Jambomuzz Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Ok there is always talk about using video evidence to prove if it was a penalty or not and so on... They are soo against bringing it into football yet they use it...... Players are punished AFTER matches becuase of video evidence being used to show things they have done on the pitch. What i dont understand it if your going to use it after the match why cant you use it during the match when it is needed so it will have an effect there and then. Also why is it only used to punish players after the match?? If they are going to stick to just using it like that then why are they not chopping goals off that were unrightfully given?? Your thoughts my fellow jambos :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Ross Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Too worried about football losing it's momentum to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomuzz Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 I know thats the problem but the fact the use it outside of the matches to punish players why cant it also be used to help teams with goals that should never have been given against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_HMFC Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Too worried about football losing it's momentum to be honest. Yip, Football is sometimes too stop - starty as it is, introducing In-game Video evidence would be too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 In the case of the Eduardo incident FIFA refuse G Smith's plan to use video and then use it themselves! This is making up rules as they go along! OK Eduardo dived, they look at it and say " from now on anyone diving will be punished" They can't say to someone you didn't know this but we will ban you if you dive. Would it have made Eduardo stay on his feet ? Who knows but they can't make up rules after the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Another way of dealing with a penalty not given but should have been. Allow us to start our next game against St.Jonstone with us taking a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomuzz Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 For me its the fact that they are saying there is no way we would have it introduced into football, yet they are using it all the time to punish players after the match?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 For me its the fact that they are saying there is no way we would have it introduced into football, yet they are using it all the time to punish players after the match?? There are alot of people who believe that video evidence was used real time by Gus MacPherson to get the 4th official to send one of our players off last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
151 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Ok there is always talk about using video evidence to prove if it was a penalty or not and so on... They are soo against bringing it into football yet they use it...... Players are punished AFTER matches becuase of video evidence being used to show things they have done on the pitch. What i dont understand it if your going to use it after the match why cant you use it during the match when it is needed so it will have an effect there and then. Also why is it only used to punish players after the match?? If they are going to stick to just using it like that then why are they not chopping goals off that were unrightfully given?? Your thoughts my fellow jambos :-) because then when manchester united are having a tough game against say wolves, how else are they gonna get the penalty they need to win the game? or take my club Liverpool, its actually EMBARRASING how many penaltys that club gets, and steven gerrards dives, hows he meant to get away with it if video evidence is brought in? in my opinion its all about keeping the big teams happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 because then when manchester united are having a tough game against say wolves, how else are they gonna get the penalty they need to win the game? or take my club Liverpool, its actually EMBARRASING how many penaltys that club gets, and steven gerrards dives, hows he meant to get away with it if video evidence is brought in? in my opinion its all about keeping the big teams happy. You do wonder sometimes. Could the top teams of all European leagues ( maybe South American too ) feasibly break away and form a new World league set-up ? Is that what the fat cats in Fifa / Uefa are scared of, being in charge of **** all bar junior leagues ...........or is it more simply the fear of protracted legal actions following any player bans ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunxjambo Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 using it during games would a good idea like its used in rugby league or union. that way it gives the officials an out and doesn't undermine their credibility or ability in any way. rugby officials seem to have managed to work with it so why not fitba? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambonian Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Too worried about football losing it's momentum to be honest. Disagree. It only takes a few seconds to ask someone in the stand to check it out, perfect example : Hearts v Dunfermline a few years back, we were awarded a penalty when Quitongo (i think?) was sandwiched in the penalty box, brought down, the ref gave a penalty, all hell breaks loose, Dunfermline players surrounding the ref, shouting and barging going on between both sets of players, 3 players booked, this took at least 4 minutes to sort out. It could've been sorted out within 30 seconds and all the commotion between the players wouldn't have happened and players wouldn't have been yellow-carded, except the one that commited the foul. This wouldn't have stopped the flow of the game, in fact, it could have the opposite effect if players know they can't get away with trying to con the referee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Disagree. It only takes a few seconds to ask someone in the stand to check it out, perfect example : Hearts v Dunfermline a few