[St Charles Owl]

I do hope you are right with that Steve!!! There is a big part of me though that doesn't want to get all these decisions right!! Down the years we have all seen penalties given and not given, was it a corner or a goal kick, did he deserve red or not?? These debates are part of the fabric of the game and for me the game would lose something if we were to bring in video replay for these incidents.

Now of course we want the refs to get these decisions right in the first place, and in a vast majority of cases they do get the call right, but I am happy to accept that sometimes the call goes against us!! I want to see refs make good, honest decisions and I want consistency in the decisions they make, I can accept they are human and will make mistakes as long as that is what they are.

[consilio]

The controversial decisions are part of the game.

You win some, you lose some

[madsteve]

England and Wednesday always seem to lose though    and there are so many cheating [censored]  around like Fifa   that it is needed now    the game has become so bad i dont care if it gets stopped for half an hour if needed    and the extra time played is better than talking to the mrs anyway  

The biggest difference is that the game has speeded up so much that referees cannot keep up so are having to make decisions from worse positions. It is crazy that everyone in the ground knows the correct decision within seconds courtesy of the giant screen yet the referee cannot give it.

I think the reason so many are against it is because deep down we know that England would never have won the World Cup if video technology had been available then.

[St Charles Owl]

Nothing to do with 1966, I just see American sports using video replay all the time and year by year they include more and more decisions in what is replayable or challengeable!! And they started with strict guidelines over what could be replayed but each time their is a controversial decision, they extend what it gets used for.

I understand the desire to get every call right but in all honesty I think there are other things that need sorting first such as diving and players arguing with the ref etc before we bring in replays.We also need to train and look into a second ref on the field to help with the speed of the game.

[madsteve]

Nothing to do with 1966, I just see American sports using video replay all the  time and year by year they include more and more decisions in what is replayable or challengeable!!  And they started with strict guidelines over what could be replayed but each time their is a controversial decision, they extend what it gets used for.  

I understand the desire to get every call right but in all honesty I think there are other things that need sorting first such as diving and players arguing with the ref etc before we bring in replays.We also need to train and look into a second ref on the field to  help with the speed of the game.

1966 was a joke, hence the wink.

While there are other issues, it is a joke when everyone knows that a goal is offside but the ref cannot disallow it. Actually, diving will be all but stopped by video decisions because most relate to penalty decisions. It will take seconds to decide whether it is a yelow card for diving or a penalty.

[consilio]

I think some diving decisions are impossible to judge either way

[madsteve]

I think some diving decisions are impossible to judge either way

When that is the case then it is easy, just play on.

I would favour the 5th official judging on yellow cards so he can give one that the ref missed or rescind one where the ref made a mistake which solves the issue that so many manager's moan about.

[Chezzie Owl]

When you think about it, a lot of Refs go to the line's men to ask what happened in certain situations and then make a decision either way from there. So why not have an official watch the game on a TV/Tablet in a room or whatever and when something does happen he can review it through replay and then the ref and ear-piece him and ask him what happened then the 4th or 5th official can tell him if it was, say, handball so really it's no different to when ref's get assistance from the lines man! Then the game wouldn't be held up as much.

[consilio]

It would be held up more. Refs rarely speak to linesmen during the game.

[Chezzie Owl]

Well a lot of games I've seen ref's do have words or quick words with other officials so personally I wouldn't deem it rare, yes it's not that often but it's not that rare.

20-30 seconds to find out about a certain incident wouldn't hold things up too much surely. The ref wouldn't even have to go off the pitch, it could all be done via ear-phone.

Look at how many injuries in the majority of games that holds up games for minutes and not seconds...even Wes Thomas's "net-buster" held things up for 9 mins the other day so surely 30 seconds to find out from a 5th official watching the game and looking at replays to determine what happened wouldn't harm things...in fact it would keep supporters in anticipation. But as I said before in no way should managers have any say on proceedings...at all!!