Video replays will be used for key refereeing decisions during Italy's friendly with Germany on Tuesday.

[Chicog]

Cue some furious fapping from our video replay fanatics...

 

Video replays will be used for key refereeing decisions during Italy's friendly with Germany on Tuesday.

Two video assistant referees will look at goals scored, penalties awarded, red cards and mistaken identities as part of a semi-live trial.

The referee will not be able to review the footage on a pitchside monitor.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino said in April he hoped the 2018 World Cup in Russia would be the first tournament to use the technology.

Video replays were first used at international level during a friendly between Italy and France in September.

It has been tested in six other countries, including in the third-tier United Soccer League in America and the Dutch Cup, with a final decision on its use to be made by 2018.

"Football will not be changed by this and I hope that football will become more honest," said Marco van Basten, former Netherlands striker and Fifa's chief of technical development.

"I am convinced it will be good. It may take some time. Players, referees will have to adapt a bit but it will be good."

[StevieH]

disappointed in van basten there. always liked him.

[Chicog]

4 minutes ago, StevieH said:

disappointed in van basten there. always liked him.

 

Got his cushy FIFA job, innit.

[mrbojangles]

I always liked Van Basten. I like him even more now for his forward thinking

[JaseTheBass]

I doubt it'd make the game any more boring than the majority already is, so seems like a good idea.

[StevieH]

49 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Got his cushy FIFA job, innit.

 

aye. and he's lapsed into their doublespeak already. "football will not be changed by this". then why do it?

[Chicog]

Reminds me of those lottery winners that say "It won't change my life".

Well f*&$ing give it to me then!

 

[mrbojangles]

5 hours ago, StevieH said:

 

aye. and he's lapsed into their doublespeak already. "football will not be changed by this". then why do it?

 

You missed out the "why"bit Stevie

 

"Football will not be changed by this and I hope that football will become more honest," said Marco van Basten,

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

 

You missed out the "why"bit Stevie

 

"Football will not be changed by this and I hope that football will become more honest," said Marco van Basten,

 

He needs to make his mind up then, doesn't he?

 

[mrbojangles]

English isn't his first language, so a bit of slack should be given instead of hanging on his every word I reckon.  

[StevieH]

hopes that football will become more honest/works for FIFA. hmm.

[Chicog]

3 hours ago, StevieH said:

hopes that football will become more honest/works for FIFA. hmm.

 

And probably does very nicely out of it, too.

 

 

[mrbojangles]

Blimey, give Van Basten a chance guys. He's not even started working at FIFA yet as he? And even when he does, he's gonna be on the payroll and not part of the "establishment". I believe I read that he is gonna be in the area of football development, reform, looking at the playing rules and refereeing etc. So he is looking at the actual game of football rather than the wheeling and dealing stuff done in Hotels

[Chicog]

13 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

he's gonna be on the payroll and not part of the "establishment". 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Not long now...;-)

Secret video technology trials are being conducted during Premier League matches this season, Telegraph Sport can reveal...
Non-live trials have so far been conducted during 12 Premier League games, which have flagged up between two and four decisions per match that would qualify for video analysis...
Reviews of these incidents – limited to those involving goals, penalties, red cards and cases of mistaken identity – have typically taken no more than 40 seconds...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/11/16/premier-league-begins-conducting-secret-video-technology-trials/

[Chicog]

And all to please the armchair referees.

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Not to please anybody.

Video assistance is to help determine four categories of "game changing" moments: goals scored, red cards, penalties and mistaken identity.

[Chicog]

And when they go against you, you'll probably claim the fourth official got it wrong.

 

[Bredbury Blue]

^I would if he got it wrong.

I have no doubt video refs in any sport get it wrong despite loads of camera angles, but it's better in my opinion to use video refs than what happens now where the poor officials are having to make blink of an eye decisions which are sometimes wrong and affect the result. As I've said on these forums several times, I want the result to not be affected by wrong decisions and if that means stopping the game 4 times for 40 seconds each I'm definitely ok with that WHETHER RESULTS GO FOR OR AGAINST MY TEAM or whichever team I'm rooting for in a game.

[Bredbury Blue]

^I would if he got it wrong.

I have no doubt video refs in any sport get it wrong despite loads of camera angles, but it's better in my opinion to use video refs than what happens now where the poor officials are having to make blink of an eye decisions which are sometimes wrong and affect the result. As I've said on these forums several times, I want the result to not be affected by wrong decisions and if that means stopping the game 4 times for 40 seconds each I'm definitely ok with that WHETHER RESULTS GO FOR OR AGAINST MY TEAM or whichever team I'm rooting for in a game.

