It's already killed the radio star, what next for video ?
Another game for bad refereeing decisions (Blackburn 1:1 Tottenham) and another call for video referees. Until you actually look at the decisions made by the referee when you see that every decision made was correct from their point of view.
I'm completely against video referees during the game and I'll tell you why .....
Who decides whether a decision goes to the video referee or not ? Is that a decision the pitch referee makes ? How long before smart-a**e pundits start questioning those decisions made by the pitch referee ? How long before the pitch referees abdicate responsibility in a similar manner to cricket umpires asked to judge run-outs ?
Think of this example: A ball hits the cross-bar and comes down on the line. The crowd shouts for a goal but the ball is still in play, a quick hoof up field and the opposition score. The other set of supporters celebrate the goal. What happens ? Do we have to actually stop the game to decide whether the ball went over the line or not ? Which decisions go to a video referee ? How many times do we have to stop the game for these decisions ? We look at the replay and give the goal to the first team, then what ? Bedlam & confusion, hardly a spectator sport.
There's an assumption that decisions are easier for a video referee. It took over 30 years to decide that England's third goal in the 1966 World Cup Final hadn't actually crossed the line and it took computer technology to prove that. That's a lot of waiting around for the players !!! What's the time limit ? 5 minutes per decision ? 10 minutes ? For every contentious decision ? Who decides what is contentious ?
But my clinching argument is this. Some years ago they introduced video referees into American Football, the biggest stop-start game in the world. They ran it for a season but then scrapped it.
The reason ? Because it slowed the game down too much.
Think about it. A stop-start game that stretches 60 minutes play into the best part of 4 hours scrapped video referees because it slowed the game down.
Think what it will do to football.....
I'm completely against video referees during the game and I'll tell you why .....
Who decides whether a decision goes to the video referee or not ? Is that a decision the pitch referee makes ? How long before smart-a**e pundits start questioning those decisions made by the pitch referee ? How long before the pitch referees abdicate responsibility in a similar manner to cricket umpires asked to judge run-outs ?
Think of this example: A ball hits the cross-bar and comes down on the line. The crowd shouts for a goal but the ball is still in play, a quick hoof up field and the opposition score. The other set of supporters celebrate the goal. What happens ? Do we have to actually stop the game to decide whether the ball went over the line or not ? Which decisions go to a video referee ? How many times do we have to stop the game for these decisions ? We look at the replay and give the goal to the first team, then what ? Bedlam & confusion, hardly a spectator sport.
There's an assumption that decisions are easier for a video referee. It took over 30 years to decide that England's third goal in the 1966 World Cup Final hadn't actually crossed the line and it took computer technology to prove that. That's a lot of waiting around for the players !!! What's the time limit ? 5 minutes per decision ? 10 minutes ? For every contentious decision ? Who decides what is contentious ?
But my clinching argument is this. Some years ago they introduced video referees into American Football, the biggest stop-start game in the world. They ran it for a season but then scrapped it.
The reason ? Because it slowed the game down too much.
Think about it. A stop-start game that stretches 60 minutes play into the best part of 4 hours scrapped video referees because it slowed the game down.
Think what it will do to football.....
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home