Ok, so obviously yesterdays France/Ireland game was controversial and has many fans talking about the possibilities of Video Replay in football. So I want to know what everyone thinks on the subject. I for one think it should be brought in for goals and only goals. Fouls and PKs are a subjective decision with or without a replay but a ghost goal awarded is not, and I think replay would be a positive addition to the game in this aspect.


What are everyone's thoughts?

Edited...the title. I almost thought it was spam, till I saw the poster name. Hope it's fine Dracoris?

I'd pay to see a challenge system in football. I think the game is being held back by the absence of it.

I think the game should be replayed, as shoud the 1986 World Cup Quater Final.

The idea of video replay on goals seems like it would be good, but it would certainly be taken advantage of, in my opinion. If there's an important goal scored against United or Liverpool, the officials will find something, anything, however little to disallow it. Unless you're talking just about whether the ball crossed the line or not, then that would be fine as you can't really cheat it at all.

That second goal was just too good to just cancel it out.

I say the 1966 WC Final should have been replayed too... it's not a cheating case but we don't know if that third goal was really a goal...

i think the game is more exciting without these technology thangs ... so if they start using it ... in each game we would have at least 4 goals from penalties ...

No offense, dst, this isn't just aimed at you, but it really annoys me. Fine, Englands 3rd goal was very debatable indeed. But there is only 1 reason that this is the talking point, it was the decisive goal. Nobody seems to remember anything else about that game. Do you know why the '66 final went into extra time? Because with the last kick of the game, Germany equalised. A ball was played into the box, a German player handled it which put it past the England defender, allowing Germany to score.

If you want to chalk off Englands 3rd due to a bad decision, you have to chalk of Germanys 2nd. While not being as blatent as the Maradona or Henry handballs, it was still a pretty obvious handball. It's quite funny that the Germans hate that Russian linesman, but he's the only reason it went into etra time in the first place. If Germany had won the game, it would have been their 2nd goal that was the major talking point.

/rant

================================================================================


I'm with AX kinda. Bad decisions make football what it is. How many big talking points do you really get in other sports? Football is special because of this. Yes it's bad at times, but the 6 minutes added on for Uniteds 1st Premier League title, Englands 3rd goal in the '66 Final, the hand of God, Henry's handball to send France to the World Cup.. it makes football what it is, in my opinion. Don't bring in technology. Bring in referees that can actually do their job.

I did not know about that (the handball) and I (as you know) just brought the issue up just to tease you! Now you've made me cryyyyyyyy...

--

Debatable/controversial decisions make football what it is, true. But technology would make football better, a sport with no such decisions...

Nobody knows about it, nor cares. Because we're the bad guys.


It's hard to introduce into football though, because 99% of decisions are opinion based, which a video can't sort out. I thin handballs and 'did it cross the line?' things are the only things it could really sort out. It should jut be used on goals if it were to be bought in. Offsides, handballs and deciding whether it crossed the line or not being the only reviewable aspects. Even if there was a blatent foul that the ref missed, that shouldn't matter on the vide, in my opinion.

I think the five referees on the pitch is the best thing to do. Like in Europa League, where you have, besides the two linesmen, ref, and the assitant ref, there are two more one behind each goal. And with that, a lot of controversial decisions can be ruled on with certainty

Yeah, I think with an extra official there then no way in hell does Henry get away with those handballs.

Yes, it is really bad that we qualify from such an incident. I mean, after all we have been consistent in reach two finals in the last three WCs.

While I have sympathy for Ireland, this has been blown out of proportion. it's not like they would have gone through without this goal. France were increasingly looking like scoring and even if Ireland didn't conceed they would have to win the shootout.

I think with Given in goal, we wont stand a chance in the shoot out. Then again, that is just hind sight

Everybody talk about a possibility of replaying, but I yould like to ask you, how many games of football (in WC) have been replayed recently ?? Actually, I dont know, but I do not think there many. What abaout a video replay... I think, it shouldnt be installed as a new rule. It doesnt matter, its about goals or PK's, or something else. Mistekes are part of game. It hurts sometimes.
I clearly remember the day, when Lithuania didnt draw with France, just because of unfairly disallowed goal. It's pity.

You in particular are just pathetic.

You am ****, son.

Overall I'm leanining towards the 'bad luck is part of football' side of things. I also think the Irish are making a huge deal out of it. Worse incidents have happened, see: Koeman vs England - USA '94 qualifer, but stuff like this happens and it's very unfortunate. Poor Ireland, but move on.

