Should instant replay exist in football?

Only way I can see possible is if it's done the same way that accidentally happened in 2010 World Cup with Argentina and Mexico.

Yes, but limited. The team captain can appeal about 3 or so times.

what dinosaur voted no?

absolutely not.

to everyone who is claiming that the process would only take 20-30 seconds, youre KIDDING yourselves. if there was video replay then refs would be 110% damn sure they got the call right, and would view the play from every possible angle at least once, probably more than that on important angles. refs would absolutely take their time to make sure they got the decisions right--imagine the fall out if they made a decision in 30 seconds and later discovered they were wrong! And the more that i think about it, the more i am convinced that instant replay for penalties especially would be useless. penalty calls are objective by nature, we on the forum can argue for 20 pages back and forth if something is or is not a penalty. this isn't the nfl where you're looking for something as clear cut as if the players foot was in bounds or not.

anyway, im opposed to this because i like the human element of the game. some calls go your way, others dont, but that's life.

edit: the one way that video replay should be used more often is to throw down bans/fines for diving AFTER the game has concluded. this i would support 100%.

Gomez83 wrote:Only way I can see possible is if it's done the same way that accidentally happened in 2010 World Cup with Argentina and Mexico.

exactly

everest1 wrote:absolutely not.

to everyone who is claiming that the process would only take 20-30 seconds, youre KIDDING yourselves. if there was video replay then refs would be 110% damn sure they got the call right, and would view the play from every possible angle at least once, probably more than that on important angles. refs would absolutely take their time to make sure they got the decisions right--imagine the fall out if they made a decision in 30 seconds and later discovered they were wrong! And the more that i think about it, the more i am convinced that instant replay for penalties especially would be useless. penalty calls are objective by nature, we on the forum can argue for 20 pages back and forth if something is or is not a penalty. this isn't the nfl where you're looking for something as clear cut as if the players foot was in bounds or not.

anyway, im opposed to this because i like the human element of the game. some calls go your way, others dont, but that's life.

edit: the one way that video replay should be used more often is to throw down bans/fines for diving AFTER the game has concluded. this i would support 100%.

So you don't think there will be an argument on whether or not someone dived?

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:

everest1 wrote:absolutely not.

to everyone who is claiming that the process would only take 20-30 seconds, youre KIDDING yourselves. if there was video replay then refs would be 110% damn sure they got the call right, and would view the play from every possible angle at least once, probably more than that on important angles. refs would absolutely take their time to make sure they got the decisions right--imagine the fall out if they made a decision in 30 seconds and later discovered they were wrong! And the more that i think about it, the more i am convinced that instant replay for penalties especially would be useless. penalty calls are objective by nature, we on the forum can argue for 20 pages back and forth if something is or is not a penalty. this isn't the nfl where you're looking for something as clear cut as if the players foot was in bounds or not.

anyway, im opposed to this because i like the human element of the game. some calls go your way, others dont, but that's life.

edit: the one way that video replay should be used more often is to throw down bans/fines for diving AFTER the game has concluded. this i would support 100%.

So you don't think there will be an argument on whether or not someone dived?

there may well be, but that isn't a decision that will have to be made in a 20 second-3 minute timeframe. and anyway it could only ever apply to very obvious dives. imo that would be enough to cut down on diving though.

What's wrong with a challenge system if the captain thinks there was no contact at all for the penalty? If there was obviously no contact, it'd be pretty easy to tell if the guy dived or not.

everest1 wrote:absolutely not.

to everyone who is claiming that the process would only take 20-30 seconds, youre KIDDING yourselves. if there was video replay then refs would be 110% damn sure they got the call right, and would view the play from every possible angle at least once, probably more than that on important angles. refs would absolutely take their time to make sure they got the decisions right--imagine the fall out if they made a decision in 30 seconds and later discovered they were wrong! And the more that i think about it, the more i am convinced that instant replay for penalties especially would be useless. penalty calls are objective by nature, we on the forum can argue for 20 pages back and forth if something is or is not a penalty. this isn't the nfl where you're looking for something as clear cut as if the players foot was in bounds or not.

anyway, im opposed to this because i like the human element of the game. some calls go your way, others dont, but that's life.

edit: the one way that video replay should be used more often is to throw down bans/fines for diving AFTER the game has concluded. this i would support 100%.

Honestly dude, what retard would it take longer then 20-30 seconds to decide if it's offside or not? Not only that, I'm sure they can make a computer program that would take the video and decide in a split second like the tennis technology.

If it's too close to call just go with the call on the field.

There is no excuse to get offsides wrong anymore, it's just too important and easy to fix.

It's usually totally obvious after watching one 2 second video clip and if not the can give a still shot that is conclusive right afterwards.

I mean I just don't get how people think this isn't possible. We sent a man on the moon like 50 years ago, I think we can get rid of offsides in football.

No "human side"of football is worth the injustice brought forth by wrongly called (or not called) goals, penalties and cards. I'll happily trade some "excitement" for fairness.