years back, we were awarded a penalty when Quitongo (i think?) was sandwiched in the penalty box, brought down, the ref gave a penalty, all hell breaks loose, Dunfermline players surrounding the ref, shouting and barging going on between both sets of players, 3 players booked, this took at least 4 minutes to sort out. It could've been sorted out within 30 seconds and all the commotion between the players wouldn't have happened and players wouldn't have been yellow-carded, except the one that commited the foul. This wouldn't have stopped the flow of the game, in fact, it could have the opposite effect if players know they can't get away with trying to con the referee. I think it must come in and they must simply try to find the best way to integrate it. Your example is fine Jambonian but what happens to the likes of hand balls, where the ref cant see clearly and the ball then gets cleared back up the park and there is no 'natural' stoppage to allow the event to be reviewed. We would need to have a video ref who can be called in to review a previous passage of play, while the game still carries on, and who can then radio the ref and say "fair challenge, just play on"........or "that's a Penalty, stop the play and pull it back" Mind you the ...............the video ref could be Ian Brines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I think it must come in and they must simply try to find the best way to integrate it. Your example is fine Jambonian but what happens to the likes of hand balls, where the ref cant see clearly and the ball then gets cleared back up the park and there is no 'natural' stoppage to allow the event to be reviewed. We would need to have a video ref who can be called in to review a previous passage of play, while the game still carries on, and who can then radio the ref and say "fair challenge, just play on"........or "that's a Penalty, stop the play and pull it back" Mind you the ...............the video ref could be Ian Brines Do it like the NFL. Give the manager 3 challenges where he can challenge a decision or review something. They get them right they get another challenge etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavySlaveJambo Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 It can also help with crystal palace "incidents" when two goals were disallowed for unknown reasons. Plus when there are doubts if the ball crossed the line. Plus all it would need is an extra official watching the TV feed, which we know there would be anyway. But it should definately not be used after matches if it is not used during the match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 IF they can use it after a game to punish a player who dives. WHY can't they use it to clear a player who was booked for a dive that wasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts_crazy Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Yip, Football is sometimes too stop - starty as it is, introducing In-game Video evidence would be too much. Nonsense. If it was only used, like in Rugby where there is a potentially game changing situation, like was it a penalty, a dive or a good tackle? Was it over the line for the goal or not? Was that winning goal offside? Things like that. The game has stopped anyway, so why not take 30 seconds to quickly look at the video evidence? Unfortunately I know the answer to that question, and it has to do with Rangers and Celtic not winning as many games as they do just now. I still say that if it's good enough for Rugby it's good enough for Football though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambonian Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I think it must come in and they must simply try to find the best way to integrate it. Your example is fine Jambonian but what happens to the likes of hand balls, where the ref cant see clearly and the ball then gets cleared back up the park and there is no 'natural' stoppage to allow the event to be reviewed. We would need to have a video ref who can be called in to review a previous passage of play, while the game still carries on, and who can then radio the ref and say "fair challenge, just play on"........or "that's a Penalty, stop the play and pull it back" Mind you the ...............the video ref could be Ian Brines I know what your saying and yes it's a difficult issue but, maybe if they just use the video evidence for incidents that the ref isn't 100% sure about, perhaps from just outside the penalty box and leave the ref to his own discression anywhere in the middle of the park, free kicks from there rarely lead to goals and it covers him incase he gets it wrong, basically, 9 times out of 10, giving a free kick from this area won't have a major bearing on the outcome of the game but any closer could. I just feel they need to do something to help themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Well on the SFA website GS is saying that the concept of video referees has been kicked into touch by Eufa / Fifa ! A bit short sighted if you ask me He's still going to campaign for it he says though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Well on the SFA website GS is saying that the concept of video referees has been kicked into touch by Eufa / Fifa !A bit short sighted if you ask me He's still going to campaign for it he says though Sounds like he wants the same as the NFL then. Not impressed if it did come into effect and it's only going to be live matches though... Rangers and Celtic winning challenges and benefiting from it every week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dano307 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The SFA using video reference is just giving us Hearts fans another person to stick the blame to for not awarding us a penalty that we deserve. The opinion of an SFA official watching a TV is still going to cause great controversy. Take the Nade penalty shout at the weekend for example... First time I saw it, i thought it was a penalty - If i was the referee and wasn't too sure, I would go to the video ref. The video ref's opinion is what decision will be taken! But with the Nade claim, people are still arguing about whether it was a penalty or