[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


I've given up on football at the moment, so I can't say much about this season, but last season, Chelsea lost a game to Liverpool because of a goal that may or may have not happened. Carefully placed sources of information could be put in order to see if a goal is a goal or not.
Yeah, and no-ones definitively said whether Luis Garcias goal crossed the line; despite the use of many replays, close up zooms, etc.  So they couldn't even decide that one with plenty of time after the match.

Besides which, crossing the line is a different issue altogether - and one they're already trying technological solutions to.

It can be done in real time with properly placed cameras. The shots you normally see on the TV is for the people watching to see the game developing, they are not properly placed for a referee to make a decision. And I'm not sugesting that there aren't going to be times where an incident is inconclusive, but the aid of other sources of information would prove to be valuable deciding most current situations where the referee has doubts.
The aid?  So you're suggesting the referee holds up play and waits for a decision?

Most dives can be clearly seen on the TV, so why not?
Because they can't be clearly seen in real-time.  You're talking about contact that takes place (or does not) in a split second. You'd need a perfect angle and superhuman reactions to be 100% certain.

And it may (or not) work on unbalanced teams so I'd say definatly.
Eh?  I don't get you.  I think it'll break up the play in the same as TV evidence does in any other sport I've seen it used within.

[Ghostavo]

For the last time, I'm sugesting something in real time, no slowing down the game. If I say the referee receives aid of other referees on the field do I mean it slows down the game? Of course not. It would be an independant process from the main referee, they would only contact the referee in case of a faul, or miss faul.

Eh? I don't get you. I think it'll break up the play in the same way as TV evidence does in any other sport I've seen used within.

I only consider something a sport if it is fair for all teams, no outside influence (especially something as powerful as the referee) should be able to actively influence the game in favor in one of the teams. If not, it's not a sport, just a gladiatorial arena match where they throw a team at the lions. Besides, it's not like football is the most interesting thing right now with all the missed fauls, and non-existant offsides given (at least here).

[aldo_14]

Says you.  I very rarely see a match changing mistake; offhand, I can only think of a penalty that Rangers could have got vs Hearts for handball (by Webster IIRC); even in that case it was debatable as to whether it'd be ball-to-hand or vice versa, and  Rangers didn't deserve to even draw that match anyways (they were ****e).

I think you'd see bugger all actual difference in 'good' decisions (because it's just as hard to tell in real time on TV as on the pitch), combined with the possibility - strong IMO - that constant interjection would break up the flow of the match with niggly fouls that mean nothing in the overall context of the game.  So long as you have any referee, you can consider that an outside influence.

The implication here is almost of bias, which becomes even more likely - albiet in a diluted sense - the more officials you have.  Because I've never seen any evidence that more eyes mean better decisions; and what happens if the sideline refs disagree?

Of course, there's the other barrier; how are you going to implement this for all teams (level playing field across all divisions).  I can't see 10 or 20 cameras turning up at Cliftonhill, afterall (glorified mud pit).