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, Chicog said:

And when they go against you, you'll probably claim the fourth official got it wrong.

 

 

Give over Chic. The reason us supporters of video technology want it, is to get the decisions right as far as is practicably possible. As I've said many times, let's see it trialled and if it works great, if not ditch it. I honestly can't understand why you are so against even giving it a try. 

[jellydog]

3 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Give over Chic. The reason us supporters of video technology want it, is to get the decisions right as far as is practicably possible. As I've said many times, let's see it trialled and if it works great, if not ditch it. I honestly can't understand why you are so against even giving it a try. 

Hey MrB. I won't get into all the reasons I'm against any video technology other than the current goal line set up. I said my piece long ago. I would add that one other fear is that even if there are obvious issues during and after a trail run, it may prove difficult to get rid of it.  It will require a substantial amount of time and money to implement the kind of video tech they are discussing, and I fear that even major problems won't be enough to dissuade the powers that be to ditch it. The cat out of the bag...so to speak.

[mrbojangles]

42 minutes ago, jellydog said:

 I would add that one other fear is that even if there are obvious issues during and after a trail run, it may prove difficult to get rid of it.  It will require a substantial amount of time and money to implement the kind of video tech they are discussing, and I fear that even major problems won't be enough to dissuade the powers that be to ditch it. The cat out of the bag...so to speak.

 

I am sure they won't implement anything if there are issues during the trial jelly. Because football is so far behind many other sports, they also have the benefit of learning from any issues that Cricket or Rugby for instance, had.

 

Also, money shouldn't be a problem as it's the richest sport in the world. Rugby are the poor neighbours and they've had it for years.

 

 

[Chicog]

21 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

 

I am sure they won't implement anything if there are issues during the trial jelly. Because football is so far behind many other sports, they also have the benefit of learning from any issues that Cricket or Rugby for instance, had.

 

Also, money shouldn't be a problem as it's the richest sport in the world. Rugby are the poor neighbours and they've had it for years.

 

 

 

And now you have refereeing by TV.

 

It's the thin end of the wedge.

As they now do in cricket routinely, the on field officials might as well not be there.

 

Football is a game designed to flow, not be stopped in the middle of play because some people can't take decisions against them. And that's where it will end up.

Every advertiser's dream and you're being sucked into it.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Chicog

[Bredbury Blue]

I always thought they just use the tv camera angles for the video refs and they have over a dozen cameras at Premier games.

There's loads of money in the Premier, just today it's being reported "English Premier League sells China TV rights for £564m" so money for the video technology isn't an issue.

A fortnight back I watched the England vs Scotland Rugby League game where the video ref, as a feature, was explaining live to the commentary HOW he reviewed (ie. he explained the process, steps, what he was looking for, etc). It was interesting to hear/see. Used only on tries, took probably 30 to 60 seconds but added a far higher probability of the correct decision being made.

It's coming boys....

[mrbojangles]

Just now, Chicog said:

Every advertiser's dream and you're being sucked into it.

 

I'm not being sucked into anything Chic. I have my own mind and I want to trial it, I have been championing it.

[Bredbury Blue]

"Football is a game designed to flow, not be stopped in the middle of play"

Why would the game stop in the middle of play? The ref will have blown and stopped the play. To aid the ref make the correct decision he has the OPTION to ask the video ref. It's reported to take 40 seconds. It will help ensure the correct decision and the correct result.

[Chicog]

 

3 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

To aid the ref make the correct decision he has the OPTION to ask the video ref. It's reported to take 40 seconds. It will help ensure the correct decision and the correct result.

 

And just like they do in cricket, they'll refer it upstairs every time.

 

Every advertisers dream....

 

 

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Don't think cricket relates to football, do you?

Rugby union and rugby league are closer to football and the way the video ref will be used but based on your comments on these forums I'm guessing you don't watch the 'egg chasers' game I think you call it so won't be familiar with how they use the video ref.

[alfieconn]

11 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

"Football is a game designed to flow, not be stopped in the middle of play"

Why would the game stop in the middle of play? The ref will have blown and stopped the play. To aid the ref make the correct decision he has the OPTION to ask the video ref. It's reported to take 40 seconds. It will help ensure the correct decision and the correct result.

 

 

The ref can't stop the play and then ask the video ref, he has to ask the video ref while the game is in play, should take about 5-6 secs max.

Like i have said before, the easy way is too have a 2nd ref watching the game in real time with a radio link to the ref on the pitch, ref on the pitch is not sure of a decision just ses to the 2nd ref foul or not, one word answer is all that is needed, video replays would be the next stage !

Edited November 19, 2016 by alfieconn