You’re right, sorry. Bad habit I guess, this is how I did it so far and had no problem, probably because I was talking to people who were more familiar with my site. So, the correct page is

http://www.fairfootball.com/video_ref.htm

Have you read it ? Because you said that you have yet to hear a realistic proposal on the matter. Me OTOH, I have yet to hear valid objections to my proposal. So if you have them, I’d really like to know them.

> regarding post 9, the whole premise of what you suggest is flawed. … Simply put, if you interfere with an event within a system everything that follows thereafter will be altered. So to suggest that … the outcome of the game would therefore have been different, assumes that, the changed decisions aside, all else would have remained the same.

Here we go again. If you knew how many times I had this argument.
What you say is correct, of course, and it’s also featured prominently on the home page of the site. And I quote: “Of course, this is not 100% right, it cannot be. Nobody can know what would have happened had the referee decided correctly. In fact, there are cases when one can even say that the result corrected this way is very unlikely to have happened. But we believe 2 things: that our end results are fairer than the official ones; and that our correction scheme is inherently right, that is it goes as far as it can based on what we know.”
So, nothing is very sure, however I believe in most cases the corrected results and rankings are more credible than the official ones. This is especially true for the WCup 2006, when Germany had a clear penalty denied in the semi against Italy, in minute 83 or something. Of course, they might have missed it, or Italy might have scored back. But you and I both know that none of these is very likely, so the result to be reasonably expected is that Germany would have won, so Italy could never have been champs. It’s as simple as that, so this is why I said I’m pretty confident of it.

But I didn’t mean to go into details here about my site. I just wanted to correct your statement that all teams have their ups and downs with respect of ref errors. Which is true, actually, but is misleading. Because it suggests that in the end nobody gains or looses very much from it, which is completely wrong. You cannot know this. The final rankings may be seriously altered, which I’ve seen happen in many tournaments I’ve analyzed. This is what I meant about having experience.

About submitting an article, I don’t know. You mean, about my video ref proposal ? I don’t think so. It’s not the way something like this should be discussed. It’s not something to be read and enjoyed by many, it’s a technical proposal to be reviewed and discussed by the appropriate people.

This of course is not true. The game restarts from a different place. Psychology, tactics, substitutions etc. etc. are influernced by the event and, of course, we can never predict what the outcome would have been in a different scenario.

As for: “Trust me, I do have a bit of experience on the matter.”

This is not a science and is not about fact but opinion. Expereince, as you put it, does not come into it. Anyone who follows the game will have an opinion on this issue equally as valid as anyone elses.

But as you feel strongly about it and have some good points to make why not submit an article on the subject or even enter the competition?

I agree with some of your points and not others. Overall, too radical for my liking though.

But – are you sure you read it ? Because right from the start, it says: “Play is never stopped (until an offense is found), video review is done simultaneously by an off-field ref, or rather team of refs, assisted by the best possible real-time / replay video evidence. When offenses are determined, they signal to the field ref to stop play. … The field ref never makes decisions, but rather communicates his opinion to the team of video refs; they make the decisions.”

While this may be too radical to begin with, certainly in and around the penalty area this is how it should be done, right from the start. Thus, the ref *never* blows the whistle for a penalty. So your scenario 1 is without object.

Scenario 2 is a real problem. But, and I quote again from my site: “For one thing, this won’t happen very often. I imagine there will be much fewer such cases than there are now wrongly awarded or un-awarded penalties. But when they happen, I’d suggest (as a starting point, I’m not sure it is the best way) that if play hasn’t stopped until the goal was scored, it be disallowed, if it has stopped and resumed, then the goal will count since it is practically another run of play. In any case, even when a goal is disallowed as above, the minutes played count for the total time of play.”
The idea is that such things are too rare to be a serious reason against the video ref. When they happen, they just have to be dealt with in a consistent way. Either always allow goals, or always disallow them, or do as I said above (which I think would be best). Any of these options is fine with me.

