Following the comments of Aaron Ramsey who called for use of video replays after his perfectly legal goal against Liverpool was ruled out for offside, Arsene Wenger has backed that up saying that use of technology in the future is inevitable.
And although one of the reasons people often cite in opposition is that it will undermine the match officials, the manager believes it will come about because referees want it in order to help them officiate the games as well as possible.
“I believe it will happen on the demand of the referee,” he said.
“I can ask you the other question – do you think we will play football in 50 years without that? I don’t think so.
“I am convinced it will come in and that the next step will be the offside rule because it is maybe the easiest one to bring in. There were two examples last week.”
As for when it might happen, he continued, “The sooner the better. Tomorrow morning would have my signature! Not because we were punished for that goal but because we want justice and the right decisions to be made.”
Unfortunately nothing happens quickly in football, so we won’t expect any changes soon, but it does feel as if we’re moving towards a point where it can at least be discussed without huge objections.
Tomorrow morning we’d prefer your signature on that cheque for a new signing.
How about making a comment related to the article on which you are commenting?
NO!
Because if something is not to my liking, I demand to use my right to complain about it on the internet!!
my-failed-attempt-at-transfer-deadline-week-sarcasm *facepalm* *apologies*
As an amateur referee myself, I’m not sure there is a great desire from referees for video technology to be used, at least not excessively. Where there is a factual decision to be made (such as “has the ball gone over the line?”) most referees I have spoken to say they would welcome it (and indeed have in the Premier League). But in many other areas, where the decision is down to the interpretation of the referee, it is unwelcome as it would erode the authority of the referee. Ultimately, in many respects, refereeing is subjective and based on the… Read more »
Smart-Arse – hopefully your comments are just poorly written and you didn’t mean what you say. If you did then you are a representation of a serious problem with referees. You shouldn’t be worrying about your authority. You should only be worried about the right decisions being made. If, as you say, your authority needs to be eroded to make this happen then perhaps that’s just the price or progress….
Do I really need to spell out to you why the authority of the referee is important??
The authority of the referee is incumbent on the assumption that the referee is fair, impartial, and accurate. Improving accuracy increases fairness and impartiality. How does technology which increases the chances of accuracy, fairness, and impartiality erode a referee’s authority?
Tee I think you’ve missed my point. I’m absolutely, categorically behind video reviews being used in matter-of-fact situations. And in these situations, yes you do improve accuracy and fairness, which is very much desirable. I’m saying its the subjective, interpretive decisions that should be left to the referee. How many times have you and your mate/dad/whatever argued the toss over a penalty incident and not come to an agreement, even after replays? My point is not that referees are mad, power-hungry autocrats. What I’m saying is if you allow ambiguous decisions to be taken to review, you may get a… Read more »
The match referee is always the final judge, whether video review is used or not. Sometimes the match referee ignores a linesman flagging for a foul when the referee disagrees that a foul has occurred. Or the ref calls for a foul when he/she is 20 yards away but the incident occurs right in front of the linesman who in their subjective judgment doesn’t believe a foul has occurred. So now within the current match officiating structure there are already refs disagreeing over subjective, interpretive calls. Maybe they disagree because certain angles give a more accurate view of the incident.… Read more »
The referee can have the final say even with video review technology. Just look at how it’s implemented in rugby. The referee refers the decision to the TMO who then puts the incident onto the big screen which the ref can himself watch. The TMO is then only called on to give his opinion of the incident should the match ref be unable to conclusively tell for himself what happened.
If the players know the decisions will be fair, does the ref’s authority going to come into Q?
Let’s spell it out:
C-H-E- ..oh fuck it, you all know where I’m going with that.
Rugby referees have video to assist difficult decisions and authority.
Not many of them strike me as the bullied-at-school type.
Mike Dean however…….
Sounds good to me, logical and fair. Plus I take your point about undermining referees but for the offside rule – line, it’s a no brainer, imo.
But the offside rule isn’t as clear cut as, say, a goal-line decision. Is deciding whether or not a player has attempted to play the ball in an offside position a factual decision? Not so sure. Therefore I’d be hesitant to include offsides in those decisions suitable for video review.
In some offside cases however, I think you’re right and there is a factual decision to be made, e.g. Ramsey on Monday. But it gets very tricky if you start saying some offside decisions are suitable for review and some aren’t.
Yes I see that assistantref, and I agree that the goal line decision is crucial and less subjective. Hamster obviously doesn’t read the game much…
Apologies smart arse, I was replying to you not assistantref….
But using video replay every time there is a confusion over who the ball was played out of bounds off of for me definitely falls into the category of disrupting the flow of play. And that would be for something that is far less important than an actual goal that 3 points on the table might directly be related to. The referee’s authority would still be crucial for judging those moments of players involved / not involved in the play, and being gatekeeper of the tools to get calls right when a goal is disallowed and 3pts are on the… Read more »
Not really. They do it in rugby. And in Cricket. And in American football. Shall I continue?…
Smart-Arse, I’m with you 100%. I’m also a fan of several North American sports that use quite a bit of replay, and in my opinion, 1) it doesn’t guarantee a correct decision (even though it *can* rectify some of the worst mistakes, but doesn’t always), and 2) it makes watching the game a lot less enjoyable. As someone who grew up on NFL and MLB, I actually * LOVE * the less litigious nature of football and its continued reliance on referees’ determinations. And at the end of the day, while the footballers and the clubs are in it for… Read more »
Andre Mariner will even vouch for a Face Recognition
technology ……..
It’s an interesting thought from Le Prof!
I would (like) to think most refs and linesmen make honest decisions. However with all the pressure to get it right, they are likely to ask for help. When everyone but the officials know the decision was a wrong one within seconds, the refs would want to sneak a peak themselves at the replays if video support is not provided officially.
just got bayern.. but hey i will rather we face them now than later
I do agree that there is a danger that putting to much to video would remove part of the essence of the game. The occasional injustice of a wrong decision is part of what makes sport so interesting. But giving managers a limited number of challenges could be interesting
I’m a low-level amateur (youth) football referee and a very high-level amateur baseball umpire (close to international). I’d LOVE to have the use of video technology. Smart-Arse’s comments above notwithstanding, I believe most other sports officials would like the help, too. American football and major league baseball now have reviews for pretty much anything, and in neither case has the authority of the referee/umpire been eroded. Rugby has video review (and IMHO a much better process for it than North American sports) and if anything it has enhanced the authority of the referees. Obviously a lot of consideration must be… Read more »
As much as I feel it should come into play. The arguements that I have with myself over how you go about implementing it are just ridiculous. In Ramseys case it’s fine as a goal was scored, easy result the goal stands and the mugsmashers get beat. what about cases where an offside is given but it’s not and no goal has come from it? Does the player than gain a free kick? Do you just check the footage for every offside decision? I think there’s far too much to it for it to be introduced, human error will always… Read more »
Thought goal was given in that instance, just the folk closing the bit of hawk eye footage to show us chose the wrong chunk.