Should football introduce a system like tennis where a team is allowed to appeal against a decision to a video referee. but only have a limited number of 3 appeals per team?
2007-02-22 04:03:38 · 8 answers · asked by themagpie1892 1 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ Other - Football
No we should stay with the referee. The only reasons we should use a camera after the fact is to do what FIFA uses it for. To punish dives and misconduct the referee does not see behind his or hr back. American football has 6-7 officials and they miss ALOT more than the 3 doing the real football. Leave it alone. There have been decisions against my team I did not agree with, but there have also been calls or non-calls that helped my team. I really think it pretty well evens out in the end.
2007-02-22 05:04:04 · answer #1 · answered by FB16 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This has long been debated and still not agreed on by all. I have even read it hinted that video technology will not be used in the near future.
A microchip inside the ball to decide if the ball has crossed the goal line has been used as a trial during the last under 19 (i Believe) world cup. It´s success is still unknown although i believe it had some technical hiccups.
I myself, although outraged by some of the decisions made by refs, especially against my team, still prefer to leave things as they are. Part of the enjoyment of the game is to have a good moan about the ref afterwards and debate amoung friends how good or bad the official was.
However, if technology wins out, the suggested limited number of appeals per game should be introduced, together with a strict penalty should the refs decision proove correct. This will make players and managers more cautious of calling for the time out.
2007-02-23 20:51:40 · answer #2 · answered by titus 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dogsoldier, you are so right. make the video ref the same as the rugby TMO. They can only adjudicate on decisions between the try line and dead ball line. The field of play should be left to the referee and touch judges and go back to one referee. That Creagh try was a disgrace when there were two refs on the field and two touchies. BOTD tries? It's a try or it isn't. There goes your grey area. For the Hayne decision, watching it live I thought he had got too close to the touchline. I thought it was the right decision.
2016-05-23 23:09:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The game would be stop start stop start. we dont need that. however if we used it as often as when referees ask linesman then it may work. but sometimes you get those decisions and sometimes you dont it all balances out at the end of the season and its what makes footy great. and if it was used it would need to be limited like you said. but when do they stop play to have a look?
good question it raises a lot of debate
2007-02-22 04:51:38 · answer #4 · answered by Mr Mister 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It works well in rugby.It should be used to decide for example if the ball has crossed the goal-line and for other important decisions.If it were overused it would become a farce.
2007-02-22 04:16:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No - it seems to me that the controversy is half the fun. It wouldn't be the same without all the arguing afterwards!
2007-02-26 01:48:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They wouldn't need it if they shelled out a few bob and employed full time officials, and why limit the number? surely that's defeating the purpose.
2007-02-22 04:15:08 · answer #7 · answered by richiesown 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
FOOTBALL NEEDS TO STAY THE WAY IT IS NOW. IT IS WHAT MAKES THE GAME WHAT IT IS!!!!! IT WOULDNT BE THE SAME GAME WE LOVE WITHOUT ALL THAT CONTREVERSY
2007-02-22 04:46:47 · answer #8 · answered by DEANO`S SON 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