3 ms·

> Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 se

by ErrantX 16y ago

> Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 seconds. Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. Would it really? I don't think so at all - except in the most blatant cases. If contact is made, well, the player might be making a meal of it but the letter of the law is quite solid. And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P > Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all. > They are extremely prevalent, especially not punishing players who pretend to be injured. How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D). To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem.

jules 16y ago
> And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P Ehm, obviously the players would pretend less if they get punished for it. That's the idea of a working ref system... > Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all. It's not like it all has to happen in sequence. You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who only after that decides what to do. The only difference is that instead of using the ref's eyes, you use super-eyes. A little bit slower but not significantly slower, and significantly more accurate. > How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D). Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video? On TV it's often very obvious that they are faking it. But of course judging this is hard sometimes, the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video. > To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem. It's fixing an obviously broken system.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who.... You see what I am saying about complicating things. These are just not needed as there are plenty of other fixes to try first! Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video? Well, uh, probably actually. You keep saying "injuries" without really quantifying it. Do you mean throwing themselves on the ground and faking it (i.e. diving) or going down under a soft challenge and pretending to be hurt. The first is inexcusable (and sometimes the ref gets it wrong), the second is not on at all but it could still be a correct foul. the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video. It doesn't matter; because it is just part and parcel of what makes up the game. End of. Football doesn't need to be Americanized (I think that term is justified, no offence intended) as far as I am concerned because we enjoy it the way it is. There are problems, TV replays are not really the fix we are looking for. It's fixing an obviously broken system. Obvious to you. For those of us who love and enjoy the sport it is a terrible and badly thought out fix. No thanks :) The takeaway is this is all part of the game WE enjoy watching/playing. Yes it is getting a little much at times. Yes there are steps we should take to knock the modern footballer into shape :P but no, TV is not the way.
  - jules 16y ago
    What does america have to do with it? > It doesn't matter; because it is just part and parcel of what makes up the game. End of. Football doesn't need to be Americanized (I think that term is justified, no offence intended) as far as I am concerned because we enjoy it the way it is. BTW, I'm from Europe. And everybody I know agrees that TV replays for judging fouls is good. So, your appeal to "we" is a non-argument at best. > Obvious to you. For those of us who love and enjoy the sport it is a terrible and badly thought out fix. No thanks :) You are dropping all reasoning and you are just saying "we like it this way, no thanks.". > TV is not the way. Then what is? To summarize your two points: 1) "We already like it this way" -- unclear who we is, and not an argument against replays: maybe it would be even better with replays. 2) "There are other, better fixes" -- without mentioning what these fixes are.

by ErrantX 16y ago

jules 16y ago

> And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P Ehm, obviously the players would pretend less if they get punished for it. That's the idea of a working ref system... > Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all. It's not like it all has to happen in sequence. You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who only after that decides what to do. The only difference is that instead of using the ref's eyes, you use super-eyes. A little bit slower but not significantly slower, and significantly more accurate. > How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D). Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video? On TV it's often very obvious that they are faking it. But of course judging this is hard sometimes, the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video. > To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem. It's fixing an obviously broken system.

ErrantX 16y ago
You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who.... You see what I am saying about complicating things. These are just not needed as there are plenty of other fixes to try first! Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video? Well, uh, probably actually. You keep saying "injuries" without really quantifying it. Do you mean throwing themselves on the ground and faking it (i.e. diving) or going down under a soft challenge and pretending to be hurt. The first is inexcusable (and sometimes the ref gets it wrong), the second is not on at all but it could still be a correct foul. the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video. It doesn't matter; because it is just part and parcel of what makes up the game. End of. Football doesn't need to be Americanized (I think that term is justified, no offence intended) as far as I am concerned because we enjoy it the way it is. There are problems, TV replays are not really the fix we are looking for. It's fixing an obviously broken system. Obvious to you. For those of us who love and enjoy the sport it is a terrible and badly thought out fix. No thanks :) The takeaway is this is all part of the game WE enjoy watching/playing. Yes it is getting a little much at times. Yes there are steps we should take to knock the modern footballer into shape :P but no, TV is not the way.
- jules 16y ago
  What does america have to do with it? > It doesn't matter; because it is just part and parcel of what makes up the game. End of. Football doesn't need to be Americanized (I think that term is justified, no offence intended) as far as I am concerned because we enjoy it the way it is. BTW, I'm from Europe. And everybody I know agrees that TV replays for judging fouls is good. So, your appeal to "we" is a non-argument at best. > Obvious to you. For those of us who love and enjoy the sport it is a terrible and badly thought out fix. No thanks :) You are dropping all reasoning and you are just saying "we like it this way, no thanks.". > TV is not the way. Then what is? To summarize your two points: 1) "We already like it this way" -- unclear who we is, and not an argument against replays: maybe it would be even better with replays. 2) "There are other, better fixes" -- without mentioning what these fixes are.