I see Henry came out and said the only fair thing to happen would be for the game to be replayed. I used to respect this guy a tonne, but he cheated and he knows it. He also knows there is 0% chance of the game being replayed, which is why he's making these comments to look like the good guy. Suspend the cheat.

Please. He wants the match replayed as much as you and I need a hole in the head.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the incident likely won't affect his endorsements. It's not as if scruples has ever taken precedence over money, anyway.

Should I have used 'is'?

Those 3 are more than enough reasons to bring the technology to football, IMO.

And I agree that this technology could be used in favor of big teams, but not if it's used only for those 3 cases.



The linesman CLEARLY saw what Henry did but didn't raise his flag. I don't see how with a fourth official it would've been any different!



There is a blog on Football Italia that debates this incident evened out what happened in the 2006 World Cup final - where the fourth official reviewed the film and told the ref what Zidane did. I can't disagree... cause even though Zidane deserved to be sent off, he shouldn't have been simply because neither the ref nor his assistant saw it. of course it's not, as stated, "Karma payback". the Irish didn't have anything to do with all this and still don't get what they deserve, but I think it'd be an acceptable excuse for the French.

Well there is a tiny possibility that the linesman blacked out or blinked and did not see it... with two people there, if neither of them spots it, you can be dead sure they had been told to ignore it...


This is so ridiculous I feel like that myself by responding to it. I don't see how these two are related... it was a correct decision to send off Zidane and it was an injustice not to allow that goal... how the hell are these two being put in the same context? I don't care if it was an astronaut out in space that saw it and called the ref to tell him, Zidane headbutted his opponent and should have been sent off it's as simple as that. What these guys are saying in my view is "we were not favored in Zidane's case and for that (...) we deserve to go away with a cheat"... if you told me I'd go away with killing the guy who thought of this I'd do it. It would be the population of the Earth minus a retard...

@ Kurt: come on, tell me should I have said 'is'? I want to know.

They are related. both have something to do with the French.

What are you talking about?


I'm with you on this. The only reason Zidane was sent off is by outside help (not a decision by either linesman or the referee), so in theory he should have stayed on.

I'm going with the 'football is fixed' thing for this.

I said "You in particular are just pathetic." and you replied with "You am ****, son.". I thought you said "you am" to make fun of a grammatical error of mine in the first sentence?

Oohh. No, just a regional thing, sometimes we say 'am' instead of 'are'.

You am?!

Yes.

Everybody has their graamatical errors in the way they talk though! The one that does me is when Americans say stuff like "I hope West Ham wins today" Win, not wins!

For some reason I like to know this stuff, thanks.


Couldn't this not be an error?

I mean... I think of it as using 'wins' when referring to the team as a unit while using win while referring to the group of people that constitute the team. In that sense, it's not wrong is it?

I disagree, it sounds stupid, in my opinion. But like I said, people talk differently.

the truth is video replay in football already exists, for instance on a weekly basis in the EPL tha FA watch replays after appeals against red cards, many times these appeals are successful and the red cards are then rescinded why can't there also be a system where teams can after the game appeal against the legitimacy of dubious looking goals and such goals simply get chalked off.
i just don't understand why today replays are only being used to determine if .....adebayor's goal celebration against arsenal was excessive+ didn't adebayor bag a 3match ban for his stamp on van persie which the ref didn't see? why should'nt henry also get a ban for the handball?
eduardo also got an ECL ban for diving which was detected after video replays

FIFA don't really wanna rid this beautiful game of controversy

+1 if we use the video replays in time the game is running i would think im watchin a tennis game ... barca last year did not deserve to be in the final .. chelsea deserved it ... but why didn't they give chelsea 4 goals from the penalties they didn't get .. ? because this is football ... without these tricky thangs that happen on the court and the refs bad decisions the game won't be anymore exciting ... for the fans other then seeing ronaldo or ronaldinho or pato or kaka or messi or ibra dancing with the ball in front of the defenders ...

I agree A.X.

Contraversy, eventhough it sucks is what makes this game exciting. Chelsea deserved to be in the final last year just like we deserved to be in the final against arsenal back in 06

But that'd mean 2 all-England Finals in a row, something Platini didn't want. And as if by magic, it didn't happen.

The ref was just useless. If UEFA wanted Chelsea out so badly they wouldn't have left Barcelona with 10 men.

Nah, when there's so many blatent decisions like that, you have to give one. A sending off would hurt Barca less than a penalty against them. I'm not just saying it's against England or anything either, I think Italy got screwed 8 years ago.

On the video replay thing, it shouldn't happen. How far down the footballing system do you use it? Surely it should be everything or nothing?

