Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
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)
|
There is huge reason right here as to why not to use the video ref. In Rugby (and Rugby League) there are very limited parameters into how the video can be used, specifically relating to the play leading up to a try, and whether it is scored or not. League don't allow the video ref to go back before the previous 'play the ball', and Rugby is pretty much limited to checking grounding of the ball and touchlines.
The issue in soccer is how far back do you go? There can quite often be several minutes of play since the last stoppage - what is the parameters used to determine? The last minute? The last 5 passes? Of course as soon as you bring in a hard rule like this, a few 6 passes ago gets ignored and people complain. Soccer has few enough goals (especially at this level), and I'd suggest that any video ref would actually reduce the numbers. I'm not sure this is in the best interest of the game.
RE the 'offside' - that is too close to call, and no sane linesman would put his flag up for that. The referee is in no position to call that. It is clear he stuffed up in rewarding a free kick, which was obviously NOT for offside.