|
Video evidence kind of is used to a degree - in that red cards can be reviewed and taken back retrospectively in terms of bans, and also people can be banned on basis of video evidence if the referee requests it.
The main argument against using video evidence in football is that because its a fluid game, video replays will make it too stop start, but I dont really agree. It works perfectly in rugby. I think in the next couple of years they will bring in goal line technology, and from there hopefully extend it. You'd have the 4th official reviewing video (in games where its available of course), rather than just holding up the substitute board as now, and mic'd up to the ref. He would have the ability to call play back, answer disputed calls, spot foul play missed by the ref (such as diving or off the ball incidents)
Youd have to think about how you managed issues in open play (ie - I wouldnt personally use it for offsides, because if the linesman knows every decision can go back to the video ref he'll tend to not flag if there is any doubt at all) - but ultimately seasons, tournamounts, games can turn on one call, and the game has a responsibility to do everything to make it the right call when it does.
There is a case for the human element I guess, but I think most people are in favour of giving the refs all the technology and the tools to make the right decisions.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."
The Gospel of Thomas
|