• Forum has been updated to an interim version. Please advise of any anomalies via the "Care in the Community" thread. Thank you. (You can 'x' this message when you've read it)

  • WIN A FOREST SHIRT!

    Registered members of LTLF can enter a free competition to win a shiny new Nottingham Forest shirt. Choose from home or away, and you can even get a name/number on it into the bargain! There's a question to answer, and the winner will be selected from the right answers. For details and to enter, look at the thread by clicking WIN A FOREST SHIRT!!

    Dismiss this notice by clicking the x in the top right corner

Video technology in football - is it needed?

T

theacademic

A. Trialist
A colleague and I at Staffordshire University are carrying out an online survey on fans' views towards video technology in football. Fans continue to pay for tickets, subscriptions and merchandise but they are always the last to be consulted on decisions. We've decided to give them a voice. The address is: http://www.topfan.co.uk and the survey will only take you 2 minutes (9 questions).
 
Judging by Mr D'Urso's performance yesterday, and that of countless other referees and their assistants, I would say yes!

I'll fill in the survey..
 
Completed the survey although the questions didnt allow me to express my opinion that any drastic change should be applied at all levels of the game which would make the cost prohibitive.
 
Happy to oblige.
 
I think officials these days are so out of touch with the game they need replacing with robots. Every game now is full of bad decisions and inconsistancy from the same ref and video technology couldn't be used for a lot of things - eg on Saturday QPR took a throw in from literally 15 yards (maybe even more) away from where the ball went out. No point using videos for that, it's just shit reffing and you can't do anything about it.
 
I agree refereeing standards seem to have got worse. Not sure whether this is because they are tied up with directives, silly laws and are being constantly assessed, whether it is because the game has moved on and is quicker and players are more inclined to con the referees, or whether it is because they often haven't played the game and miss things. There certainly seems to be nil consistency or common sense. But there again the panels that punish retrospectively lack consistency and common sense and they are not pushed for a decision in seconds.

Regarding the use of technology. I'm dead against it. Quite a few years ago now when I did sports studies at school the teachers talked about open and closed sports. Snooker is a good example of a closed sport as there are very little in the way of outside influences. All tables are the same size, the balls are the same, the weather plays no part, the crowd aren’t intimidating etc… Football if I remember is a fairly open sport because it can be affected by lots of different factors such as weather, state and size of the pitch, crowd intimidation and one huge factor is human error. Human error not just on the players part but on the part of the officials as well. The big clubs would love a game where there is as little outside influence as possible because they have the best players and should therefore win most games. If every game was played on a perfect pitch, with perfect weather conditions with a tame crowd and every refereeing decision was spot on there would be hardly any upsets and competitiveness in the game would die more than it has already.

Also if there were no refereeing mistakes what would the pundits talk about? Talk Sport and Sky Sports news would cease to exist over night. Which would be excellent!! But I’m still against it.

Even if I was for technology the only use of technology I could see working would be a chip in the ball to tell if the ball had crossed the line or not. Anything else would just interfere with the game. How many times does it take the pundits to watch certain incidents from various different angles to make their minds up on a decision? And how often do some of them still disagree?

Anyway I have filled in the questionnaire but thought I’d add a few extra points.
 
Lee said:
I agree with this one, one side thought though, would a chip affect the ball?
Click to expand...
Apparently the technology is there to do this. I guess it may have a very small effect on the ball but not sure exactly as I'm no scientist.
 
You should put something on there about bringing back standing areas. Some bloke on here posted a while back about how they still have them in Germany and it works fine. I think it'd be really popular and get lots of votes on your site.
 
Doesn't have much to do with the use of technology, though, does it?
 
Yeah filled it in.

I think the best solution would be a two challenges per game solution which can be raised by the managers. Video evidence would only occur when a challenge was raised.

I'm not sure I'd want games to stop for a few seconds every time there was a slightly contencious decision, ala throw ins.
 
Filled it in.

it would be very useful. In the NFL you get 2 challenges per half and if your challenge does not result in overruling the play, you lose a timeout too (of which you have 3 per half) now if you make it so you lose a substitute, then maybe it could work.
also the booth review any questionable play in the last 2 mins of any game, challenge or no.

but then again, they still dont get all the descisions right (they only get 2 mins to review) so there is still room for controversy for those of you who like it.

Please Sepp, see the light!
 
Yes it is needed in football because of how much money is now at stake but we wont get it introduced. The powers that be are only interested in making money for themselves and thats why uefa will never introduce it.
 
Winnits said:
Doesn't have much to do with the use of technology, though, does it?
Click to expand...

I saw the URL topfans.co.uk and thought it was a more general footballing poll site he was setting up, I'd not looked since I'm not sure either way about the technology in football thing.
 
Tricky Tree said:
Yes it is needed in football because of how much money is now at stake
Click to expand...

I don't buy this argument. Football is a game. If someone is stupid enough to invest billions in to a game and expects to make a return then more fool them. The game shouldn't be changed because there is more money in it. It should be changed to make it better. I personally don't think technology would make it better I feel it would just make it duller and more predictable.
 
I feel the authority of the officials would be undermined in a serious way. Given the way that some clubs seem to encourage their players to get in a Refs face, imagine how much harder it would be if say, a call had been made, which proved the Ref wrong......publicly proved the Ref wrong...they seem to hesitate at the moment when the larger clubs are involved...............how would they be affected in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom