Metal Reviews

This is great. Thanks.

Actually, it's not that they trust them. The FIFA wants the sport to be universal and identical weither it's played in big leagues or by tiny local teams of no importance. They say they don't want FOOTBALL (yeah, that's how it's called, BALL played by FOOT!) to be two different sports: one for the rich, one for the poor. They want it to remain kind of a working class sport, even though they want big money in it. The fact is, it's already not the case with so much money involved in the various professional leagues in Europe. The problem also is the conservatism of all these old men who run the rules of the game, once they'll be gone, football will probably evolve a lot more (as did rugby). For example, the use of video is, in my opinion, unavoidable so that mistakes like the referee refusing US Team's 3rd goal or Kaka's eviction may not happen anymore. But it'll take time...

i disagree. first, games would last twice as long if we have to keep stopping to check video evidence; second, the element of judgment is still present and people see only what they want to see (just look at football commentators, or even worse at some post-game decisions taken in the Portuguese league).

what i do think is that technology should be adopted for offsides and goal line decisions. it's ridiculous to just pile on the referees (like the goal-line refs UEFA tried in the Europa League this season) when the technology is right there, gives instant answers and has no need for judgment.

as for implementing this technology in smaller leagues, i think that's irrelevant. the football played won't change, only the quality of decision making. on the other hand use of video would change the game, as lower-league players wouldn't be used to top-league players' ability to question decisions and check with the ref and video.

Yep, and nope to the rest, for diving at least. All very well for Americans to denounce diving, but enslaving the game to technology is not the answer. FIFA needs to set up panels to review refereeing decisions, with independent consequences such as match bans as punishment for the sort of get-tapped-on-your-chest-and-clutch-your-face nonsense that spoils it. I can see the argument for introducing it for offsides, though. Ultimately, anything big like that that affects the game will be firmly opposed by purists, and I can see their point.

how can they oppose something that would objectively make the game better? less refereeing mistakes, less unfair decisions!

about the referee review panels, they already exist. i do agree that players that fake shit should get punished, and severely so.

It won't be implemented equally across the globe, for a start. Can you really imagine the Brazilian and African leagues taking to it as easily as European ones, even if they could afford it? Part of the beauty of football is that it follows more or less the same rules, everywhere.

the rules don't change: it's only a goal if the ball goes in all the way, and and offside is still an offside. they simply become easier to enforce.

that's one of the reasons i'm in favour of implementing this technology but not video, as with video questioning ref decisions becomes much easier and the way the sport is played will change if players know that they can be "caught". that really does change the rules.

If the players know they can be caught flopping and get a yellow or red card maybe they won't do it anymore. It doesn't change the game, just changes the mentality of the players which is, I think, a good thing.
I heard someone saying the coaches may have up to three "video cards" to ask the refs to view this or that. With modern technology, it doesn't take long to review some dubious situation.
Add to that the field main referee could also ask for video under certain conditions (goal or red card situations) and we'll have a fairest game. It doesn't slow the game that much in my opinion.

IMO diving should be retrospectively punishable by suspension by another referee watching the video footage after the match.

Alternatively it should be like Wimbledon in tennis: each team gets a certain number of "challenges" per match where they can request a replay of a specific event.

Any pausing of the game or, if they carry on whilst waiting for a decision, retroactively awarded goals will screw it up, the flow and the mindset of the players ruined. This is not American football where you get pauses every three seconds - football lives through its speed and free-flowing match lengths. And implementing technology will unfairly infringe upon poorer countries like Brazil and Africa, as I said.

Football pauses all the time anyway- especially nowadays when people regularly feign injury for precisely the purpose of slowing the game down. If you had harsher penalties for diving, a "challenge" system would hopefully act as a deterrent. e.g. if a greek player feigns injury to stop the game against Argentina, Argentina can challenge, and if it's obvious that's what's happened that player can be sent off. I think it would prevent stoppages. Having said that, you would also have to have sanctions in place to prevent firvolous time wasting usage of challenges.

I mean, IF ONLY football lived through its speed and free flowing games... not on the evidence of this world cup, sadly!

I don't see why a video replay is such an extravagantly rich-people-only innovation. I mean, it pales into insignificance when you compare it to already-existing advantages like training facilities and money to put into players and coaches. Plus, Africans and Brazillians (those in the international sides at least) all play in rich leagues anyway. PLUS, even the ones that don't- this isn't exactly a hard concept to grasp that will leave them flopundering in dumbfounded noncomprehension. Just say- you're at the world cup now, so you have the right to do xyz in a match should you choose.

And seeing as it takes about 15 seconds to show the replay on TV, I really don't see what the problem is, especially when those "video cards" or "challenges" would be used in difficult, controversial decision that already cause the game to pause.

Because what's shown on tv is exactly equal to what happens on the ground.

Look, football pauses are something to be eliminated, not encouraged. Panels in review with the ability to ban outside of a game are fine, but in-game? How are you to know whether a player, say, accidentally kicked in the leg is feigning pain or in real pain? What's the punishment for falling over without being touched as opposed to being shoved slightly and exhaggerating? The whole system would be so complex that ultimately, it would be worse than before. Referees may be flawed, but that doesn't mean making them subject to a bunch of people watching a tv screen will be any better. Between-game panels that can punish without disrupting a game is the best way.

It's as simple as that:
- Each time gets 3 challenges.
- The ref' can use the video for either a red card or a goal/penalty situation.

Really, it would help the game to be fairer than it is today and stop of those controversies and unjustified decisions that happen today.

Pauses in football games shouldn't be eliminated. A significant part of the game is dependent on how you deal with dead ball situations i.e. pauses. Minimised, sure. The idea of a video replay is not that it would be a good wheeze and another opportunity for a break, but that it would provide a genuine means by which diving could be punished. The main reason diving is getting more and more common is because players are increasingly realising they can do anything they want when the ref isn't looking. If you can prevent anywhere not in the refs line of site from being a safe place to arse about then you remove a lot of the nonsense that causes delays in the first place.

Re: the technology. Isn't what is shown on our tv screens at home identical to what is shown on the big screens around the football stadium- hence why whenever the tv picks up someone in the crowd they start gurning and waving like chimps. Why, when we can see events replayed instantaneously on those screens, could we not just say to the refs OK- look up at the big screen now. Or even just give the fourth official a portable tv? Maybe I am oversimplifying but I don't see why it has to be a mad logistics operation.

After all, the inevitable row that ensues after a dive wastes almost as much time, anyway.

What would the in-game punishment be for a dive, then? And how would that be better than a after-game punishment, eg up to a 3 match ban?

Hm, maybe the punishment for simulation should be something calculated to produce the same reaction for real?

Ideally. But in a world ruled by FIFA?

Anyways, COM ON ING LAND!

Simple. Yellow or red card depending on how big the flopping is.

Football should also include temporary ban. Yellow card: 10 minutes off the pitch.

U.S. screwed out of a goal again.