• Arsenal Message Board

  • Mc Mc Oct 3, 2006 03:22 Flag

    Video Replays - False Penalty Claims

    After watching the Spurs - Portsmouth game I wondered if anyone thinks that the F.A should include or introduce Video replays due to the rise in a number of false penalty decisions/appeals.

    I think maybe there should be a quick re-view as it wouldn't take to much time and maybe add an extra minute to the game.

    If the diving player is judged to be diving I believe he should be given a yellow or red card due to sportmanship...What do you guys think ?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I am a big fan of video replay. I think given the fact that a penalty, given as a result of a player diving, can change the outcome of a game in a very identifiable way
      (which is different then provocing a yellow or red card for
      an oposing player) the player should get an automatic red card if he is found to be diving.

      • 1 Reply to Govinda
      • Quite right
        diving to change a game is very bad and should be greeted with a red card
        but players when fouled who wave imaginary cards to the ref should be booked as this is unsportsman like behaviour
        most of the time when they have time between rolls to wave the imaginary card they can't have been that hurt in my veiw
        as far as the use of vidio evidence disrupting the game the rerun of the incedent at white hart lane was up on thier big screen before the pen was taken so the ref could see what a pillock he had been made to look
        Which is why i wonder did he not resined the decision and red card the player( I will admit i dont know all the rules and if he would have been able to take that action)

    • I don't think they should have the replays during the match proper, but should be reviewed afterward. I think a one-match ban and a substantial fine should be imposed. That might curb the useless histrionics (like we saw Yesterday).

      The only reason I say not during the match is because it destroys any flow and ebb of the match, and could also be a precedent for reviews of other transgressions, like offsides, handling the ball, etc. Take the piss out of them with a match ban and a chunk from the coin purse, without interrupting the match.

      • 1 Reply to scott m
      • If you think about how much time is wasted by arguments etc after a penalty is given, then it wouldn't take any longer for the referee to quickly ask the 4th official to take a look at the decision. If the 4th official deems it to be no penalty, then the ref can book the player for diving. Look at how successful the video ref has been in Rugby League. It hasnt slowed things down and has gotten rid of all controversy. I agree that the use of the video cannot be for every decision, but for penalties and over-the-line decisions, why not?

    • I notice there have been no comments made yet about Huyte's dreadful tackle on Lisbet which should have been redcarded, or Gallas' blatant handball in the box which should have given Charlton a penalty.

      Not that Gallas is the only player to get away with a penalty, but surely in retrospect you would have to ban him for 1 game, just like you should ban Zokora for his dive? After all, he would have got at least a yellow card if the penatly had been given , so surely same rules apply?

      And all the furore over Zokora's dive - what abotu Stephen Gerrard's blatant dive in teh first game of the season against Sheffield UNited, without which Liverpool would probably have lost the game? Don't recall there being a massive uproar and cries to ban and fine him, but then he is English.

      • 1 Reply to Dogstar
      • In my argument I have stressed the use of Video Technology in goalscoring situations and within the box, and also to adjudge whether a ball crossed the line.

        The intentions of a fouler or handball situation are a huge grey area. It will still be the referee's call whether it is ball to hand or otherwise and the same goes for fouls; some will be allowed and other will not - a foul a not like a offside or ball crossing the line.

        Video refereeing will not always help with diving. But where it is clear that there is no contact then a ref cannot award a penalty.

        Tripping over a defender's leg is a big grey area. First, at the speed some of the players approach the box or execute a turn or dribble it is always going to be hard to judge whether they deliberately tripped over a stray leg or not. A defender that sticks his leg out in the box is also asking for trouble - the defender obviously had put his leg their to disrupt the player e.g the Lucas Neil against the Italians.

        We have seen situations where a player had tried to stay on his feet and/or try to dodge a stray leg or tackle; then not been rewarded because he lost the ball.

        If there is absolutely no contact and there is no obstruction* then the referee will have to not give. Whether they punish the fallen attacker is another issue - I think a lot of armchair pundit incl ex-pros are quick to judge the modern players and accuse them of diving. As long as the player is not rolling around and badgering the ref for a foul or a card then they should not be punished.

    • All very true. The only reason I would want to use video reviews during a game is for blatant dives where the player has clearly not been touched, blatant red card offences and maybe ball across the line decisions. It would have to be so carefully thought out so that it wouldn't in any way affect the flow of the game. I'd personally keep it very minimal. Like say a player gets hacked down and the ref is on his way over thinking of red carding the player, the "external viewing assistant" ( I like that name:-D) could see on the replay that the intent wasn't there after one review, he could just advise the ref (in his earpiece) he didn't think it warranted a red card as it wasn't as malicious as it first looked. I'd have to give the ref the ultimate choice in what he did with the information though. I'd basically have that little voice in his ear to give him a bit of quick extra info to make his decision. But hey I don't know, there are so many different ways to interpret a dive or a foul it would be very hard to run properly. I think the FA would have to be very careful if they ever decided to use replays to help refs.

      The last part of your post about the ref immediately dishing out a card, sometimes the refs consult the linesmen before making a decision this wouldn't be much different than that. Keep his cards in his pocket summon the two players (we all know how long that can take in itself) get a whisper from the "external viewing assistant" then make his decision.

    • Completely agree...
      And no it wouldn't make the game any longer.
      In American Football, often plays are reviewed by an extra official, in a booth upstairs where he receives the feed from all of the camera angles from the tv broadcast. There's no reason why a review couldn't take place in the time it takes for everyone to argue and then line up for the penalty.

    • Well if it was obvious during the game the 4/5th official with a replay screen could advise the Ref straight away. Or even review it a few times while the game goes on and then advise the Ref to card the player if required during a stop in play. I think you've got to be really careful in working out how to do this because you don't want to take it too far. It can't be used for everything, as two different pundits (one ex-defender one ex-striker) see things differently even on slowed down replays. I think unless its absolute the 4/5th replay official should leave it alone.

    • Nah its the right pijin, you might notice a few double posts from me as I keep forgetting to change the profile name I use to post. I hit "stop" and think I've got there in time to change it. Apologies for this, at least its football stuff though. Thanks by the way Marintii.

    • Very nice of you Mr Pijin.

      I see part of your point, re: offside - I was only thinking about it from a POV of an offside leading to a goal not from an attacker being denied because a linesman puts his flag up. Good point!

      At least everyone should be able to agree on Video evidence for balls crossing the goal line? I suppose this also has its flaw but with a camera on the cross bar a la cricket ina stump, that should be easily solved. I guess it is an expensive option for something that occurs very infrequently...

      I am now confused - I better go and lie down.

    • That was sposed to be from me, not him.

    • pijin happy to see you on the board!

    • View More Messages