The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've seen a lot of debates about whether real time video evidence should be used in football matches. Each time the debate comes down to 2 basic arguments. Those in favour will argue that it must be introduced as it is simply impossible for one man at pitch level to make the right decision every time. Those against will argue that if we do, play will constantly be stopped as players protest decisions and insist the referee goes to the third eye.
Having listened to both sides I simply don't see the problem. There are several ways of handling this.
If you watched the second leg of the Worthington Cup Semi-final between Tottenham and Chelsea and witnessed the ridiculous sending off of Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink then you will know that most major events in games like that ALWAYS result in a long delay. If you were watching the game live, then you knew that it was Mario Melchiot who had thrown an arm at Teddy Sheringham at least 2 minutes before referee Mark Halsey raised the red card. So, why don't we have someone watching the game from several different angles in a studio. The referee has an earpiece and this second referee is constantly updating the referee on the things he or she sees. For things like offsides and fouls, the referee simply allows play to continue for a few seconds, and then makes his decision based on additional information if required.
In fact many games would be improved dramatically by the referee allowing himself a few seconds longer before making a decision. How many times have you seen a referee blow for a foul only to realise too late that playing the advantage would have been a better choice?
If this idea isn't to your taste, then we can tackle it slightly differently by only using video evidence upon the request of the referee. To stop players delaying the game and trying to get the Referee to go to the video make it an automatic red card offence. Only the referee makes the decision - no one else does it for him - if he is 100% sure he's made the right decision then he goes with it. If a player protests then he is sent off.
Would players really protest more to get the referee to go to video evidence? Most players protest every major decision regardless of whether the referee is right or wrong. With video evidence would players who know they are wrong call for video evidence? Probably not, they might not even protest at all. However, it still confuses me why players protest at all - I have yet to see a referee reverse a sending off or take away a penalty as a result of a player telling him he's wrong.
Sendings-off themselves are a problem particularly if it proves to be a duff call. What I would like to see if the decision slightly removed from the referee by introducing a Sin Bin. If the referee thinks that the player has committed a red card offence, then he goes into the Sin Bin. Meanwhile video evidence is reviewed and if the player was wrongly sent off then he is allowed back on when the ball next goes out of play. 99 times out of a 100 it is quite clear within seconds whether the referee was right or not.
I think the bottom line is to deal with the situation logically and rationally. Most other major sports now employ some kind of real time video evidence, and if it is done correctly then it can be done without significantly delaying the game.
While I'm on the topic of referees, I can't help but mention some other things that I would like to see changed.
Firstly, stop referees enforcing pointless free kicks. A prime example is when a goalkeeper is fouled when catching the ball. The keeper has the ball in his hands, and would much rather keep it in hand. But time and again the referee will make him take a free kick when he clearly doesn't want one. A bit of common sense required.
Offside - this is the biggest problem in football these days, and I am tempted to suggest dropping the rule all together. The worry of course is that some teams will employ a permanent goal hanger. Maybe the thing to do is to have something in between where a player is only adjudged to be offside if he is a long way offside. i.e. if he is clearly about 10 feet beyond the last player and making no attempt to get back to them. Needs more discussion, but definitely needs resolving. Relaxing offside would open the game up more for a start and would stop the endlessly annoying Arsenal back-four arm raising. This tactic is very effective because the linesman is distracted by the players arms being raised. He then looks across the line and sees the player offside. Delaying him even for a fraction of a second can make all the difference.
I would also like to see referees with a microphone relaying all their decisions to the stadium as a whole. That would make them more accountable for their actions, and would possibly encourage them to think more about their decisions, rather than making heat of the moment calls.
Why o why are referees still responsible for timing the game? It is simply much easier for someone else to keep track of time, and the delays, and have a hooter signal the end of the game. I have noticed that on Sky they tell you how long the ball has been in play for a match, and it always seems to be around the 60 minute mark. So why not make the game timed on how long the ball is in play, having 30 minutes each half? It would completely remove time wasting as a problem.
One final thought. In the match I mentioned earlier Teddy Sheringham was booked for protesting about Hasselbaink's sending off. Can a referee not see that he may have it wrong if the opposing team are arguing that he's made a bad call, even though it is to their advantage. Clearly in this case Hasselbaink will suffer no punishment for the sending off, but I would like to see Sheringham's yellow card rescinded as well for playing the game the way it's meant to be played. Fairly. (whether he would have been so fair, had his team not been 3-0 up and cruising is another matter).
