Video technology

Just seen video technology used in the under 20 World Cup final . A penalty was given that I did not think was a penalty , but was given . The video technology showed that it was a penalty and the review took less than a minute. I must admit I was against the use of if but after seeing it in action I am converted .

Just seen video technology used in the under 20 World Cup final . A penalty was given that I did not think was a penalty , but was given . The video technology showed that it was a penalty and the review took less than a minute. I must admit I was against the use of if but after seeing it in action I am converted .

It's still a minute and that's too long (whether the original decision was right or wrong) when we want the game to 'flow'. We also need to consider that by taking away the referees 'right to referee' we are taking away a key component of the game, i.e. the debatable decision

It's certainly a toughie but we have goal-line technology and additional linesmen available 'on the spot', so personally I don't think the number of 'wrong' decisions are enough to warrant stopping the game for such long periods of time; particularly when we already know that some managers/coaches/players will take EVERY advantage they possibly can and for so many different reasons (tactical or otherwise)

Just seen video technology used in the under 20 World Cup final . A penalty was given that I did not think was a penalty , but was given . The video technology showed that it was a penalty and the review took less than a minute. I must admit I was against the use of if but after seeing it in action I am converted .

It's still a minute and that's too long (whether the original decision was right or wrong) when we want the game to 'flow'. We also need to consider that by taking away the referees 'right to referee' we are taking away a key component of the game, i.e. the debatable decision

It's certainly a toughie but we have goal-line technology and additional linesmen available 'on the spot', so personally I don't think the number of 'wrong' decisions are enough to warrant stopping the game for such long periods of time; particularly when we already know that some managers/coaches/players will take EVEY advantage they possibly can and for so many different reasons (tactical or otherwise)

Gotta disagree with you here Sven.Players like Grelish would spend most of the season banned for cheating.Goal line technology has proved to be a useful addition to the game and anything that stops players from cheating has my vote.

I think if the technology is available it should be used. We see umpires in cricket overruled frequently, and we know every time Cardiff lose it is down to poor refeering. Too much money at stake in football in this day and age, and one or two bad decisions has the potential to cost a football club tens of millions of pounds. Probably fair enough if that club happens to be Swansea, but not fair on the other 91 clubs.

Not 100% sure but it may have only been used for penalty decisions It really did not seem any longer to take the penalty than normal .

At end of day the games been stopped so a minute to decide decision can actually help matters as teams wIll accept decision more? Will also help calm things down.

Needs to stop at goal line technology for me

Just seen video technology used in the under 20 World Cup final . A penalty was given that I did not think was a penalty , but was given . The video technology showed that it was a penalty and the review took less than a minute. I must admit I was against the use of if but after seeing it in action I am converted .

It's still a minute and that's too long (whether the original decision was right or wrong) when we want the game to 'flow'. We also need to consider that by taking away the referees 'right to referee' we are taking away a key component of the game, i.e. the debatable decision

It's certainly a toughie but we have goal-line technology and additional linesmen available 'on the spot', so personally I don't think the number of 'wrong' decisions are enough to warrant stopping the game for such long periods of time; particularly when we already know that some managers/coaches/players will take EVEY advantage they possibly can and for so many different reasons (tactical or otherwise)

Gotta disagree with you here Sven.Players like Grelish would spend most of the season banned for cheating.Goal line technology has proved to be a useful addition to the game and anything that stops players from cheating has my vote.

Retrospective stuff for Equity card-holding acrobatic clowns like Grealish are (in theory at least) in place as it stands. My comments refer solely to dynamic 'on-the-spot' decisions that would take a lot out of the game through disruption of its rhythm and I just feel atet there are clever 'tacticians' out there that would seek to use it for the wrong reasons

With more and more American owners, we'll be looking at 'Time Outs' and 5 hour stadium experiences soon! Well, those who remain in the usual cold, wet winter UK weather will!

Just seen video technology used in the under 20 World Cup final . A penalty was given that I did not think was a penalty , but was given . The video technology showed that it was a penalty and the review took less than a minute. I must admit I was against the use of if but after seeing it in action I am converted .

It's still a minute and that's too long (whether the original decision was right or wrong) when we want the game to 'flow'. We also need to consider that by taking away the referees 'right to referee' we are taking away a key component of the game, i.e. the debatable decision

It's certainly a toughie but we have goal-line technology and additional linesmen available 'on the spot', so personally I don't think the number of 'wrong' decisions are enough to warrant stopping the game for such long periods of time; particularly when we already know that some managers/coaches/players will take EVEY advantage they possibly can and for so many different reasons (tactical or otherwise)

Gotta disagree with you here Sven.Players like Grelish would spend most of the season banned for cheating.Goal line technology has proved to be a useful addition to the game and anything that stops players from cheating has my vote.