It would not take like 5 seconds. LOL just saying. I do agree something like offsides would not take long but most fouls aren't as clear cut as offsides.

Who's to say this guy up watching TV is a fair judge of what happened? It's just as easy for him to make a wrong call too. This also takes away the power of the center ref.

There is a reason there are big debates on this forum after a foul happens and no one can reach a conclusion, cause most controversial fouls are like beauty- in the eye of the beholder. Different refs have different conclusions, even the ones watching TV. And video replays can be deceiving too, you really need to take a while to make an accurate call, unless it's a blatantly obvious one the ref missed, but most of the time they don't miss those.

Goal line's alright, everything else is stretching it.

Penalties and Red Cards.

Challenge system.

No challenge for a penalty only challenge against one you felt was wrongly given, same with red cards.

CBarca wrote:It would not take like 5 seconds. LOL just saying. I do agree something like offsides would not take long but most fouls aren't as clear cut as offsides.

Who's to say this guy up watching TV is a fair judge of what happened? It's just as easy for him to make a wrong call too. This also takes away the power of the center ref.

There is a reason there are big debates on this forum after a foul happens and no one can reach a conclusion, cause most controversial fouls are like beauty- in the eye of the beholder. Different refs have different conclusions, even the ones watching TV. And video replays can be deceiving too, you really need to take a while to make an accurate call, unless it's a blatantly obvious one the ref missed, but most of the time they don't miss those.

Goal line's alright, everything else is stretching it.

Offsides is not stretching it. Your either on or off, you really can't have a judge sit in a booth and be prejudice about it it's one or the other. If he dared say a guy who was onside was offside with all the evidence staring him in the face he would be crucified by the media and his professional career would be over. To say the guy in the booth maybe biased and that's why you shouldn't do it is just a really bad reason not to and sorry to say a real stretch.

IF you watch Tennis you will know what I'm talking about they have a computer program that marks balls in or out. They could do the same for offsides and in Tennis they get it right every time now and don't give a flying f*** what the head judge thinks because overtime we have seen the errors humans make and if it's fixable there's no reason not to do it.

The center ref usually has one of the worst views out of anyone and doesn't have anything to do with offsides calls. To have one ref running in one of the biggest sporting fields is mildly insane. In basketball on a court 1/10 of the size there are a couple refs running with the games, the same goes for American football and other sports and they still get tons of calls wrong.

Like I said before judgement calls like if it's ball to hand or hand to ball technology shouldn't be used or fouls and stuff like that.

But there is totally no excuse for offsides. And you can ask any ref and they will tell you it is the hardest call for a human to make. Again, there is no reason to have this as it's crucial in big games. And yes, it would take about 20-30 seconds at most.

The only way I can see video replay working in football is in a situation where it's only used in times when play has already been stopped, and even then there are issues (such as when the ball crosses the goal line but the referee doesn't see it and play goes on). I am steadfastly against the idea of giving managers the chance to "challenge" referee calls, even in limited numbers per half/game.

dnmac4 wrote:

everest1 wrote:absolutely not.

to everyone who is claiming that the process would only take 20-30 seconds, youre KIDDING yourselves. if there was video replay then refs would be 110% damn sure they got the call right, and would view the play from every possible angle at least once, probably more than that on important angles. refs would absolutely take their time to make sure they got the decisions right--imagine the fall out if they made a decision in 30 seconds and later discovered they were wrong! And the more that i think about it, the more i am convinced that instant replay for penalties especially would be useless. penalty calls are objective by nature, we on the forum can argue for 20 pages back and forth if something is or is not a penalty. this isn't the nfl where you're looking for something as clear cut as if the players foot was in bounds or not.

anyway, im opposed to this because i like the human element of the game. some calls go your way, others dont, but that's life.

edit: the one way that video replay should be used more often is to throw down bans/fines for diving AFTER the game has concluded. this i would support 100%.

Honestly dude, what retard would it take longer then 20-30 seconds to decide if it's offside or not? Not only that, I'm sure they can make a computer program that would take the video and decide in a split second like the tennis technology.

If it's too close to call just go with the call on the field.

There is no excuse to get offsides wrong anymore, it's just too important and easy to fix.

It's usually totally obvious after watching one 2 second video clip and if not the can give a still shot that is conclusive right afterwards.

I mean I just don't get how people think this isn't possible. We sent a man on the moon like 50 years ago, I think we can get rid of offsides in football.

lol ask the retards in the NFL who take more than 20 seconds to decide if a reciever's foot was in bounds or not, or the retards who take more than 20 seconds to decide if the player's toe was touching the three point line or not. listen it probably would only take 20-30 seconds to make that decision, but the refs would view the play from every possible angle just to make sure that the play is 100% correct... you know there is some distortion trying to make an offsides call from a camera that is physically behind where the play takes place. refs would have to cover their own asses and look at all the available footage, and this would definitely take more than 20 seconds.

about the computer program- thats an interesting idea and i have no clue how that would work or how it works in tennis... but that may be something worth looking into. but again if its so easy to do, why don't we have it for football, basketball, or baseball? i'd assume that the small size of a tennis court may have something to do with it.