not after viewing it 20times! People will always have differing opinions. Goal-Line technology on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts_crazy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 There's a thing they do in tennis (no i'm not a poof, Andy Murray v Federer was on in a pub I was in) whereby I think they get a certain amount of appeals against decisions and it goes to some fancy dancy computer thingumybob and it's called out or in or whatever. Now I know what's coming, we would have every team contesting every single throw in and goal kick or whatever. But if you said, OK each team gets say 5 appeals for penalty incidents or free kicks near the box or goal line clearances or whatever then maybe, just maybe it could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dano307 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 There's a thing they do in tennis (no i'm not a poof, Andy Murray v Federer was on in a pub I was in) whereby I think they get a certain amount of appeals against decisions and it goes to some fancy dancy computer thingumybob and it's called out or in or whatever. Now I know what's coming, we would have every team contesting every single throw in and goal kick or whatever. But if you said, OK each team gets say 5 appeals for penalty incidents or free kicks near the box or goal line clearances or whatever then maybe, just maybe it could work. It's called Hawk-Eye, No im not a poof either - Just know my stuff, honest. I suppose that could work but who would decide to appeal? Would it be down to the captain to do that? It could still take a while for the team to decide whether to appeal it or not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Could have the manager call a time out. Should take less than a minute to decide. If it can't be decided by the TV evidence available, then play continues with a drop-ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The SFA using video reference is just giving us Hearts fans another person to stick the blame to for not awarding us a penalty that we deserve. The opinion of an SFA official watching a TV is still going to cause great controversy. Take the Nade penalty shout at the weekend for example... First time I saw it, i thought it was a penalty - If i was the referee and wasn't too sure, I would go to the video ref. The video ref's opinion is what decision will be taken! But with the Nade claim, people are still arguing about whether it was a penalty or not after viewing it 20times! People will always have differing opinions. Goal-Line technology on the other hand... It will be pointless if you have a video ref who's prime concern is, NOT to get to the facts, but to ensure that HIS decision concurs with the ref who blew in the 1st place. That is basically the SFA stance. Admissions of error MUST simply not be allowed or their credibility is seen to be at risk. AT RISK..........it's already none existant ...........how much worse can it get FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 One way to solve 90% of the diving would be to not have pens then there would be nothing to dive for. in fact lets not have fouls either and make it a mans game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomuzz Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 One way to solve 90% of the diving would be to not have pens then there would be nothing to dive for. in fact lets not have fouls either and make it a mans game. There are fouls for a reason, if they didnt have fouls the game would become a shambles, it wouldnt be football anymore it would be a boxing match, there are fouls inplace to protect the players from serious injury. If there were no fouls there would be no players to play football becuase they would all be injured. Also if there were no fouls then players would pick the ball up and run with it into the goal holding it, it just wouldnt be football anymore... Some people need to think before they come out with stupid propositions..... So really ur saying Golf isnt a mans sport becuase the aim of the game isnt to be the first player to get the ball in the hole and hit his opponents head off with the club?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavySlaveJambo Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 HAwk-eye seems to have beeen around for ages, I know the Beeb has used it for several years for their Wimbledon Coverage before it was used in competition at Wimbledon. Sky Sports etc also use it in cricket coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts_crazy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 'Jambo through and through' was just on Real Radio 5 minutes ago blabbering on about how it would be a bad thing because you would have nothing to argue/debate about in the pub with your mates:hat2:. I doubt that's what was going through Uefa/Fifa's minds when they poo-poo'd it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N User Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The video refs in Scotland would be as ****/ corrupt as the regular refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts_crazy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 There are fouls for a reason, if they didnt have fouls the game would become a shambles, it wouldnt be football anymore it would be a boxing match, there are fouls inplace to protect the players from serious injury. If there were no fouls there would be no players to play football becuase they would all be injured. Also if there were no fouls then players would pick the ball up and run with it into the goal holding it, it just wouldnt be football anymore...Some people need to think before they come out with stupid propositions..... So really ur saying Golf isnt a mans sport becuase the aim of the game isnt to be the first player to get the ball in the hole and hit his opponents head off with the club?? It worked for William Webb-Ellis, he invented a whole new game. And that game has video refs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Ok there is always talk about using video evidence to prove if it was a penalty or not and so on... They are soo against bringing it into football yet they use it...... Players