Retrospective stuff for Equity card-holding acrobatic clowns like Grealish are (in theory at least) in place as it stands. My comments refer solely to dynamic 'on-the-spot' decisions that would take a lot out of the game through disruption of its rhythm and I just feel atet there are clever 'tacticians' out there that would seek to use it for the wrong reasons

With more and more American owners, we'll be looking at 'Time Outs' and 5 hour stadium experiences soon! Well, those who remain in the usual cold, wet winter UK weather will!

You old codger you-bring back leather footballs

Just seen video technology used in the under 20 World Cup final . A penalty was given that I did not think was a penalty , but was given . The video technology showed that it was a penalty and the review took less than a minute. I must admit I was against the use of if but after seeing it in action I am converted .

It's still a minute and that's too long (whether the original decision was right or wrong) when we want the game to 'flow'. We also need to consider that by taking away the referees 'right to referee' we are taking away a key component of the game, i.e. the debatable decision

It's certainly a toughie but we have goal-line technology and additional linesmen available 'on the spot', so personally I don't think the number of 'wrong' decisions are enough to warrant stopping the game for such long periods of time; particularly when we already know that some managers/coaches/players will take EVEY advantage they possibly can and for so many different reasons (tactical or otherwise)

Gotta disagree with you here Sven.Players like Grelish would spend most of the season banned for cheating.Goal line technology has proved to be a useful addition to the game and anything that stops players from cheating has my vote.

Retrospective stuff for Equity card-holding acrobatic clowns like Grealish are (in theory at least) in place as it stands. My comments refer solely to dynamic 'on-the-spot' decisions that would take a lot out of the game through disruption of its rhythm and I just feel atet there are clever 'tacticians' out there that would seek to use it for the wrong reasons

With more and more American owners, we'll be looking at 'Time Outs' and 5 hour stadium experiences soon! Well, those who remain in the usual cold, wet winter UK weather will!

You old codger you-bring back leather footballs

Video technology. Another way to cancel out pub fights.

At present only used for pen decision when ref blows whistle! But will it spread as time goes on? Rugby tmo was initially for goaline decisions but now seen it used to decide if player was offside or forward pass in build-up a minute earlier! Also refs rely mostly on tmo to make 99% of decisions even when no need to plus can take several minutes to decide, don't want that in footy.

It can't come soon enough, need it 100%. The game has become farcical now, especially at the top. Its a weekly occurance. At times last season I was going into a match thinking we have to score 2 just to have any chance of winning due to the customary awful referee dedision gifting them a goal. That Burnley one was one in a long line of just shocking decisions, for those that didnt see it - Sam Vokes handles in an attacking situation in our box - and the ref awarded THEM a penalty for handball.

With the amount of protests these obvious wrong decisions have, it would be far quicker for a bloke to look at the replay and say "nah you are wrong". The T?v showed the replay 4 times before the kick was ultimately taken. Talking points and debate is not a good enough reason to continue to live in the dark ages. Too much money involved and clubs futures are on the line, something needs to be done ASAP.

Retrospective action is not good enough as the team may end up getting double punished (lost a game because someone cheated) then they are banned the next week when playing a relegation rival for example. Retrospective action still does not put the right decision on the pitch.

Took less than a minute to get the correct decision

Took less than a minute to get the correct decision

The referee got the decision correct in a milli-second without the need for a lengthy replay!

Took less than a minute to get the correct decision

The referee got the decision correct in a milli-second without the need for a lengthy replay!

Sven the ref bowed to pressure from England players to review it And that is where problem lay! Probably find nearly every incident of ref giving pen will be challenged , like said earlier rugby tmo was initially for goaline decisions ref wasn't sure of but now it's 99% of incidents as ref now relying on tmo instead of backing his own judgement! He's afraid of being proved wrong by the close scrutiny of tv, footy will be same.

Video technology will improve football to no end in my eyes. This argument that it ruins the controversy and debate about football is bull shit. The controversy and debate is about the tactical side of the game and the way players play etc. A goal being given that shouldn't have been given just ruins it. The sooner those issues are ironed out, the better. I hate to see refs criticised for mistakes. We are all only human and the pace of the game now is unreal. The refs need assistance.

I also see about the argument of players moaning. I agree, that's still a major problem. The sooner the FIFA introduces a "captains only speak to the ref" policy, the better.

am i the only one that sees contentious decisions argued about in TV studios by ex players,managers and pundits..and then the following day by two prominent refs one on either side in the press. all of whom have watched the incident over and over from 20 angles...1minute this time..5 minutes next time.
im with Sven