Technology For Penalty Decisions?

[budfox]

So Young falls over, might be a pen, might not.

Do we stop play for a review, or review it at the next natural stoppage? Neither works in my opinion.

In the first instance how do we restart? Drop ball in the box when the decision was 'no' thereby giving the attacking team an advantage if it had been cleared during normal play? Halfway line? What about if the attacking team still had great possession?

In the other instance, the next stoppage might be for a goal scored at the other end. Does that goal not stand? What about if a player from the team claiming a penalty collects a red card as the next natural stoppage? Would that be overruled?

I'm not opponent of technology, but I just can't see how it would work for penalty appeals.

[nottsblue]

Very naive i'm sure but maybe if refs were actually accountable we might see decision making improve. Riley in his letter to WBA has virtually admitted the ref fucked up. If said ref had to face media after game like managers they might think twice. Never likely to happen i know but it would be nice to see. Could you imagine Geoff Shreeves to Howard Webb after the award of a pen after a Young dive. Could be rather funny. "So Howard, got conned again i see. Would you have really given that the other way. Thought not"

[Dubaimancityfan]

I'm all for it, to at least review penalty/yellow card decisions (helps the ref decide which decision to take). I feel that some yellow cards are given to hastily in such situations.
It can also help on offside decisions, like the perfectly good goal Negredo scored recently and was ruled offside and the clear offside goal that Benzema scored last night ! The stakes could not been any higher than a World Cup spot decided by an offside goal (it's still not as bad as how France qualified for the last WC).
As mentioned by others, it has worked perfectly in other sports and as also said, I don't think it will disrupt the flow of the game that much.

[Sideshow Bob]

I'm all for it, to at least review penalty/yellow card decisions (helps the ref decide which decision to take). I feel that some yellow cards are given to hastily in such situations.
It can also help on offside decisions, like the perfectly good goal Negredo scored recently and was ruled offside and the clear offside goal that Benzema scored last night ! The stakes could not been any higher than a World Cup spot decided by an offside goal (it's still not as bad as how France qualified for the last WC).
As mentioned by others, it has worked perfectly in other sports and as also said, I don't think it will disrupt the flow of the game that much.

benzema had a good goal taken away by a bad offside call...so it evened out. france absolutely battered them in the 2nd leg and deserved to go through.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

So Young falls over, might be a pen, might not.

Do we stop play for a review, or review it at the next natural stoppage? Neither works in my opinion.

In the first instance how do we restart? Drop ball in the box when the decision was 'no' thereby giving the attacking team an advantage if it had been cleared during normal play? Halfway line? What about if the attacking team still had great possession?

In the other instance, the next stoppage might be for a goal scored at the other end. Does that goal not stand? What about if a player from the team claiming a penalty collects a red card as the next natural stoppage? Would that be overruled?

I'm not opponent of technology, but I just can't see how it would work for penalty appeals.

Agree with that. Just can't see it working tbh.
And a ref could look at a decision 100 times and still be no clearer.

[Blue in the face]

I'm all for the technology. If a dive or foul cant be clearly proven then the refs decision would stand.

On the point of retrospective punishment for diving then in my opinion the offending divers club should be punished by a points deduction. Nothing less.

What's the point of a ban for a cheat if his team still gains from his actions? Just say Young played in the home match against utd in the year we won the premiership. He dives in our box and they score from the resulting penalty. We would have lost two points and as a result wouldn't have won the league.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

I'm all for the technology. If a dive or foul cant be clearly proven then the refs decision would stand.

On the point of retrospective punishment for diving then in my opinion the offending divers club should be punished by a points deduction. Nothing less.

What's the point of a ban for a cheat if his team still gains from his actions? Just say Young played in the home match against utd in the year we won the premiership. He dives in our box and they score from the resulting penalty. We would have lost two points and as a result wouldn't have won the league.

Too far imo. What if the penalty is missed and they lose the match anyway? It seems people only really care about diving in the box but it happens all over the pitch. Micah for example is one of the worst for this. We'd be fucked. Gives Young a run for his money with some of his dives. What if a player dives and no penalty is given?
Also what about defenders who dive when defending to try and win a free kick?
What about players who go down easy when there is a bit of contact?
One of our it's a very grey area and deducting points again would cause more problems then it would solve imo.

[MilnersJaw]

The game desperately needs it, it is becoming embarrassing now. Every week there are decisions in one or two games that's a joke and that is just our league

[Blue in the face]

I'm all for the technology. If a dive or foul cant be clearly proven then the refs decision would stand.

On the point of retrospective punishment for diving then in my opinion the offending divers club should be punished by a points deduction. Nothing less.

What's the point of a ban for a cheat if his team still gains from his actions? Just say Young played in the home match against utd in the year we won the premiership. He dives in our box and they score from the resulting penalty. We would have lost two points and as a result wouldn't have won the league.

Too far imo. What if the penalty is missed and they lose the match anyway? It seems people only really care about diving in the box but it happens all over the pitch. Micah for example is one of the worst for this. We'd be fucked. Gives Young a run for his money with some of his dives. What if a player dives and no penalty is given?
Also what about defenders who dive when defending to try and win a free kick?
What about players who go down easy when there is a bit of contact?
One of our it's a very grey area and deducting points again would cause more problems then it would solve imo.

Obviously my whole post covered diving in the box. That's where there's a resulting penalty, of which a very high percentage is scored, and has the most impact on a result and ultimately league positions. It can even be a game changer, by either giving the scoring team increased impetus or vice versa for the scored against team. It shouldn't matter if the penalty isn't scored. If we want to irradicate diving from the game altogether then we need to impliment drastic/extreme punishments. If there was a points deduction, teams would make sure players didn't do it. Maybe even make it a sackable offence. That covers any area of the pitch.

Some day we'll have the time wasting discussion. Another of my pet hates.

[Wonderwall]

Agree with that. Just can't see it working tbh.
And a ref could look at a decision 100 times and still be no clearer.

If a decision is that difficult to call after seeing it 100 times then the original call stands.

You are really not getting the concept of how it will assist the game. I really dont understand the negativity when the advances made in cricket, rugby and tennis are there for all to see.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

Agree with that. Just can't see it working tbh.
And a ref could look at a decision 100 times and still be no clearer.

If a decision is that difficult to call after seeing it 100 times then the original call stands.

You are really not getting the concept of how it will assist the game. I really dont understand the negativity when the advances made in cricket, rugby and tennis are there for all to see.

I agree that it's something which sounds like a good idea but It would have to be incorporated in the correct way imo.
But as someone else said,how do we decide when the appeal is made? There and then or after the next stoppage in play? But what if the next stoppage in play is a goal to the other team? But also where would it stop? As soon as you introduce replays for penalties, then the next time an incorrect free kick is given which results in a goal people will be asking for replays to extend to free kicks and then to corners and then to throw ins...

Then we may aswell just not have a referee and create a robot to referee or go one step further and play fifa 14 instead as Look Mum suggested.

I do also think people enjoy the fact that football is MORE free flowing than other sports which use video replay. Sure it has its stoppages, but the more free flowing the better imo.

If they can find a way of regulating it and implementing it then i'd consider, but imo there just appears to be too many holes in the proposal. For the time being at least.

[Ted Hughes]

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.

totally disagree Ted, the way things work now are unacceptable, we are crying out for consistency. Technology can give it. There is no rule in the game that said there is not allowed to be contact, the interpretation needs to be clear for ALL and followed through with consistency, this way everyone gets a clear message and we are all on an even playing field. Maybe where a penalty is not awarded following a review, it should follow up with a yellow card if the review has shown the player to be simulating.

I am all for it and it is only a matter of time before something comes along, the money in the game is getting too big to be done in by a cheat.

There is no rule which says there can't be contact, but listen to Mark Halsey etc & they say "there was definitely contact, it's a penalty" even if the bloke is barely touched.

The so called 'contact' always looks worse in slomo, because you don't get the full stupidity & obviousness of the dive at that speed.

People were saying Ashley Young didn't dive v Sociedad, because the geezer touched his arm. They saw that on the slomo replay.

'When you see it again.....etc etc"

More pens will be given to cheats if replays are introduced; cheating will become legitimate.

Replays should only be used to show up divers, & the panel which judges that should come from outside the football industry, as that industry is full of cheats, ex cheats & people who are mates of cheats or employed by them.

[Wonderwall]

There is no rule which says there can't be contact, but listen to Mark Halsey etc & they say "there was definitely contact, it's a penalty" even if the bloke is barely touched.

The so called 'contact' always looks worse in slomo, because you don't get the full stupidity & obviousness of the dive at that speed.

People were saying Ashley Young didn't dive v Sociedad, because the geezer touched his arm. They saw that on the slomo replay.

'When you see it again.....etc etc"

More pens will be given to cheats if replays are introduced; cheating will become legitimate.

Replays should only be used to show up divers, & the panel which judges that should come from outside the football industry, as that industry is full of cheats, ex cheats & people who are mates of cheats or employed by them.

As is the case with most things in football, its the archaic wording of the laws that nees updating to support the new age. If the law said "did the contact impede the player in possession enough for the player to be unable to remain on his feet" Ashely young would not get a penalty.

You are looking with glass half empty ted, this could help clean the up game. Ex pros on the replay button with common sense and sanctions against players appealing for cleaely preposterous decisions will soon stop the cheats.

[Nickyboy]

Plenty saying we should introduce tougher penalties for diving - but even when videos are reviewed after the game many disagree whether it's a dive or not.

Surely in this day and age we have advance science and technology to use sweetspot type cameras - coupled with maths / physics relating to the speed being travelled to prove whether the amount of contact made is enough to send a player down - that would then prove without doubt that it was a dive - if players were getting named and shamed on a weekly basis their first instinct would be to try to stay on their feet rather than hit the deck with the slightest contact.