Having listened to both sides I simply don't see the problem. There are several ways of handling this.
If you watched the second leg of the Worthington Cup Semi-final between Tottenham and Chelsea and witnessed the ridiculous sending off of Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink then you will know that most major events in games like that ALWAYS result in a long delay. If you were watching the game live, then you knew that it was Mario Melchiot who had thrown an arm at Teddy Sheringham at least 2 minutes before referee Mark Halsey raised the red card. So, why don't we have someone watching the game from several different angles in a studio. The referee has an earpiece and this second referee is constantly updating the referee on the things he or she sees. For things like offsides and fouls, the referee simply allows play to continue for a few seconds, and then makes his decision based on additional information if required.
In fact many games would be improved dramatically by the referee allowing himself a few seconds longer before making a decision. How many times have you seen a referee blow for a foul only to realise too late that playing the advantage would have been a better choice?
If this idea isn't to your taste, then we can tackle it slightly differently by only using video evidence upon the request of the referee. To stop players delaying the game and trying to get the Referee to go to the video make it an automatic red card offence. Only the referee makes the decision - no one else does it for him - if he is 100% sure he's made the right decision then he goes with it. If a player protests then he is sent off.
Would players really protest more to get the referee to go to video evidence? Most players protest every major decision regardless of whether the referee is right or wrong. With video evidence would players who know they are wrong call for video evidence? Probably not, they might not even protest at all. However, it still confuses me why players protest at all - I have yet to see a referee reverse a sending off or take away a penalty as a result of a player telling him he's wrong.
Sendings-off themselves are a problem particularly if it proves to be a duff call. What I would like to see if the decision slightly removed from the referee by introducing a Sin Bin. If the referee thinks that the player has committed a red card offence, then he goes into the Sin Bin. Meanwhile video evidence is reviewed and if the player was wrongly sent off then he is allowed back on when the ball next goes out of play. 99 times out of a 100 it is quite clear within seconds whether the referee was right or not.
I think the bottom line is to deal with the situation logically and rationally. Most other major sports now employ some kind of real time video evidence, and if it is done correctly then it can be done without significantly delaying the game.
While I'm on the topic of referees, I can't help but mention some other things that I would like to see changed.
Firstly, stop referees enforcing pointless free kicks. A prime example is when a goalkeeper is fouled when catching the ball. The keeper has the ball in his hands, and would much rather keep it in hand. But time and again the referee will make him take a free kick when he clearly doesn't want one. A bit of common sense required.
Offside - this is the biggest problem in football these days, and I am tempted to suggest dropping the rule all together. The worry of course is that some teams will employ a permanent goal hanger. Maybe the thing to do is to have something in between where a player is only adjudged to be offside if he is a long way offside. i.e. if he is clearly about 10 feet beyond the last player and making no attempt to get back to them. Needs more discussion, but definitely needs resolving. Relaxing offside would open the game up more for a start and would stop the endlessly annoying Arsenal back-four arm raising. This tactic is very effective because the linesman is distracted by the players arms being raised. He then looks across the line and sees the player offside. Delaying him even for a fraction of a second can make all the difference.
I would also like to see referees with a microphone relaying all their decisions to the stadium as a whole. That would make them more accountable for their actions, and would possibly encourage them to think more about their decisions, rather than making heat of the moment calls.
Why o why are referees still responsible for timing the game? It is simply much easier for someone else to keep track of time, and the delays, and have a hooter signal the end of the game. I have noticed that on Sky they tell you how long the ball has been in play for a match, and it always seems to be around the 60 minute mark. So why not make the game timed on how long the ball is in play, having 30 minutes each half? It would completely remove time wasting as a problem.
One final thought. In the match I mentioned earlier Teddy Sheringham was booked for protesting about Hasselbaink's sending off. Can a referee not see that he may have it wrong if the opposing team are arguing that he's made a bad call, even though it is to their advantage. Clearly in this case Hasselbaink will suffer no punishment for the sending off, but I would like to see Sheringham's yellow card rescinded as well for playing the game the way it's meant to be played. Fairly. (whether he would have been so fair, had his team not been 3-0 up and cruising is another matter).
Nice post, some very good points made.
Being a Tottenham fan I have to admit I laughed when Hasselbaink was sent off, but Id have been furious if that was a Tottenham player.
Problems like these can easily be solved using a "3rd eye" as the game is stopped anyway. Things like offside decisions would need a little looking into, but I dont see why the FA dont implement this idea......