Scenario 3 – again, invalid under my proposal. As I said, I also think the off-side rule should be seriously changed. Either give them up completely, or call an off-side only when the action results in something important, such as a goal, a penalty, or a dangerous free kick.

Scenario 4 – right, no problem here, off-side. Again, as for the punishment of the keeper, it should be dealt with in a consistent way. IMO he should be yellow-carded at least.

> All of the above have logical answers but all would be equally, if not more, controversial than the situation we have today and everyone will disagree on the format.

I disagree. There can be nothing more controversial that how things are today. If a reasonable rule is enacted, given some time most people will be OK with it I guess.

> Also consider that if a ref/linesman get all (or most) of their video calls wrong they will be subjected to even more abuse and players/managers are likely to use this as amunition for berating other decisions and the referees performance overall.

Wrong again. Under my proposal, field refs won’t make controversial decisions at all. And ideally, with time, they won’t decide anything at all, they’ll just say their opinion to the panel of video refs. Which hopefully will be right in the vast majority of cases. So we should reasonably expect the field refs to be relieved of most if not all of today’s abuse. Which is normal, since they also won’t any more have to make decisions that, as you said yourself, are madness to be expected from them in the first place.
Anyway, it’s really hard to think field refs could possibly be put in a worse position than they are today, since their wrong decisions are almost instantly seen on TV by everybody, and, worse of all, they still stick. This is probably the most absurd and angering part of all this nonsense. This is what needs to go away, obviously.

> It’s fine to say let’s start with goal line technology but this is minor and doesn’t even begin to address the main controversy.

It does begin. And it would be a step in the right direction. You know, the first step is always the hardest so it’s OK if it’s small. Others can then follow.

> Also, I feel you’re wrong to berate those who want to maintain things as they are, After all, its the controversial decisions that feed millions of lines on these Blogs and in the media in general. We thrive on them and all teams get ther ups and downs in this respect.

OK, here I *strongly* disagree. This is the human face nonsense. The decision making should be as accurate as possible, period. Those media pundits who now, as you say, thrive on the current situation will just have to find another line of work or another theme to thrive on. Sorry but this is the only reasonable way to look at it.

For example, on offsides and penalties how do you bring the video ref into play?

Scenario 1 (Penalty): The referee sees a challenge in the box and is unsure whether it is a penalty or not. He blows the whistle and decides to go to the video ref. As he does so the ball falls at the feet of an attacker 2 yards out with an open goal. The video ref decides it was not a penalty. A: The referee has just denied a goal to the attacking team and B: How do you restart the game?

Scenario 2(Penalty): The referee sees a challenge in the box and is unsure but does not blow immediately. He allows play to continue and the ball is hoofed upfield where the opposition score. The ref gows back to the video ref for judgement on the penalty incident and it is ruled a penalty. Is the oppositions goal ruled out?

Scenario 3 (offfside): The referee blows for an offside decision as an attacking player goes through on goal but stops. The video evidence shows it was not offside. Probable goal denied and how do you restart the game?

Scenario 4: As above but the ref decides to let the move go initially. The attacking player is blatantly brought down by the keeper for a clear penalty. The ref goes back to the video ref on the offside decision and it is shown be offside. The penalty decision is reversed and does the keeper get away with his violent intervention?

All of the above have logical answers but all would be equally, if not more, controversial than the situation we have today and everyone will disagree on the format.

Also consider that if a ref/linesman get all (or most) of their video calls wrong they will be subjected to even more abuse and players/managers are likely to use this as amunition for berating other decisions and the referees performance overall.

It’s fine to say let’s start with goal line technology but this is minor and doesn’t even begin to address the main controversy.

Also, I feel you’re wrong to berate those who want to maintain things as they are, After all, its the controversial decisions that feed millions of lines on these Blogs and in the media in general. We thrive on them and all teams get ther ups and downs in this respect.

Thanks for engaging in the debate but I think its a complex issue.

My own view is to leave as is. I don’t have a closed mind to video but someone needs to come up with a formula that works and I’ve yet to see one.

Actually, no. Just video replay.
You’re absolutely right. It *is* madness. So let’s all demand the video ref.