Refereeing technology: how far should we go?

In the wake of some awful decisions in the Milan - Juventus match, I think it's time to raise the question of refereeing reform via the introduction of various systems to prevent and review incorrect decisions.

Some people argue that the mistakes made by referees create controversy and interest in the game and that the technology will slow down the game and make it less entertaining. Conversely, other people see accurate decision-making as paramount.

The poll is actually three polls in one. There are...
- 2 options about goal line technology,
- 5 options about video replay,
- and 2 options about extra officials around the goal area.

Vote and discuss.

I'd go for two more extra officials at the goal area.

Mistakes are human and advanced technology would only destroy the beauty of the natural game.

Video replay is the worst thing that could ever happen to football.

The only acceptable form of technology would be goal-line technology that would not interrupt the game a millisecond- as I've said before.

The game is beautiful in part because of the amazing simplicity- especially in the rules- technology and the interruption of what should be 45 minutes of football, with no stopping of the clock, would ruin the sport.

Football is an amazing thing, we can't ruin it with technology. I'm all for linesmen next to the goal, to be honest. And if that's too expensive or whatever, maybe then goal line technology can be implemented.

All we need is hawk eye goal line technology, so the referee knows whether the ball crossed the line in real time.

All this video replay crap is going to kill the continuity of the game, and forget extra officials, we've all seen how useless they are already.

it's not like video replay are gonna slow down the game anymore then all the bloody diving and atrocious referring we are seeing these days

How about something like Challenge is in Tennis ? only 1 to call it in whole game for any foul or accident ?

I like goal line tech to

Microchips in the balls ftw.

lenear1030 wrote:Microchips in the balls ftw.

Microchips can't stop diving .

I'd go for goal line technology, then you can kick out the useless refs at the goal that where tried but didn't deliver anyway. Plus the possibility for max 2 or three requests to show a video replay per team if there is a really contested decision. Heck, even Sumo which is as traditional as it can get has video refereeing if needed!

I think we should experiment with all available technology to factor out human error. I personally favor a tennis-like system.

A Robot Referee.

Jack Daniels wrote:A Robot Referee.

Bender would be good

CBarca wrote:Video replay is the worst thing that could ever happen to football.

The only acceptable form of technology would be goal-line technology that would not interrupt the game a millisecond- as I've said before.

you mean apart from the 3 minutes interruption with every questionable penalty and goal that is spent crowding the referee and arguing?

it takes 20 seconds to look at a video and make a verdict, all you need is an extra ref with a headset watching the tv broadcast...

A few comments about what has been said so far...

1. People who voted for no goal-line tech, is there any particular reason why other than because it is advanced technology?

2. The extra linesmen on the goal-line have been incompetent, useless and an inefficient allocation of resources. Is there anyone who disagrees with this statement and why?

3. Do you think video replay would take longer than the long and drawn-out complaints we see by players after controversial decisions these days?

4. If there was a tennis-style challenge system, how many challenges should each team get?

4. If there was a tennis-style challenge system, how many challenges should each team get?

I say 2 challenges.

I'm all for eliminating the "human" aspect of the beautiful game, bad calls are too frustrating and nobody really appeals to the "humanity" of the refs when they make a bad call against your team.

che wrote:

CBarca wrote:Video replay is the worst thing that could ever happen to football.

The only acceptable form of technology would be goal-line technology that would not interrupt the game a millisecond- as I've said before.

you mean apart from the 3 minutes interruption with every questionable penalty and goal that is spent crowding the referee and arguing?

it takes 20 seconds to look at a video and make a verdict, all you need is an extra ref with a headset watching the tv broadcast...

Have you watched the NFL?

Team doesn't like a decision- throws flag - review play for couple mins with goddamn commercials about bud lite.

It won't take 20 seconds. It doesn't work that way. That's the optimist view, the unreal one. How many decisions can you say can go EITHER way? A lot of them. Now the ref in the stands is a judge, what about that 50/50 ball, which one player got a yellow on, but from another persons view it's no yellow? Now you have a challenge from the OTHER team. Not to mention those types of challenges will take minutes to come to a conclusion sometimes. And 3 minutes? Really? I know your exaggerating to get your point across so I'll let it go.

It's partly a matter of principle.