Being a Tottenham fan I have to admit I laughed when Hasselbaink was sent off, but Id have been furious if that was a Tottenham player.
Problems like these can easily be solved using a "3rd eye" as the game is stopped anyway. Things like offside decisions would need a little looking into, but I dont see why the FA dont implement this idea......
I've seen a lot of debates about whether real time video evidence should be used in football matches. Each time the debate comes down to 2 basic arguments. Those in favour will argue that it must be introduced as it is simply impossible for one man at pitch level to make the right decision every time. Those against will argue that if we do, play will constantly be stopped as players protest decisions and insist the referee goes to the third eye.
Having listened to both sides I simply don't see the problem. There are several ways of handling this.
If you watched the second leg of the Worthington Cup Semi-final between Tottenham and Chelsea and witnessed the ridiculous sending off of Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink then you will know that most major events in games like that ALWAYS result in a long delay. If you were watching the game live, then you knew that it was Mario Melchiot who had thrown an arm at Teddy Sheringham at least 2 minutes before referee Mark Halsey raised the red card. So, why don't we have someone watching the game from several different angles in a studio. The referee has an earpiece and this second referee is constantly updating the referee on the things he or she sees. For things like offsides and fouls, the referee simply allows play to continue for a few seconds, and then makes his decision based on additional information if required.
In fact many games would be improved dramatically by the referee allowing himself a few seconds longer before making a decision. How many times have you seen a referee blow for a foul only to realise too late that playing the advantage would have been a better choice?
If this idea isn't to your taste, then we can tackle it slightly differently by only using video evidence upon the request of the referee. To stop players delaying the game and trying to get the Referee to go to the video make it an automatic red card offence. Only the referee makes the decision - no one else does it for him - if he is 100% sure he's made the right decision then he goes with it. If a player protests then he is sent off.
Would players really protest more to get the referee to go to video evidence? Most players protest every major decision regardless of whether the referee is right or wrong. With video evidence would players who know they are wrong call for video evidence? Probably not, they might not even protest at all. However, it still confuses me why players protest at all - I have yet to see a referee reverse a sending off or take away a penalty as a result of a player telling him he's wrong.
Sendings-off themselves are a problem particularly if it proves to be a duff call. What I would like to see if the decision slightly removed from the referee by introducing a Sin Bin. If the referee thinks that the player has committed a red card offence, then he goes into the Sin Bin. Meanwhile video evidence is reviewed and if the player was wrongly sent off then he is allowed back on when the ball next goes out of play. 99 times out of a 100 it is quite clear within seconds whether the referee was right or not.
I think the bottom line is to deal with the situation logically and rationally. Most other major sports now employ some kind of real time video evidence, and if it is done correctly then it can be done without significantly delaying the game.
While I'm on the topic of referees, I can't help but mention some other things that I would like to see changed.
Firstly, stop referees enforcing pointless free kicks. A prime example is when a goalkeeper is fouled when catching the ball. The keeper has the ball in his hands, and would much rather keep it in hand. But time and again the referee will make him take a free kick when he clearly doesn't want one. A bit of common sense required.
Offside - this is the biggest problem in football these days, and I am tempted to suggest dropping the rule all together. The worry of course is that some teams will employ a permanent goal hanger. Maybe the thing to do is to have something in between where a player is only adjudged to be offside if he is a long way offside. i.e. if he is clearly about 10 feet beyond the last player and making no attempt to get back to them. Needs more discussion, but definitely needs resolving. Relaxing offside would open the game up more for a start and would stop the endlessly annoying Arsenal back-four arm raising. This tactic is very effective because the linesman is distracted by the players arms being raised. He then looks across the line and sees the player offside. Delaying him even for a fraction of a second can make all the difference.
I would also like to see referees with a microphone relaying all their decisions to the stadium as a whole. That would make them more accountable for their actions, and would possibly encourage them to think more about their decisions, rather than making heat of the moment calls.
Why o why are referees still responsible for timing the game? It is simply much easier for someone else to keep track of time, and the delays, and have a hooter signal the end of the game. I have noticed that on Sky they tell you how long the ball has been in play for a match, and it always seems to be around the 60 minute mark. So why not make the game timed on how long the ball is in play, having 30 minutes each half? It would completely remove time wasting as a problem.