I want the best most modern technology available to be used - the game is too fast for modern referees, they're just not up to the job.

[Wonderwall]

I agree that it's something which sounds like a good idea but It would have to be incorporated in the correct way imo.
But as someone else said,how do we decide when the appeal is made? There and then or after the next stoppage in play? But what if the next stoppage in play is a goal to the other team? But also where would it stop? As soon as you introduce replays for penalties, then the next time an incorrect free kick is given which results in a goal people will be asking for replays to extend to free kicks and then to corners and then to throw ins...

We have to be sensible here, we review important decisions only, just like the other sports, cricket uses technology to review wickets and boundaries. essential part of the game and scoring. They dont review if there was an extra man inside the circle or piddly little things.

Rugby review try scoring, again of paramount importance. They dont review knock ons or scrums etc

Then we may aswell just not have a referee and create a robot to referee or go one step further and play fifa 14 instead as Look Mum suggested.

Now thats just silly! Unless its robocop and he has free reign to shoot anything in RED

I do also think people enjoy the fact that football is MORE free flowing than other sports which use video replay. Sure it has its stoppages, but the more free flowing the better imo.

I have already stated it is far from free flowing, in fact I think the technology will stop the cheats and educate them that they will be caught and PUNISHED immediately. This will eventually stop the antics and create a far better more free flowing game for us all to enjoy. We need to embrace the future and use it to our advantage to create a better experience for all fans. Lets move out of the dark ages.

If they can find a way of regulating it and implementing it then i'd consider, but imo there just appears to be too many holes in the proposal. For the time being at least.

It only takes some knowledgeable ex pros with common sense (Gary Neville is one I would suggest) to get some criteria together for review and have a trial, I think the successes will come with time. We cannot expect it to be instantly 100% perfect, we want evolution not revolution.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

Wonderwal. You make a lot of good points.
However for me there would need to be a lot of issues sorted out first.

1.) It would need to be strongly regulated, otherwise every time Rags were losing a game, there would be about 15 'replays' needed in the last ten minutes of a game, making the game last hours.

2.) A big issue here is how much discretion would the ref have? Should calling a replay be the last resort or used for every penalty decision? What if the ref is 80% sure? What if the ref calls it himself and gets it wrong? It would seem silly to refer every decision to a replay when there's some bleeding obvious ones.

3.) How would the challenge system work? Would they be allowed to appeal then and there? if they were teams may unsportingly use this to stop other teams quickly breaking. Or would it be the next stoppage of play? But as someone else said earlier, what if the next stoppage in play is a goal to the other team? Would that be disallowed?

4.) The subjectivity of penalties. Plenty of penalties could go either way, a replay many times doesn't clear anything up and the decision may not be any better then the one the referee would have given.

I feel one day it will happen. But all 4 of these issues imo need to be sorted first.

[Wonderwall]

Wonderwal. You make a lot of good points.
However for me there would need to be a lot of issues sorted out first.

1.) It would need to be strongly regulated, otherwise every time Rags were losing a game, there would be about 15 'replays' needed in the last ten minutes of a game, making the game last hours.

Absolutely, if its part of the game then there needs to be clearly defined criteria. It must be agreed by all and very clear.

2.) A big issue here is how much discretion would the ref have? Should calling a replay be the last resort or used for every penalty decision? What if the ref is 80% sure? What if the ref calls it himself and gets it wrong? It would seem silly to refer every decision to a replay when there's some bleeding obvious ones.

This is where I see that we can sort our differences out with what I was suggesting.
Each team has two technical referrals.
Each game is refereed as it is now with no alterations.
If a penalty decision is made by the referee and nobody objects then its a pen and no problem, however, if the opposing team CAPTAIN (as in cricket) decides that his player was innocent, he can refer to the 5th official for a view.
Each captain has two referrals, if they are successful they will keep the their referral option. If they are adjudged to be incorrect and it was a pen, they lose one and have one remaining.

3.) How would the challenge system work? Would they be allowed to appeal then and there? if they were teams may unsportingly use this to stop other teams quickly breaking. Or would it be the next stoppage of play? But as someone else said earlier, what if the next stoppage in play is a goal to the other team? Would that be disallowed?

If a team feels aggrieved for an in play incident, e.g. Handball on the line to save a shot that is not seen by the referee, they can raise a challenge, by informing one of the officials (referee, assistant refs, or 4th official), or maybe a signal is made and when the current passage of play is complete, there is a review. If a review shows the side requesting the review to be correct, then the play starts from where the incident being reviewed took place. If a goal is scored during that passage of play for the opposition side, then it is disallowed and play restarts at the original scoreline. if the reviewing team regain possession and score during the passage of play prior to the review then advantage is played and the goal stands.

4.) The subjectivity of penalties. Plenty of penalties could go either way, a replay many times doesn't clear anything up and the decision may not be any better then the one the referee would have given.

When there is no clear decision, referees decision is final.

is that any better?