Forums:
So after yesterdays match and video evidence showing we should of had a penalty and martials goal should of been disallowed because of a foul on Randolph are you for or against its use? me personally I am against it because I feel it will take something from the game by making it sterile and boring...football lives and dies on controversy the feeling of being wronged wanting to put right the decision next time you play the team it happens against..it creates debate in pubs and homes for the decisions and against them as well...this it what creates the atmosphere at grounds...it could be years before you get the chance again but its always there in your head next time next time we play this mob we will put it right and for those who the decision goes in favour of well the chance to wind up the opposition and constantly remind you about it is all part of football...video evidence may well solve this problem once and for all but to me like I said it would take something away from the game.
Decisions decisions
I'm used to idea of video evidence with cricket and rugby and don't mind it at all. I always wonder if when a ref makes a big decision someone says in his earpiece, Got that one wrong, or even Well done good decision? Video evidence should be displayed up on the big screen so cheating players along with a packed ground, can watch themselves, diving about, elbowing people etc..
Defo yes for me!
Been saying it ever since maradonnas hand of god,& thats bloody 30 years ago...like tim says they have it in rugby & cricket so why not football....
Agree Tim,not only would it
Agree Tim,not only would it eliminate bad decisions and injustices that are ruining the game of football leaving fans infuriated,but it will go a long way in cutting out cheating players .I am 100% for video technology,and I would have it employed WHENEVER AN ISSUE develops on the pitch between the two teams ,whether it be offside,handball,diving,ball crossing the goal line etc,it can only be good for the game.
Always
bring it on
Agree
sooner the better
I think we can use it but the
I think we can use it but the video ref shouldn't show it on screen. Match of the day can do that after the event.
Yes in favour
Yes in favour
Me to ,
Me to ,
YES!, proof we would be in a
YES!, proof we would be in a semi final NOW!
Resounding yes for me. Too
Resounding yes for me. Too many cheats at the big clubs and spineless referees, where would those clubs be now if the key decisions hadn't always gone their way. You have to move with the times
Not entirely. I like the idea
Not entirely. I like the idea of being able to contest 1 or 2 major decisions a game. So for example we would possibly be able to contest uniteds goal
Agree fred, two calls in each
Agree fred, two calls in each half for both teams like they do in tennis.
I think one call per game but
I think one call per game but if deemed you were right then you keep your review. I suppose the favoured clubs will still get it their way even after a video review!
Not for me
If you encourage slowing the game down even more then it will become an American sporting event, i.e. 3-4 hours of stop/start bullshit, and then they will start introducing advertising to make even more money! Money has changed the game and so have the rule changes, hand ball claims are so embarassing in the modern day game and I hate it! Players make enough mistakes on the pitch so you have to allow for officials getting some decisions wrong, it's called 'human' nature. The goal line technology is a good thing but video evidence would be an absolute nightmare and would ruin the 'beautiful' game in my opinion.
Chelsea game
How about video evidence now? We would have 2 more points. The ref today was total bollocks. PS wouldn't you just like to give that horrible twat Fabregas a dry slap
No mate
I still wouldn't want the game stopped every time. If you start using video evidence it will kill the game, regardless of what happened today as we will also have decisions go against us in this way.
I think it can be easily put
I think it can be easily put in well enough so it doesnt. What about if it was restricted to certain decisions. So video evidence is only used on major game changing decisions, like penalties, offside goals and red cards. And for it to be used similar to the goal line tech. Having multiple cameras covering the angles. Something along them lines.
Football is
Football is already been ruined by all these television rights. I think that the referees especially on important games and certain teams are put under pressure. if this technology can help you do not create other problems then ok
I wouldn't want it every
I wouldn't want it every thirty seconds but as Fred has said, just the big decisions that the ref wasn't sure of or just simply didn't see. I think the France England 6-Nations game was ruined by Nigel Owens constantly blowing his damn whistle, he was right to do so but the game was just stop/start/stop/start and I'm not saying I/we want that. Maybe it's just that we had these big decisions go against us and it really pisses me off.
2 referees
One covering each half of the pitch would take away the problem of the ref not being able to keep up with the pace of the game and making a decision on what he has seen from 20-30 yards away.
That's a good badge woolly
That's a good badge woolly where did you get that from?
Google
Search the only thing worth looking for (West Ham) and see all the images.
despite saturdays
diabolical decision i'm still against it.... you can argue we got away with not conceding a penalty earlier when it looked to me like kouyate deff handballed and ref looking straight at it said no...swings and roundabouts as they say..... I feel it will happen and personally think we will lose a little something when it does.... but in these days of big money and what it could cost because of a bad decision I don't doubt it is coming in either next season or the one after.
Not swings and roundabouts
Not swings and roundabouts though, Because Kouyate definitely did not handball it according to the laws of the game
No
To video evidence. But I'd also like to see an end to the 50 odd different camera angle replays of disputed decisions too.
No
To video evidence. But I'd also like to see an end to the 50 odd different camera angle replays of disputed decisions too.
Referees
So if the wages of referees were improved would it encourage more 'ex-players' to officiate games that have a better understanding of the play/decisions? In all standards of football I find myself thinking/commenting on the fact that the referees seem to have no idea of the actual game itself and they do not anticipate the play? I think that this would make a big difference and would improve the standard, and would cut out the need for video intervention that would ruin the flow of the game.
The referee has blown a
The referee has blown a whistle for a foul. What is 10 seconds to decide the outcome via video? Currently in that 10 seconds, players are confronting the referee, proclaiming their innocence or insisting that said offender be red carded or worse there's a free for all with handbags. IMO not only would the decision be correct in that either the penalty would/wouldn't be given, but it might also significantly reduce the amount of foul mouthed diatribe aimed at the referee.
You see it now with the goal line decision system. Players arms go up in the air, but if it's not given they cannot blame the ref or lino as technology has proved beyond doubt that the ball didn't cross the line. They get on with it.
Good post m2c!
Totally agree,if it could get rid of the petulant players surrounding the ref,that would be 1 good reason already to implicate video evidence for MAJOR decisions...
Very honest Chelsea
Ces Flabbyarse, Costa loadsa and of course Loftus-Cheat now they're all honest surely..