Football is perfection because you don't fking stop the game just to challenge a call that didn't go your way. It's continuous, it's non-stop. There are no breaks, or anything. It's 90 minutes non stop with a 15 minute break in the middle. The center ref has all the power. It's been this way forever, and that's why it is the beautiful game.

It's not artificial.

Human error is a part of the game, get over it.

CBarca wrote:

che wrote:

CBarca wrote:Video replay is the worst thing that could ever happen to football.

The only acceptable form of technology would be goal-line technology that would not interrupt the game a millisecond- as I've said before.

you mean apart from the 3 minutes interruption with every questionable penalty and goal that is spent crowding the referee and arguing?

it takes 20 seconds to look at a video and make a verdict, all you need is an extra ref with a headset watching the tv broadcast...

Have you watched the NFL?

Team doesn't like a decision- throws flag - review play for couple mins with goddamn commercials about bud lite.

It won't take 20 seconds. It doesn't work that way. That's the optimist view, the unreal one. How many decisions can you say can go EITHER way? A lot of them. Now the ref in the stands is a judge, what about that 50/50 ball, which one player got a yellow on, but from another persons view it's no yellow? Now you have a challenge from the OTHER team. Not to mention those types of challenges will take minutes to come to a conclusion sometimes. And 3 minutes? Really? I know your exaggerating to get your point across so I'll let it go.

It's partly a matter of principle.

Football is perfection because you don't fking stop the game just to challenge a call that didn't go your way. It's continuous, it's non-stop. There are no breaks, or anything. It's 90 minutes non stop with a 15 minute break in the middle. The center ref has all the power. It's been this way forever, and that's why it is the beautiful game.

It's not artificial.

Human error is a part of the game, get over it.

I disagree, i HAVE watched the NFL, continuous breaks are part of that sport and culture. Refs take so much time because:

a) there's a ton more players and even with 20 replays in all angles its sometimes hard to make out some plays

b) its generally been agreed in the NFL that more time equals more ads and greed is good. The sport is more or else supposed to have a hundred breaks where a logo is conveniently placed.

In football (beautiful game) I've seen crystal clear replays literally seconds after the play, if the refs are aware that play should be fast and uninterrupted it shouldn't really take more than 30 secs imo.

Crystal clear replays can happen for the majority of the game yes.

Fortunately, refs get those right 98% of the time.

It's the controversial ones where a challenge system can be argued is needed, and it's the controversial ones that WILL NOT take 20 seconds.

Fairness, or beauty?

I'll take beauty, please.

I disagree again, can you say Ovrebo in CL quarterfinal Barca vs Chelsea?? That handball in the penalty zone was so clear im still pissed off about it.

Remember Lampards goal in South Africa that easily crossed the line? Bayern a MILE offside against Fiorentina awhile ago?

Henrys handball which qualified his team to the world cup???

Thats just on the top of my head, camaras are just so much better than just 3 persons on a huge field in real time.

We have the techonology to judge offsides and goal-line without stopping the match.

Offsides should be authomatic. Offside is a rule that can't be controlled by humans, it's just impossible. A linesman can't be watching the passer and the receiver at the same time.

Goal line is possible, but they are so complicated that they should be automatic too.

Finally, it would be good to have a 1 replay for match for every team in a foul or penalty, wether for or against.

Technology can be a double-edged sword. Of course, when your team has a goal that isn't given (ala AC Milan's) you scream that you want video replay, goal line technology or some form of shock collar for Buffon that is activated when the ball crosses the line. On this particular point, I happen to agree (not about the shock collar, but about the replay and/or ball tracking technology). Something like this could be quickly assessed without interupting the game too much. There are still several complications, for instance some sort of rule would need to be standardized regarding when play would be stopped (immediately or wait for the next natural stoppage) and a procedure regarding who reviews the footage if video replay is used (officials in the stadium as in the NFL or at a central location like the NHL). Even with these complications, goal line technology seems much more plausible, and I believe we will see it in the not so distant future.

For other situations (fouls, offsides, etc.), the consequences are far more intrusive. In the case of fouls, no matter how you implement the technology, it has the potential to change the character of the game. If the head ref is the one reviewing fouls, you end up with significant delays anytime there is a questionable call, destroying the tempo and momentum of the match. If another party is reviewing the instances, you introduce another opinion into the already semi-subjective world of football infractions. Different referees will view different situations as being worthy of nothing, a foul or a card. Additionally, showing actions in slow motion often casts a wholly different light on the situation. Things that look harmless in real time suddenly appear sinister and malicious when slowed down.

Because of the intrusive nature and the unavoidable change in the game's personality and soul that would result from the introduction of technology, I am not vehemently in favor of any technology. I can understand and would tolerate goal line technology as that would be the least intrusive option. However, I believe anything else has the potential to fundamentally change the way the game is played and experienced.

CBarca wrote:

Have you watched the NFL?

Team doesn't like a decision- throws flag - review play for couple mins with goddamn commercials about bud lite.

are you kidding me? comparing football with a 3 hour commercial break interrupted by 20 minutes of sport? watch some nhl games, 90% of the time a decision is reached within 30 seconds

It won't take 20 seconds. It doesn't work that way. That's the optimist view, the unreal one. How many decisions can you say can go EITHER way? Now the ref in the stands is a judge, what about that 50/50 ball, which one player got a yellow on, but from another persons view it's no yellow?

that's why, as i said, limited number of challenges (say 2 or 3 per game) for red cards, penalties and goals, no yellow card bullshit

Football is perfection because you don't fking stop the game just to challenge a call that didn't go your way.

i'm sure fans of, say, italy, spain, ireland, chelsea etc etc will agree how refereeing in football is perfect

It's continuous, it's non-stop. There are no breaks, or anything. It's 90 minutes non stop with a 15 minute break in the middle.

in your dreams... you know why there's added time at the end of every half? to make up for INTERRUPTIONS in the game... i don't know about narnia or whatever the hell you're talking about but in the real world there is at least 5 minutes worth of interruptions in every single game mostly down to faking injuries and arguing... i see no reason why 30 seconds shouldn't be added to these interruptions to provide better refereeing standards

The center ref has all the power. It's been this way forever, and that's why it is the beautiful game.

i'm sure you would have been a peach to hang out with in the 50s... "we don't need to give them negroes no civil rights, so what if the system is flawed, it's been this way forever"

progress = improvement, football can't be stuck in the *bleep* technological middle ages just because some people think that old and traditional = better

CBarca wrote:Crystal clear replays can happen for the majority of the game yes.

Fortunately, refs get those right 98% of the time.

It's the controversial ones where a challenge system can be argued is needed, and it's the controversial ones that WILL NOT take 20 seconds.

Fairness, or beauty?

I'll take beauty, please.

I contest that 98% figure. In the Milan - Juve game it was around 50% if not lower on the key decisions.

Why can't fairness and beauty coexist? Technology can be integrated into the game to minimise stoppages. Instant replays take little more than 20 seconds.

You say the controversial decisions take longer in replays - this is quite frankly rubbish. When since is controversy proportional to video replay time? Let's look at some real-life examples from the Milan - Juve game...

Example 1: Muntari's header goes over the goal-line. Assuming no instant goal-line tech, you would need only about 3 second video clip to see it cross the line.

Example 2: Mexes punches Borriello in the ribs. No reason why this could take more than 5-10 secs, let alone 20.

Example 3: Matri's legitimate goal was ruled offside. A 10 second replay would be all that is needed to see that it was Vucinic, not Matri, that was offside.

The NFL system is crap because there is no extra official already watching a screen who can quickly relay a decision by headset to the on-field ref. An extra 20 seconds to make a fair decision (that could be game-changing) is not asking much.

You just need to look at other sports and get a little perspective on how shockingly obsolete football is to technological advances. I just in no way can see why for example, instant goal line technology, has already not been tried, done, tested, refined and an old topic by now, its 2012 ffs.

Other things like the spray line refs use in Mexico, Argentina and the last Copa America serve to make a line for the free kick barriers. Its fast, takes absolutely no extra time than the present standard procedure, its cheap, its erases itself seconds after, free kickers love it, more goals are scored, the fans see the play is "clean", more beauty is brought unto the game, its an absolute win for everyone. Why the hell hasn't UEFA brought it over? Its been "tested" for literally years now over here. Would tests (not even implementations) of technological ideas for a season or two really hurt the "soul" of the sport???

I heard this little gem of a remark during South Africa WC time from a American podcaster who normally never watch a football match: "Its an old school sport, a single referee decides what happens in a hugee pitch, they don't really believe in this 'technology' thing".