are punished AFTER matches becuase of video evidence being used to show things they have done on the pitch. What i dont understand it if your going to use it after the match why cant you use it during the match when it is needed so it will have an effect there and then. Also why is it only used to punish players after the match?? If they are going to stick to just using it like that then why are they not chopping goals off that were unrightfully given?? Your thoughts my fellow jambos :-) Video evidence/review isn't the answer. It would slow down the flow and pace of the game. I can live with a mistake being made so long as it's "honest". The answer is to have professional referees who have no link or connection with the teams. We should employ foreign referees in the SPL who are not worried about real or perceived club affiliations, or having their windaes tanned in or car covered in paint stripper. They should also be under the control of UEFA rather than the vested interest diddies at the SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Video evidence/review isn't the answer. It would slow down the flow and pace of the game. I can live with a mistake being made so long as it's "honest". The answer is to have professional referees who have no link or connection with the teams. We should employ foreign referees in the SPL who are not worried about real or perceived club affiliations, or having their windaes tanned in or car covered in paint stripper. They should also be under the control of UEFA rather than the vested interest diddies at the SFA. Easier said than done, of course - and highly unlikely. Meanwhile, there was a supposedly professional referee with no link to either team in the CL semi-final between Chelsea and Barcelona. Look what happened. Surely video evidence would've helped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 rugby/tennis style TV reviews during matches would be doomed to failure in scotland. the only type of incident i could see this working for would be to determine if the ball has crossed the goal line. other than that (most typically attempting to determine a penalty or not) there could still be enough room for doubt to make decisions: 1) difficult to judge. 2) open to 'interpretation' by whoever is making the call. the referee is often lambasted for making the wrong call and he only gets to see it once in real time. imagine the giant fuss when some plonker sitting in front of a screen still can't do it with the benefit of multiple reviews and slow motion.... and it would happen eventually. some tackles are so close to call either way that there would still be doubt. some people making the decisions (whether that be referees or 'independent experts') would still have room to see what they want to see and miss what they want to miss. if this type of system could be made to work in some small way then fair enough. i still say that scottish football is pretty much the last place where it's likely to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Meanwhile, there was a supposedly professional referee with no link to either team in the CL semi-final between Chelsea and Barcelona. Look what happened. That bloke was Barca through and through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 That bloke was Barca through and through. Nope - he was just incompetent. You'll never, ever stop incompetence in referees, no matter how professional they are: which is why video evidence is the only answer. The Tunisian ref for Argentina-England 1986 was also just incompetent: how ridiculous would it have looked had anyone said he was "Argentina through and through"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharityGame5306 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The reason that video evidence will never be used is down to the fact football is a simple game with 17 Laws. These same laws are used in park football right the way through to the World Cup final. If we were to have a law change by the IFAB then it would be so every one else can play by the same laws. But its not going to be feesible for Castlevale against Whitson Star at Gyle Park No 4 to use Video Evidence so its a no goer. Video Evidence has been brought up at many IFAB meetings but instantly vetoed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The reason that video evidence will never be used is down to the fact football is a simple game with 17 Laws. These same laws are used in park football right the way through to the World Cup final. If we were to have a law change by the IFAB then it would be so every one else can play by the same laws. But its not going to be feesible for Castlevale against Whitson Star at Gyle Park No 4 to use Video Evidence so its a no goer. Video Evidence has been brought up at many IFAB meetings but instantly vetoed. Fair comment Charity mate..............but then I wonder what discussions went on between the IRB / RFU / SRU etc etc and all the different levels of Rugby Union prior to it being introduced only at the TOP level of that sport ? ( well to the best of my knowledge anyway ) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 using it during games would a good idea like its used in rugby league or union.that way it gives the officials an out and doesn't undermine their credibility or ability in any way. rugby officials seem to have managed to work with it so why not fitba? Rugby is not a flowing game though as in such instances, the ball becomes dead, so it could not be used in football. In addition, I was watchig the Challenge Cup FInal on Saturday and the commentatore said one of the coaches, I can not recall who, said they wished they did not use TV technology as he thinks they often got it wrong and he wished they went back to the ref as the final word and later in the game, the ref used the video judge to determine if a try was a try, the judge said no, nased on tv, the commentary team disagreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Griffin Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 If you were to bring in Video evidence during a game how would the ugly sisters get away with all the cheating ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.