[Archived] Hughes Demands Video Technology

[Mr. E]

From BBC:

From BBC :

Hughes demands video technology

Blackburn manager Mark Hughes

Hughes has seen his side concede seven penalties this season

Blackburn boss Mark Hughes says video technology needs to be introduced urgently for Premiership matches.

Hughes was critical of the performance of referee Phil Dowd in Sunday's 1-1 draw against Tottenham and wants a meeting with refs' chief Keith Hackett.

"I've never been an advocate of technology but sooner rather than later they should bring it in," said Hughes.

"When huge decisions at the top level have an impact on teams, management and players then something has to be done."

The draw at Ewood Park featured two red cards and two penalty decisions that Hughes felt went against the hosts.

Tugay, who scored Blackburn's first-half goal, was dismissed for a foul on Hossam Ghaly that resulted in Tottenham's equaliser from the penalty spot.

It was the seventh spot-kick awarded against Rovers this season.

Soon after the home players were adamant that Spurs striker Mido had handled in the box at the other - something Hughes later claimed the Egyptian forward admitted to.

"The assistant is 15 yards away, and I am 120 yards away. I saw it, and everyone else did," said Hughes.

"These are big decisions that have a direct effect on the outcome of the game. On too many occasions this season, it has it happened to us.

"There are clear breaks in play whenever there is a penalty claim or a goal is scored.

"In that short period of time it can be established very quickly whether it was a genuine penalty kick or a genuine goal.

"It is important we highlight these things to the powers-that-be.

"Performance level is what we are all about - players, management and referees.

"Their performance has to be of the required standard.

"I do not think Mr Dowd would have been proud of his performance.

"Tugay did not make any contact. The guy lost his footing and has gone over. The referee is in a decent position to make a decision himself.

"We asked to speak to his assistant because we think he is going to overrule him.

"He comes back and ends up sending him off. We are scratching our heads."

It is the second match this month that has left Hughes angered by officials following the 2-0 loss at Aston Villa when a penalty set the hosts on their way to victory.

Tottenham boss Martin Jol was equally irritated by Ghaly's late sending off for a foul on Michael Gray.

"I know Hossam, and he never used his elbow," said the Dutchman. "He misjudged it. It was never intentional."

But confusion over whether Jol was himself sent-off was cleared up later when the Premier League confirmed Tottenham's manager had only been asked to stand away from the touchline.

Jol had thought he had been red-carded - and was planning to appeal against that - but was told he had not been officially sent off.

The sooner this gets introduced, the better. I was firmly against technology in football too before, but enough is enough. I don't care about "the flow of the game" anymore, and if it must work like the NFL where they take 10 mins to actually reach a decision, then so be it. That way they won't get to hide behind the excuse that "they didn't see it very well" and had to "make a tough decision on spot". For once, they'll have to actually do their real job and that is insure fairness, equality and consistency.

It won't happen immediately obviously, but maybe try it out for a while in the lower leagues, and if it really is successful it should go into play everywhere.

[krislu]

No thanks!

It would result in us getting decisions against us that we might have gotten before, and likewise we would get decisions for us that we would not have gotten before.

In short, it changes pretty much nothing, and there wont be anything to discuss after the game.

[Wolverine]

But at least it would be fair. At the moment it is unfair to the fans who attend the matches some spending small fortunes to follow the team, only to have a fair result taken away by incompetence.

I have been to several rugby games where technology is used and it works a damn site better than it does now.

A few people I know who went last night said they won't bother again, but will watch it on TV instead because they are fed up of paying to watch good games ruined.

[rover6]

WHy not just try it and see how it goes.

This debate keeps cropping up and I've just got to the point of think 'Why not?'

If it means more cheats are exposed (no more handball goals Mssrs Gamst and Gallagher) and more decisions made correctly, it'll probably be a good thing.

Of course there'll be plenty to talk about despite correct decisions. How many threads on this messageboard are about referees and their mistakes?

[Blueboy Downunder]

i am not an advocate for the video technology, but it is rather frustrating that decisions made rightly or wrongly are having a profound effect on games. me, i am more in favour of the following - if in the case that a player is brought down, much like the incident with tuges yesterday, and the penalty is converted, then tugay would stay on the park. however, if the penalty is missed then the red card is what i would say is fair to both teams. just can't have the double wammy like that, a goal conceded and a red card, when the ref wasn't even gonna send him off until he had spoke with his linesman.

[Eddie]

I think we have unfortunately been on the wrong end of a lot of decisions this season and I don't think it will balance itself out this year, but I still wouldn't support the use of video technology. I'm sure that next time we have one go against us I'll change my mind, but after having cooled down I think I would prefer the game to stay as it is. I just think that the standard of the officiating this season has not been good and that it certainly needs to be looked at.