One final thought. In the match I mentioned earlier Teddy Sheringham was booked for protesting about Hasselbaink's sending off. Can a referee not see that he may have it wrong if the opposing team are arguing that he's made a bad call, even though it is to their advantage. Clearly in this case Hasselbaink will suffer no punishment for the sending off, but I would like to see Sheringham's yellow card rescinded as well for playing the game the way it's meant to be played. Fairly. (whether he would have been so fair, had his team not been 3-0 up and cruising is another matter).
Having listened to both sides I simply don't see the problem. There are several ways of handling this.
If you watched the second leg of the Worthington Cup Semi-final between Tottenham and Chelsea and witnessed the ridiculous sending off of Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink then you will know that most major events in games like that ALWAYS result in a long delay. If you were watching the game live, then you knew that it was Mario Melchiot who had thrown an arm at Teddy Sheringham at least 2 minutes before referee Mark Halsey raised the red card. So, why don't we have someone watching the game from several different angles in a studio. The referee has an earpiece and this second referee is constantly updating the referee on the things he or she sees. For things like offsides and fouls, the referee simply allows play to continue for a few seconds, and then makes his decision based on additional information if required.
In fact many games would be improved dramatically by the referee allowing himself a few seconds longer before making a decision. How many times have you seen a referee blow for a foul only to realise too late that playing the advantage would have been a better choice?
If this idea isn't to your taste, then we can tackle it slightly differently by only using video evidence upon the request of the referee. To stop players delaying the game and trying to get the Referee to go to the video make it an automatic red card offence. Only the referee makes the decision - no one else does it for him - if he is 100% sure he's made the right decision then he goes with it. If a player protests then he is sent off.
Would players really protest more to get the referee to go to video evidence? Most players protest every major decision regardless of whether the referee is right or wrong. With video evidence would players who know they are wrong call for video evidence? Probably not, they might not even protest at all. However, it still confuses me why players protest at all - I have yet to see a referee reverse a sending off or take away a penalty as a result of a player telling him he's wrong.
Sendings-off themselves are a problem particularly if it proves to be a duff call. What I would like to see if the decision slightly removed from the referee by introducing a Sin Bin. If the referee thinks that the player has committed a red card offence, then he goes into the Sin Bin. Meanwhile video evidence is reviewed and if the player was wrongly sent off then he is allowed back on when the ball next goes out of play. 99 times out of a 100 it is quite clear within seconds whether the referee was right or not.
I think the bottom line is to deal with the situation logically and rationally. Most other major sports now employ some kind of real time video evidence, and if it is done correctly then it can be done without significantly delaying the game.
While I'm on the topic of referees, I can't help but mention some other things that I would like to see changed.
Firstly, stop referees enforcing pointless free kicks. A prime example is when a goalkeeper is fouled when catching the ball. The keeper has the ball in his hands, and would much rather keep it in hand. But time and again the referee will make him take a free kick when he clearly doesn't want one. A bit of common sense required.
Offside - this is the biggest problem in football these days, and I am tempted to suggest dropping the rule all together. The worry of course is that some teams will employ a permanent goal hanger. Maybe the thing to do is to have something in between where a player is only adjudged to be offside if he is a long way offside. i.e. if he is clearly about 10 feet beyond the last player and making no attempt to get back to them. Needs more discussion, but definitely needs resolving. Relaxing offside would open the game up more for a start and would stop the endlessly annoying Arsenal back-four arm raising. This tactic is very effective because the linesman is distracted by the players arms being raised. He then looks across the line and sees the player offside. Delaying him even for a fraction of a second can make all the difference.
I would also like to see referees with a microphone relaying all their decisions to the stadium as a whole. That would make them more accountable for their actions, and would possibly encourage them to think more about their decisions, rather than making heat of the moment calls.
Why o why are referees still responsible for timing the game? It is simply much easier for someone else to keep track of time, and the delays, and have a hooter signal the end of the game. I have noticed that on Sky they tell you how long the ball has been in play for a match, and it always seems to be around the 60 minute mark. So why not make the game timed on how long the ball is in play, having 30 minutes each half? It would completely remove time wasting as a problem.
One final thought. In the match I mentioned earlier Teddy Sheringham was booked for protesting about Hasselbaink's sending off. Can a referee not see that he may have it wrong if the opposing team are arguing that he's made a bad call, even though it is to their advantage. Clearly in this case Hasselbaink will suffer no punishment for the sending off, but I would like to see Sheringham's yellow card rescinded as well for playing the game the way it's meant to be played. Fairly. (whether he would have been so fair, had his team not been 3-0 up and cruising is another matter).