Terrible refereeing ruining football - the saga continues.

[PlasticRoyale]

When you can sit in a stand and watch the replay on your phone it may be a good idea to make use of technology. I'd rather we didn't use the tech but if fans can be better informed than the ref at the live game, how can you respect the officials when you know they're making mistakes

[Gordons Cumming]

From Wikipedia:-


"In the early 1970s, Blatter was elected president of the World Society of Friends of Suspenders, an organisation who tried to stop women replacing suspender belts with pantyhose."


HTH

[Dirk Gently]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

[Royal Lady]

Their cheating goalie knew it was over the line. I couldn't believe how he just carried on as though he'd caught it before it went over the line.

[6ft Kerplunk]

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

You play on until the ball is next out of play. By that point the 5th official has probably had time to see the footage anyway. Or if teh 5th official has had a chance to see the footage before the ball is out of play he lets the ref know it was a goal.

[Hoop Blah]

Dirk's covered my view perfectly there.

If you open up video reviews of incidents (even having a set number per half as suggested by Linaker) it will be at the detriment of the game and we'll soon see plenty of incidents where the reviewer gets it 'wrong' in someone elses eyes and the whole thing will come tumbling down.

Instant in/out of play technology would be acceptable (and could potentially be developed into an offside assisting device in the future) but that's about as far as it should be encouraged or allowed to go.

[paultheroyal]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

TV replays are a must for tournament football - goal line decisions only. Any issue with ball over the line - whistle is immediately blown - this then answers Dirks point and prevents further controvesy. Replay is looked at, decision is made - either a goal is awarded, or a goal kick to the defending team - job done.

[Hoop Blah]

Who decides if it's questionable in/out decision?

Why limit it to in/out decisions when there are plenty more than cause more areas for error?

Why use replays when the technology is there for a hawkeye style buzz to notify the ref that the ball is in/out?

[Flyingkiwi]

Their cheating goalie knew it was over the line. I couldn't believe how he just carried on as though he'd caught it before it went over the line.

I doubt very much the Germany goalie would have known that the ball crossed the line. It happened behind him and, by the time he got to his feet, it was no longer behind the line. He just played to the whistle.

From Wikipedia:-


"In the early 1970s, Blatter was elected president of the World Society of Friends of Suspenders, an organisation who tried to stop women replacing suspender belts with pantyhose."


HTH

I have new respect for the man!

[Dirk Gently]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

TV replays are a must for tournament football - goal line decisions only. Any issue with ball over the line - whistle is immediately blown - this then answers Dirks point and prevents further controvesy. Replay is looked at, decision is made - either a goal is awarded, or a goal kick to the defending team - job done.

So by stopping play you've denied Germany the chance to attack on the break. Football isn't a series of individual plays like tennis or cricket, it's a continuously evolving narrative. You can't just stop it at will - and if you did, who decides when you stop it? If you let a team appeal or challenge, that'll just be used by some as a means to stop an attack against them.

[brendywendy]

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

You play on until the ball is next out of play. By that point the 5th official has probably had time to see the footage anyway. Or if teh 5th official has had a chance to see the footage before the ball is out of play he lets the ref know it was a goal.

what if the other team go up the other end and score before the ball goes dead?what if the same team score again?

[royal tee]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

TV replays are a must for tournament football - goal line decisions only. Any issue with ball over the line - whistle is immediately blown - this then answers Dirks point and prevents further controvesy. Replay is looked at, decision is made - either a goal is awarded, or a goal kick to the defending team - job done.

So by stopping play you've denied Germany the chance to attack on the break. Football isn't a series of individual plays like tennis or cricket, it's a continuously evolving narrative. You can't just stop it at will - and if you did, who decides when you stop it? If you let a team appeal or challenge, that'll just be used by some as a means to stop an attack against them.

How about allowing appeals by any player on the pitch to a video replay but if the appeal is rejected play is restarted with a penalty to the opposition - would ensure that only true appeals would be made

[Messiah]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

If we're talking goal line technology then it wouldn't be used that often. These 'no goals' don't happen often, so you stop play immediatley and less than 30 seconds later a decision is clarified and play can resume.

If it happened every game then I'd agree with your point about it stopping an apposition breakaway.

[6ft Kerplunk]

You play on until the ball is next out of play. By that point the 5th official has probably had time to see the footage anyway. Or if teh 5th official has had a chance to see the footage before the ball is out of play he lets the ref know it was a goal.

what if the other team go up the other end and score before the ball goes dead?what if the same team score again?

If the other team score then obviously their goal doesn't count as its pulled back to when the first goal is scored and play is restarted in the normal way. Anything after the origianl goal is null and void. If the same team score again then, the ref and assistants congratulate themselves on playing a wonderful advantage , or rather the same applies. Give the first goal.

So long as these rules were kept simple enough for an ITV/Sky commentator and pundit to understand it'll work. Oh. Seriously though so long as the players know the original goal will stand and anything after that is null and void there's no problem with contraversial incidents like the defending team sprinting up the pitch and scoring a goal. If the original 'goal' is given then anything after it is null and void. If the original 'goal' isn't given then the defending teams goal is.

[paultheroyal]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

TV replays are a must for tournament football - goal line decisions only. Any issue with ball over the line - whistle is immediately blown - this then answers Dirks point and prevents further controvesy. Replay is looked at, decision is made - either a goal is awarded, or a goal kick to the defending team - job done.

So by stopping play you've denied Germany the chance to attack on the break. Football isn't a series of individual plays like tennis or cricket, it's a continuously evolving narrative. You can't just stop it at will - and if you did, who decides when you stop it? If you let a team appeal or challenge, that'll just be used by some as a means to stop an attack against them.

But you can say that about any incident in a game of footbal i.e. whether to play advantage, pull it back etc.

Football is not a series of individual plays but with regard to goal line incidents then perhaps it should be. Goal yes or no. Play stops within 2 seconds of incident - incident gets review by 4th Official / Referee similar to NFL, game starts with a goal and centre circle or goal kick. Its not difficult surely.

[handbags_harris]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

If we're talking goal line technology then it wouldn't be used that often. These 'no goals' don't happen often, so you stop play immediatley and less than 30 seconds later a decision is clarified and play can resume.

If it happened every game then I'd agree with your point about it stopping an apposition breakaway.

So how do you resume play? Stopping play immediately once a ball has gone near the goal and been reintroduced back into play is unfair on both teams. Depending on who resumes possession of the ball the defending team may get the ball and attack, secondly the attacking team may continue the attack. Stopping play and then restarting it, well how do you restart it?

I am 100% with Dirk here, anything that gives an almost instantaneous response to the referee with regards to ball over the line or not, absolute yes. Allied to the sentence above, introducing new stoppages to the game even if the ball hasn't actually gone dead would introduce a big level of unfairness to the game that wouldn't be met favourably by me. Stoppages in play in football occur because of acts of certainty (in the opinion of the referee), not possibility.

[Gordons Cumming]

I'm against the use of technology because if it had been in use for a few years we'd have lost to Watford 1-2.

[SLAMMED]

I'm against the use of technology because if it had been in use for a few years we'd have lost to Watford 1-2.

Our goal inspired them tbf. Probably could have won it if the goal hadn't been awarded.

[Super_horns]

FIFA said it would be too expensive to introuduce..

So what exactly do they do with the millions made from the game each year!?

Mind you it doesn't excuse our woeful performance generally.

[SLAMMED]

Most of the cameras are already at the game