What dst said. Also, both finals Chelsea vs. United AND Barca vs. United are great finals for UEFA. Two big teams etc blabla, great to sell.


I agree. Video replays will only slow the game down.
Clubs already spend zillions of Euros on game analysis. They can analyse verything AFTER the game. Sport is unfair from time to time. As is life. That's what makes it so interesting.

Video replays wouldn't work.

They were analysing the City goal today and couldn't agree, using evidence, on whether Kompany I think it was deliberately handballed it.

I've held this view for a long time, and Kevin Keegan and Craig Burley both agree with me - whether it's a ref on a pitch or someone in a video room - end of the day someone has to make a decision based on how they see an event - and video replays often do not help with this.

Every so often one MASSIVE thing crops up, like the Henry handball, and the debate is ignited again, but how exactly would this evidence be used? Only for the really big calls? For the big and medium ones? For all of them?

Nah, it's too controversial and just wouldn't help as much as its supporters think it would.

I think it would be great for football as it would limit diving, cheating and complaining. Footballers and coaches complain about penalties and fouls all the time but if they had the freedom of challenging for a certain call then they would just shut the **** up and do exactly that if they were so sure they had been wronged. For situations that this cannot be done, it would simply change nothing as some things just cannot be agreed on. So, overall it would be positive in my view.

I think this part of the rule needs changing. Handball is handball, deliberate or not. Micah Richards arms deflected the ball into Adebayors path for the goal. Intentional or not, Man City gained an advantage by something that isn't allowed. What if you're on the line and somebody smashes the ball at your arm and it doesn't go in because of this? It was deliberate so should they just carry on? No, it should be a red card and penalty, in my opinion.

Using the word deliberate is silly in football. It's basically like saying fouls only count as fouls if it was deliberate.. but how many players actually intend to get the player and not the ball? If it hits your hand, it's handball, in my opinion.

I consider it vital to distinguish a deliberate action from one that is not. In my view a deliberate handball inside the area should always be a penalty and a yellow card or red card if the ball is going goalwards. When it's not deliberate I think it should be a foul unless the ball is going goalwards in which case it should be a penalty and a yellow card. The way I see it, it's ridiculous to give penalties like the one we won against Real Madid at San Siro. It's a damn cross that hits a defender's hand when he has no intention to do so and it's going to be cleared 9 times out of 10 by his teammates. That should be an indirect free-kick, defenders are terribly wronged in such cases.

I don't think video replays would be a good idea. Since the 1980ies many things in football changed for the worse. It's slowly turning into a Disney version of the sport it once was. Diving, cheating and complaining is a part of the game. It's not chess ffs. Complaining etc. only means that you're a human being with emotions. To prevent that we'd have to play robots instead of humans.

Video replay would not eliminate complaining, it would just slim it down to normal limits. Footballers complain (like total douchbags I might add) about someone farting in another town these days, it's gone way over the edge!

Also, what do you think has changed for the worse?

I have to admit that I'm really a traditionalist when it comes to football culture. I mostly admire players of the past like Netzer, Rivera, Best, Cruijff or Basler. That said, football has changed, like I said in my previous post, into a Disney version of itself. Everything is bright coloured and served in small pieces. Most players are boring on and off the pitch. Only a few are brave enought o say more than "Yeah it was a good game blablabla...".
When I look at the German NT for example. We have some great players, without a doubt, but Löw doesn't want great characters. People with their own thoughts, ideas etc. He threw Frings out of the team because he had an opinion and he would also throw out Ballack if he were replaceable. I miss players like Netzer who substituted his own person once. I want people like Cantona who aren't string puppets.
Also, a lot has changed since football became a sport for the uninterested mass. Everyone thinks he or she knows about football. Football is complicated . Everyone thinks he knows about it, but only a few do. I don't wanna say I'm one of the latter, but I hate people who only watch football during World Cups and Euros and wanna tell me about the quality of players. Also, the fact that bored rich people continue to buy random clubs doesn't make it any better. And then a patron like Dietmar Hopp (Hoffenheim owner) complains because the fans insult his plastic club.
I also hate many modern stadiums. When I go to the Arena in Schalke or in Gladbach I feel like I'm in a hall. It doesn't feel like a football stadium. And I don't wanna buy a plastic card for every new stadium I visit. And why the hell do they start to sell salad in a football stadium? I wan't a beer with fries or a sausage (in Germany that is. Other countries can of course sell what they want). And I don't want stupid Ultras to annoy me with their stupid chants and the great atmosphere they create with military precision.
And that's only a few of the things I dislike.

Very well put.