Comments on: The Call for Video Refereeing http://soccerlens.com/the-call-for-video-refereeing/30419/ Football News Sat, 26 May 2012 13:33:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: grego http://soccerlens.com/the-call-for-video-refereeing/30419/#comment-126167 grego Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:10:18 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/?p=30419#comment-126167 I disagree on one point. WHAT DELAY? I'm wathcing the wolrd cup 2010. The replays are crystal clear and perfect together with reference points and every possible angle. For eg. It would take a video ref about 5 seconds to have allowed the US 3rd goal and disallowed the New Zealand first goal (offside) against Italy and FRance wouyld not have even qualified. Seth Blatter or whatever his name is needs to wake up and get with the program or move over. I disagree on one point. WHAT DELAY? I’m wathcing the wolrd cup 2010. The replays are crystal clear and perfect together with reference points and every possible angle. For eg. It would take a video ref about 5 seconds to have allowed the US 3rd goal and disallowed the New Zealand first goal (offside) against Italy and FRance wouyld not have even qualified. Seth Blatter or whatever his name is needs to wake up and get with the program or move over.

]]> By: Christopher Maycock http://soccerlens.com/the-call-for-video-refereeing/30419/#comment-116645 Christopher Maycock Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:38:22 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/?p=30419#comment-116645 whoops, i misread your comment there. if the referee had had the tool available, i think he would have called for a review just to make sure. the fact he and the linesman were nowhere near the incident paired with the fact spurs players were protesting (off camera) and it was the last minute of the game, would have led to a review. i think the important thing is that the referee has to admit he was nowhere near the incident and needs assistance - whether he would have in that instance...nobody knows. i know its not perfect, but we have to start somewhere. whoops, i misread your comment there.

if the referee had had the tool available, i think he would have called for a review just to make sure. the fact he and the linesman were nowhere near the incident paired with the fact spurs players were protesting (off camera) and it was the last minute of the game, would have led to a review. i think the important thing is that the referee has to admit he was nowhere near the incident and needs assistance – whether he would have in that instance…nobody knows.
i know its not perfect, but we have to start somewhere.

]]> By: Christopher Maycock http://soccerlens.com/the-call-for-video-refereeing/30419/#comment-116633 Christopher Maycock Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:06:09 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/?p=30419#comment-116633 well like i said, all goals are automatically reviewed. this would have been reviewed and the 3 would have gone to spurs. "After the referee signals a goal, it should be verified by the fourth official". this is to make sure the ball crossed the line. you're right in saying goal-line disputes are few and far between, so why not use the technology for them and get rid of the disputes? well like i said, all goals are automatically reviewed. this would have been reviewed and the 3 would have gone to spurs.

“After the referee signals a goal, it should be verified by the fourth official”. this is to make sure the ball crossed the line.

you’re right in saying goal-line disputes are few and far between, so why not use the technology for them and get rid of the disputes?

]]> By: BD Condell http://soccerlens.com/the-call-for-video-refereeing/30419/#comment-116620 BD Condell Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:00:44 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/?p=30419#comment-116620 Not that bloody Spurs 'goal' again. All you advocates of video technology cite that incident. So let me please say again: The officials and players were so far away from the incident that NOBODY had any view of what happened. There was no major protests on the pitch and it therefore would NOT have led to a call for a video review. Goal line incidents are few and far between...video technology for this alone would solve little. But then, why not introduce it on a wide scale? That would have sorted the 4 penatly decisions for Chelsea in the CL semi wouldn't it? Oh no wait a second....despite everyone seeing 250 slow motion replays of those incidents the whole world were divided on what the right decision should have been...in all 4 cases. Yep, vidoe technology will solve it...no question! :) Not that bloody Spurs ‘goal’ again. All you advocates of video technology cite that incident.

So let me please say again: The officials and players were so far away from the incident that NOBODY had any view of what happened. There was no major protests on the pitch and it therefore would NOT have led to a call for a video review.

Goal line incidents are few and far between…video technology for this alone would solve little.

But then, why not introduce it on a wide scale? That would have sorted the 4 penatly decisions for Chelsea in the CL semi wouldn’t it? Oh no wait a second….despite everyone seeing 250 slow motion replays of those incidents the whole world were divided on what the right decision should have been…in all 4 cases.

Yep, vidoe technology will solve it…no question! :)

]]>