If they were to add video feedback what should happen is the video refs will watch it as soon as they fall or the whistle is blown. Think about it.... So many games where the penalties have stuffed up the game like in a game of Greece vs. Ivory Coast I believe, a player in the box trips on his heel blaming the chasing player!!! It's just plain stupidity. If a soccer player cannot be honest and fair in the game what is the point of having tournaments? Think of the money they are getting when fouls are put against a team and the other wins.
I believe each team should be allowed to challenge (say) one decision in each half of the game, which is then checked by technology. If the challenge is upheld then they retain the right to have a further challenge. Unless a team is making an official challenge, any other show of dissent is punished by a yellow card (or red card if overdone). This system would reduce injustices and poor decisions, as well as preventing dissent and pressurising of referees.
Penalties - By the time the penalty has been given to actually taking the penalty is about a minute and a half because of arguing with the ref picking who takes the penalty and so forth. So by that time the 4th referee could have looked this up on a monitor to make sure it is a penalty if it is, he doesn't have to say anything, if it isn't a penalty he can just tell the referee and give the correct decision.
Red Cards - One example I will use is Gaston Ramirez for Hull City against Tottenham, no way a sending off at all, stupid decision and completely ruined the game especially for Hull City. Terrible call but it took about a minute to 2 minutes to give the red card by this time the 4th referee is already listening to all the chatter between the linesman and the referee and quickly give it a look and give the right decision.
Dangerous Free kicks - Just the same as penalty shouts.
Offsides or any impediments that result in a goal - Goes without saying, 4th ref could look this up in a second to make sure it's all good or not. Don't see the problem at all.
Just all of the above need to be controlled by a 4th referee in front of a screen.
That and players need to be finned heavily for diving and banned for x amount of games
Football needs technology because it is more reliable than a human. We could only use it to debate yellow and red cards, goals, and penalty kicks. We can still leave out of bounds, which team touched it last, and regular fouls to the 3-man (imperfect) crew that can sometimes call calls massively wrong.
There is a proposed 18th Law by Paul James Gabol. The TV technology does not have to be improved. The system and law features a 4th referee reviewing the critical plays while the game goes on. It is very simple. You do not stop the game ever. Seek the law
Referees are very often found to give controveseal decisions which did cost a team to lose a match,especially in high profile tournaments.If there is a controversy regarding a referee's decision , like cricket, a second or third referee should overrule a wrong decision by a referee.Some players get away with foul play and others are punished then and there.It does harm the reputation of the game in a globalised world.
I am very passionate about Soccer and Mexico's team was closer than ever to win against Netherlands. It broke my heart to see them loose with a Non-supported penalty in the last minute. If video repetition is implemented, the game would be just like USA football. Fair game based on talent not the referee.
If you think about how many important games have been lost by an unfair ruling by the referee, you would probably think it makes sense to provide a solution that grants fairness to both teams. The technology is available.
It should be a high-cost option for players in order to avoid delay of game as well as fishing for a different result. Example, players should be able to challenge the referee call and suggest a result. If the original ruling on the field stands, the opposite team should be entitled to a penalty kick against the team that challenged the rule. But if the ruling challenged is in fact legitimate. The contesting team should be rewarded and granted the most logical result from a fair result. (i.E, offside, penalty kick, no penalty kick if there was no foul inside the box, free kick, etc etc.
Cheating has become an accepted part of football for too long, shirt-pulling, diving, actual or feigned pushes, hits, kicks. Players and ex-players now behave as though this cheating is an essential part of the game, as though it is a form of artistry, another skill of the game. It is almost as though it complements the corruption shown by FIFA and the obscenity of excess money in the game/business. The referees do an amazing job, but they cannot see everything and they are bound to get key decisions wrong unaided. The use of technology in other sports, e.g. Rugby, tennis, cricket has been long proven to eliminate incorrect snap decisions and ensure that cheats are detected and punished. Does the continue refusal to accept the inevitable confirm just how corrupt and rotten football has become?
Not having a Video Replay system in place is absurd, archaic, and negligent in every way, shape or form. The technology is here... Use it FIFA!!!! And stop corrupting the sport!
I guarantee you that FIFA officials who oppose to Video replays are the ones who want to continue to manipulate the sport only to benefit themselves in in the form of bribes, and other financial gains.
SIMPLY NOT FAIR!
Is it so difficult to hand over the decisionmaking to one man (and his assistents) and just accept his judgement? Only when this middleman turns out not to be impartial, then we are heading for trouble.
Secondly, technology is bound to break down some day. Will games be postponed in the future, because of 'a failing network'?
In qualifications for the world cup of 2010, Henry of the French national team committed a serious handball offense. He scored using his hands, and the refs missed it. Refs should get better. Adding technology will only make the refs lazy, since they won't have to be as sharp and can rely on technology to do their job.
Teams would abuse this system and demand replays all the time. The game is fun to play and watch because it flows - there are no needless interruptions. Referees get most of their calls correctly, and with 6 officials on the field working together, the referee has a better perspective on what happens on the pitch.
Let's not forget that soccer is accessible. All you need to do to play it officially (under the Laws of the Game) is a ball, eleven players, two goals and a field. Let's not add cameras and other expensive tech to the mix (note that Goal line technology is optional in the current FIFA LOTG).
I still believe that humans are able to referee football matches. I don't think a video camera would do as good a job as an actual person refereeing the football matches. Also, having a human helps people to learn how to respect those in authority, an attitude that is seriously lacking. If we continue to allow referees to work, people will learn that they need to respect others' authority.
I'm sure that video technology would be great to referee football, but are there really that many calls that would be saved by it to make it worthwhile? Even with video technology, there will probably be calls that could be different. Nothing in the world will make everybody happy with every single call.
The controversial decisions from referee's is what makes the game so interesting and why it is the most popular sport worldwide! Everyone makes mistakes and a mistake can cost games, similarly with if the keeper or defender makes a mistake. If technology is welcomed to the game then it will never be the same classic game the world has loved for years.
NFL reviews average 2 minutes and 8 seconds per review. With how many reviewable plays there are in soccer, this would add up too much and give players extra rest. Part of soccer's tradition is not having any time outs or stoppages (aside from injuries), and video replay would go against that.
Most red card and penalty incidences are a matter of interpretation, and there are too many grey areas. Goal-line tech worked because it gave an immediate answer to a question where there was no middle ground. Difficult to replicate in other areas of the game. Managers will just criticise the television match official instead of the ref. http://www.dailynewsservice.co.uk/referees-getting-worse-need-technology/
With so many cameras on the pitch (about thirty or so on the World Cup stage here in 2014), it is unforgivable not to use them to their full extent. Humans make mistakes (deliberate or not), which is what can easily be avoided with the use of technology. Many games would have different outcomes had the technology been used and it would make the game more fair. No more acting, false calls by the referee and dismissals of regular goals. In this day and age it is absurd to relay on the opinion of one man to decide the game one way or the other. The reason FIFA hasn't implemented this yet is perhaps one of control. Refs are easy to manipulate.
H h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h