I don't care if it takes a minute.

I think a couple extended breaks throughout the gamewill actually up the level of competition.

Le Samourai wrote:I don't care if it takes a minute.

I think a couple extended breaks throughout the gamewill actually up the level of competition.

Then invent a new sport, this is football only times someone takes a break is when someone is retrieving the ball from the side of the pitch, when someone dives which should be fixed, and lastly half time.

Le Samourai wrote:I don't care if it takes a minute.

I think a couple extended breaks throughout the game will actually up the level of competition.

Beautiful thing about football is the continuity- 45 minutes uninterrupted, then another 45, no commercials, no mid game water breaks other than half. Football for 90 minutes, pure and simple.

It would be terrible to start having couple minute breaks right in the middle of the damn thing. I fail to see where that helps other than in the endurance/stamina of individuals, which is another really impressive thing about football. The athletes are ridiculously good to maintain their level for 90 minutes. They become just another athlete when they can get all these breaks. I do love footballers for how hard it is, compared to something like gridiron or tennis or volleyball.

Offsides is not stretching it. Your either on or off, you really can't have a judge sit in a booth and be prejudice about it it's one or the other.

When I talk about bias I talk about fouls, not offside. Which is- as I said, clear cut. Offside calling would still take a solid 20-30 seconds, unless you get a perfect camera angle first time and it's a very easy offside call. Offside is an interesting thing, when it comes to technology, there is certainly a case for it.

I can't see why officials can't make the right call though. Really that's the problem, we don't need technology. Sure there may be a mistake here and there, but it's a part of the continuous, simple, beautiful game of football. We don't need a 20-30 second break every time there is an offside call that is a close one.

To say the guy in the booth maybe biased and that's why you shouldn't do it is just a really bad reason not to and sorry to say a real stretch

Talking about fouls again. It's not a bad reason. Refs with a camera are just slightly more informed than center refs. They can still make a wrong decision and it's really easy for 2 refs to be on the opposite side of a call. Or be biased. They can be as easily biased as a center ref. And by bias I don't mean paid off by a team, many different types of bias. Everyone has it.

The center ref usually has one of the worst views out of anyone

What? Maybe if you mean a terrible ref. Good refs will always be right next to the play. Unless there is someone blocking their view, they have the best view in the house, and they can always rely on their assistant refs to make foul calls that they have either missed or gotten wrong. Which I'm sure happens all the time.

But there is totally no excuse for offsides. And you can ask any ref and they will tell you it is the hardest call for a human to make

As a ref I disagree. You just have to be in a good position and focused. If you're doing your job correctly, you should have no problems with offside. The only time it's really hard is when there are player who may be offside and you have to make a judgement call with whether they are affecting play or not etc. etc.

It'll give coaches more opportunities to re-organize and adjust tactically.Gives them a chance to effectively transfer their thoughts and scold who needs to be scolded.

The endurance aspect - yes , that will also help people to compete at a higher level both within games and throughout the course of a season.

Most of all, it's a minute or 30 seconds in most cases, no need for commercial breaks and all that, maybe a couple highlights , I just think getting calls like penalties and red cards correct is worth an extra 5 minutes a game.

Really...how many penalties and/or red cards are given every game?...
1? maybe 2 on a bad day?.

Seriously, the psychological impact on a player/team after receiving a penalty/red card , the frustration they have to endure having known that they did nothing wrong can all be avoided by spending 1 minute reviewing a decision.

I'm not saying coaches and players get to beg for penalties and stuff through these reviews, I'm just saying that when that decision is made there shouldn't be no going back on it, because it takes it's toll.

On red cards and penalties there's almost always about 30-seconds to a minute of crowding the ref and pleading anyway, that time could be put to better use.

You make a pass, ref calls it offside..

Video guys says the pass was onside.

What happens then?

no

BarrileteCosmico wrote:No "human side"of football is worth the injustice brought forth by wrongly called (or not called) goals, penalties and cards. I'll happily trade some "excitement" for fairness.

exactly

it boggles my mind how some people literally choose an unfair game over a few minutes added on to make the correct decision.i can't even begin to understand these peoples mindsets

animal.crackers wrote:You make a pass, ref calls it offside..

Video guys says the pass was onside.

What happens then?

i don't believe video evidence should be used for those decisions (at least until video technology has already been implemented smoothly for goal line decisions etc). but if it was, free kick for the team who were incorrectly called offside. not perfect, but better than an incorrect decision

Instant replay would make Barcelona an average side, so no. No instant replays.

mtfootball wrote: As we've always emphasised at FIFA, football's human element must be retained. It mirrors life itself and we have to protect it.

Only one solution. Cyborg referees :vagi: