would be far more beneficial to the game and I think he's got a point.

I've always thought the money spent on goal-line technology was a complete waste and so far this season it's proved to be precisely that.

I know people will fling their hands up in the air and say 'using technology to decide penalties?' To a degree they're right because if the game was being stopped constantly every time there's a brush in the penalty area and then being referred to a video referee, it would not be acceptable.

But I do think there's a lot of mileage in the idea. You might give each side two appeals in the course of the 90 minutes and it's up to them when they use them for instances within the penalty area - so if you thought you should have had a penalty and it hasn't been given you can appeal and refer it to the video referee; and if you've had a penalty given against you which shouldn't have been given, you can refer it to the video referee, but you only get two goes in the entire game.

The purists will argue that it undermines the referee's authority; but they do it in tennis and it doesn't undermine the umpire's authority there. They have the video referee in rugby league for tries and it doesn't undermine them.

I think referees would welcome the assistance and it would add a dramatic element. In cricket or rugby league when a decision is referred to the third umpire and you're waiting for the verdict to come up on the scoreboard it adds to the drama.

Points

I'm not sure Jeremy Peace is right when he says that there have been four occasions this season when penalties have been given against his side that weren't penalties. I think he's got a case for two of those, not four, but it is worth a significant amount of points to them.

With this system we probably wouldn't see a penalty given like we did last week in the last minute of the Swansea v Stoke game, when the Welsh side were winning 3-2 and Robert Madley gave an absolutely ludicrous penalty against them.

It would be interesting with this system how it would work, because Swansea may have used their two appeals before that last minute of the game. It would certainly give the manager something extra to think about.

In this day and age it is so hard to get decisions right for referees especially because the game is played at such a phenomenal pace and players go down at the brush of an arm.

Referees have assistants but they can't always see the incident and the additional referees in Europe don't work because they never move or give decisions.

It would be an interesting way forward if it could be experimented with in some way, maybe not in the Premier League immediately but perhaps in the Capital One Cup to see how effective it is.

I think it would be a far more beneficial use of technology and finance than goal-line technology is and at the end of the day the principal thing is to get decisions right and if it helps that then it would have to be a good thing.

So I'm backing the Baggies.

Hutch's Shoulder wrote:I don't want it either; the speed if the game is what first drew me to it (that and sky blue shirts). Also the years of festering resentment against unjust decisions is character building.

budfox wrote:Works in rugby because the game is very stop/start. Same with cricket and tennis. Footy, well the game flows freely, so how would that be dealt with? Blow a whistle for every appeal and then a drop ball if no pen?

What about reviewing at the next break in play? Great until the other team score, or someone picks up a red/yellow.

Personally I think that goal-line technology is far enough, because the ref knows instantly. Anything else would be ruin the world game.

sweenyuk wrote:I was always very much against technology but tennis has proved humans get decisions wrong and we can see an increase in errors with poor decisions. Why can't the video ref send a signal to the main ref after review if a decision is wrong.

Wonderwall wrote:I think its very much a myth that football flows freely:-
free kicks
Goal kicks
Corner kicks
penalty kicks
throw ins
Injury stoppages
substitutions
goals and celebrations

the ball is only in play on average for 63 mins per game! I dont think technology will hinder the free flowing game too much. Especially if we bring a rule in that the clock stops, it would add to the experience IF done correctly.

Bridge'srightfoot wrote:

sweenyuk wrote:I was always very much against technology but tennis has proved humans get decisions wrong and we can see an increase in errors with poor decisions. Why can't the video ref send a signal to the main ref after review if a decision is wrong.

The difference is a decision in tennis is an absolute. The ball either hit the line or it didn't. There's no grey area. Same with goal line technology, the ball either crossed the line or it didn't.

But penalties are different, there are of course some stonewallers but also a hell of a lot which some would give, some wouldn't.
A replay may not always clear things up.
But once we allow replays, where do we draw the line? Replays for freekick decisions, corner kicks, throw ins? yellow cards?

It will create more problems than it solves imo.

Ted Hughes wrote:Slomo is not an effective method of adjudicating penality decisions, as most people (including ex footballers & refs) are incapable of judging how much an impact matters or doesn't matter when viewed in slomo.

A constant which comes up in Ashley Young type situations is the 'expert' saying 'no never a pen, no chance' as you clearly see a defender trying to avoid contact by pulling his foot away after a genuine attempt to play the ball & a huge exaggerated jump by the forward, then we see the slomo: 'oh now I've seen that, yes, there is contact, the ref was right to give a pen there, well done '

No he isn't right. It was a dive, as you saw in real time. The slomo has just given a bad dive credence by showing 'contact'.

It will never work & just lead to more resentment from people like us, as the rag/scouse machine sitting watching a tv screen gives them even more favourable decisions than the refs have been doing.

Wonderwall wrote:

Bridge'srightfoot wrote:

sweenyuk wrote:I was always very much against technology but tennis has proved humans get decisions wrong and we can see an increase in errors with poor decisions. Why can't the video ref send a signal to the main ref after review if a decision is wrong.

The difference is a decision in tennis is an absolute. The ball either hit the line or it didn't. There's no grey area. Same with goal line technology, the ball either crossed the line or it didn't.

But penalties are different, there are of course some stonewallers but also a hell of a lot which some would give, some wouldn't.
A replay may not always clear things up.
But once we allow replays, where do we draw the line? Replays for freekick decisions, corner kicks, throw ins? yellow cards?

It will create more problems than it solves imo.

the whole point of the review system in Cricket and Tennis is, it is restricted to a set amount, if you mess up, then its tough, you need to be sure to request a review and if you lose your review, then its your own fault. I can see many options and it may take a wile to get the right mix, but I think its certainly worth exploring..... especially to eradicate the penalty box divers!

Bridge'srightfoot wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:

Bridge'srightfoot wrote:

sweenyuk wrote:I was always very much against technology but tennis has proved humans get decisions wrong and we can see an increase in errors with poor decisions. Why can't the video ref send a signal to the main ref after review if a decision is wrong.

The difference is a decision in tennis is an absolute. The ball either hit the line or it didn't. There's no grey area. Same with goal line technology, the ball either crossed the line or it didn't.

But penalties are different, there are of course some stonewallers but also a hell of a lot which some would give, some wouldn't.
A replay may not always clear things up.
But once we allow replays, where do we draw the line? Replays for freekick decisions, corner kicks, throw ins? yellow cards?

It will create more problems than it solves imo.

the whole point of the review system in Cricket and Tennis is, it is restricted to a set amount, if you mess up, then its tough, you need to be sure to request a review and if you lose your review, then its your own fault. I can see many options and it may take a wile to get the right mix, but I think its certainly worth exploring..... especially to eradicate the penalty box divers!

I see what you're saying but again in cricket, like tennis a decision is absolute. It was going to hit the wicket or it didn't. It did touch the ground before the fielder caught it or it didn't. There's no middle ground.

As Ted mentioned, with penalties it may not clear things up. I mean today we could still debate penalty decisions from years ago, there's a whole lot more subjectivity involved.
The best way to eradicate divers would be tough retrospective bans imo.
But how would the replay system work? Would they have to stop play immediately if the penalty wasn't given? I think it will break up the game more than necessary.