Diving

[Assasin]

So you rather the technology calling it wrong rather than the ref dioing it???

As I say we have to be midfull of slowing down the game and also changing the outcome.

Technology yes but.......

[Paul Marin]

So you rather the technology calling it wrong rather than the ref dioing it???

As I say we have to be midfull of slowing down the game and also changing the outcome.

Technology yes but.......

Your question "So you rather the technology calling it wrong rather than the ref dioing it???" is predicated on "technology calling it". That's never been my position. Technology should be there to AID the REF calling it. As Peter said, it is INSANE that the one person who needs technology most (the Ref) is the one person who doesn't have access to it. Ludicrous.

[Assasin]

My problem is Paul even in the NFL, I have seen the ref make many bad call after using the technology.

One is people sometimes see what they want to see.

Two is the rules of using the technology have to be clearly defined. Like in the NFL it can only be overturned if it is deemed to be reversable, so most of the penalty that people get bearly hit and go down would stand.

Using the right technolgy to judge human behavior is also another problem. For judging if a ball cross can be great, but when contact is made on stuff like going with the intention of not playing the ball is still going to come down to some judgement and if a ref is using bad judgement he is going to end up with the same decision more time and he wil point to the technology.

[Gamma]

when and how should the technolgy be called upon?

[Peter R]

Sass, Question: Do you think that the introduction of tech in the NFL has A. reduced the number of bad calls B. Increased the number of bad calls C. No change.

I will give you my position by referring to cricket: technology has virtually eliminated any mistake in calling run outs... what used to be a (potentially) contentious scenario for the umps is no more. Ask any ump what his take on it is: I could almost guarantee you they are even more relieved than players that this (at the international level) is no longer just a one man call.

Having said that i could easily see that if there is (an almost every wee we see this ) doubt about whether an offside goal were scored... wouldn't the use of technology virtually eliminate those bad contentious calls... i don't quite understand the resistance to technology.

[Assasin]

It has reduced the bad calls but it hasn't eliminated it. Even with technology the refs have made some very bad, high profile calls.

Yes if it is just a line and stating if the goal score technology will get that most time but when it involve human interaction and to be interpreted by humans it can be hyped.

In a case like the Torres red card. The ref knew there was some contact but think Torres could have stayed on his feet, how is the technology going to change that?

In a case like the other day when a player got Red and Lazie stated "well deserved" even afte watching the replay and yet myself and Paul stated that is was a bit harsh after watching the same replay. So how do you get that?

Other senerio I could throw out but let those two go for now

[Peter R]

I think we have to agree that total elimination might be difficult to achieve, but a significant reduction is good... isn't it? you wouldn't want to go back now would you?

In Torres' case a replay could have provided clarity for the ref ... the original call could be rescinded if on review a genuine trip was determined. yes?

In your other scenario same could apply, replay could look at different angles and let the onfield call stand or rescind/..

Anyway, mi gone

[Paul Marin]

My problem is Paul even in the NFL, I have seen the ref make many bad call after using the technology.

One is people sometimes see what they want to see.

Two is the rules of using the technology have to be clearly defined. Like in the NFL it can only be overturned if it is deemed to be reversable, so most of the penalty that people get bearly hit and go down would stand.

Using the right technolgy to judge human behavior is also another problem. For judging if a ball cross can be great, but when contact is made on stuff like going with the intention of not playing the ball is still going to come down to some judgement and if a ref is using bad judgement he is going to end up with the same decision more time and he wil point to the technology.

Again, I am not arguing about "THE WHAT" or "THE HOW", nor do I think drawing a parallel between the NFL and soccer is valid; I just want FIFA to acknowledge that introduction of technology is not limited to video, nor does it mean changing the game as we know it. I will give you a proposal at another time as to how I see it working in a way that will not be disruptive.

[Paul Marin]

I think we have to agree that total elimination might be difficult to achieve, but a significant reduction is good... isn't it? you wouldn't want to go back now would you?

In Torres' case a replay could have provided clarity for the ref ... the original call could be rescinded if on review a genuine trip was determined. yes?

In your other scenario same could apply, replay could look at different angles and let the onfield call stand or rescind/..

Anyway, mi gone

Part of the problem Sass is having is based on the flawed premise that technology's introduction wil ELIMINATE bad calls. That is the wrong premise. Technology should be introduced to increase the accuracy of calls and thereby reduce the number of bad calls.

It has to first be acknowledged that current technology CANNOT be applied independently of humans when JUDGMENT is required. It can however, be applied WITH VIRTUALLY 100% ACCURACY in binary situations - cross the line, ball touched the hand, offside position, etc.

We also have to disassociate TECHNOLOGY from VIDEO, VIDEO is only a subset of available and appropriate technologies. For example, video is not as effective as sound recordings in determining what was said on the field, nor is it as effective in determining close calls on hand ball as other technologies that have shown promise in the lab.

[Assasin]

ok we agree on most things. Technology in Football is the closest we will come to soccer right now as both are moving contact sports.

Incidentally there was a football game lastnight. A player caught a ball made 3 steps and fell and went outside. The ref said it wasn't a catch. The TV and the commentator showed it about 5 times and say it was a catch. The ref went to technology and came back and said it wasn't a catch and penalise the team who wanted the review. It looked like a catch to me too.

[Paul Marin]

ok we agree on most things. Technology in Football is the closest we will come to soccer right now as both are moving contact sports.

Incidentally there was a football game lastnight. A player caught a ball made 3 steps and fell and went outside. The ref said it wasn't a catch. The TV and the commentator showed it about 5 times and say it was a catch. The ref went to technology and came back and said it wasn't a catch and penalise the team who wanted the review. It looked like a catch to me too.

Good example of why technology is an AID, not the final judge. As I said, use it for binary decisions, decisions that require judgement are best handled by humans.

[Assasin]

that is what I am saying and that means many of the people who now are asking for technology to fix everything that is wrong with soccer on the field is going to be disappointed.

Especially football fan who have been sold that it will take care of most of the ills.

Hope it not screwed up like everything else FIFA do like changing the ball right before olympics and changing the rules for refs at the big tournaments.

[Mosiah]

So, what about those offside calls that were wrong that denied teams their goals? What should we do about those?!!?

Nah stop say it - get rid of that silly offside rule and free up football!

[Peter R]

Well I don't know who you are referring to as suggesting it would "fix everything"... my examples were to show where mistakes could be eliminated... as Paul pointed out in his posts.

There are definite areas where the use of VIDEO, since I see we need to be specific, can eliminate (for example) a very high percentage of situations where offside goals are allowed.

Your example of the "harsh call" again shows what Paul is saying that judgement cannot be done away with... all of us recognised that a high foot or contact of sorts was made... we simply diverged on what should have been done about it.

I believe we agree way more than we disagree (if we did) ... I think the refs should get the assistance where it makes sense.... line calls etc.

Again I have to run.

[Mosiah]

I don't get it either, PM. Tennis, cricket, the NFL and maybe several less popular sports are now using technology to assist the officials. What is football's problem!?!?

In fact, the inclusion of technology has itself been part of the attraction of the game. Every time they call up on Hawk Eye to determine if that was really an ace in tennis, the crowd starts up a little cheer as they track the ball on the monitor. The same thing happens in cricket. Technology has not made any of these sports slower and more boring. What it has done is made them fairer. What's wrong with that?!?!?