[Ronin]

If there is technology available then it should be used, as footy is seemingly one of the last remaining sports not using technology. But not constantly, probably more like in Rugby League, for controversial decisions, like for penalty decisions, goal-line clearances, sending offs. Will give the fourth ref in the stands, something to do.

I would also agree that the standard of officiating is pretty inconsistent, and down-right appalling. Looks like Mr Hackett will be having quite a few meetings with managers. It definitely needs sorting out.

[Cocker]

If there is technology available then it should be used,

There is and I have it at home - its called Sky +

[Ricky]

People keep saying that it would take too long. It certainly wouldn't take much longer than it took for the ref to come over and have a discussion with the linesman yesterday. If he was wearing a headset the 4th Offical could watch it back and say yes or no pretty much instantly.

To be honest though I don't think it would have changed the Tugay decision. he caught the player (granted it was unintentional) and in theory he was the last man. The rules of the game state he has to go, the problem is that not all refs are following it and a number of worse challanges have been made which have reulted in players staying on the pitch. Consistancy is required.

[RevidgeBlue]

I'm only in favour of cameras on the goal line for "Was the ball over or not" type decisions. Otherwise you'd be stopping the game at every opportunity and imo it would completely kill off the rhythm, flow and passion of the match.

We didn't quite get the rub of the green with the decisions yesterday but our problems are more down to our own deficiencies in midfield and attack than poor officiating.

Worryingly Sparky is starting to sound a bit like Souness, whinging about officials all the time. I guess when he gets round to using the phrase "We were mugged by lady luck" it's really time to start worrying.

[ace]

Worryingly Sparky is starting to sound a bit like Souness, whinging about officials all the time. I guess when he gets round to using the phrase "We were mugged by lady luck" it's really time to start worrying.

I was thinking just that!

Trouble with video technology is that you need the cameras in the right place!...(as in the case of the Mido handball yesterday ..which was perfectly clear to most in the Blackburn end..but not to Sky cameras apparently! ..) and the good judgement of the 4th/5th official..!!!!! you also need the technology to work properly, which wasn't the case yesterday witht he ref's mike/ear-piece.

[philipl]

It was clear to the Sky cameras and Sky commentary team and Sky pundits but not to the BBC muppets.

I think technology is inevitable and badly needed. Fans are now so used to the use of technology that refs not using it seem to be anachronistic. Even more so with high tech stadia and the charges being levied.

As Rovers fans, the use of technology by officials is to be welcomed- decisions against us don't get evened out in the Prem because of the inherent bias Graham Poll talked about.

[gumboots]

Not only that but not all decisions are of equal value. You might get a dodgy pen against you one week when it matters to the score line ie means that the win/draw/loss changes. Then the next week you might get a dodgy pen for you when you're already winning 3-0 and, other than your goal difference, it doesn't matter.

[FourLaneBlue]

No reason why there can't be technology brought in for goal-line decisions but anything after that would have to be carefully introduced.

If yesterday showed anything it is that often replays are not conclusive. The Spurs thread is full of posters saying that their view is correct and therefore that is that. There are many incidents in a match which are not clear enough to be certain of so generally it is better to let the refs get on with it.

No need to stop having trials of it though in youth competitions or whatever.

[gumboots]

It was clear to the Sky cameras and Sky commentary team and Sky pundits but not to the BBC muppets.

Glad I'm not the only one who wondered which match Gavin Peacock had been watching. Sky are not normally to be praised for their unbiased opinion but on this occasion they seemed to be much more prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt. They still felt Tugay gave away a pen but that sending off was unnecessarily harsh

[b12_simon]

If there is technology available then it should be used, as footy is seemingly one of the last remaining sports not using technology. But not constantly, probably more like in Rugby League, for controversial decisions, like for penalty decisions, goal-line clearances, sending offs. Will give the fourth ref in the stands, something to do.

Trouble is, once in place replays would be used more and more - for every controversial decision.

Rovers fans are slating the ref for his decision(s) yesterday, but how much more angry would we be had he turned down the offer of a replay in order to keep the game flowing? It just wouldn't happen. We'd soon be adding another 15 mins to each half, just waiting for the 4th official to watch replays.

Simon

It was clear to the Sky cameras and Sky commentary team and Sky pundits but not to the BBC muppets.

I didn't see any of the Sky coverage, but thought the BBC shower completely bottled it, especially on the handball.

Their POV was "it's sometimes hard to make these things out, benefit of the doubt to the ref, ref 2 - Hughes 0"

Absolute cop out. No mention of the talk that Mido had admitted to it. Nothing.

Cowards!

Simon

[USABlue]

I am not in favour of replay technology at the match. What I am in favour of, and I think we need it big time, is video technology to punish these cheaters and floppers. Use the video and have a panel to reveiw incidents from games and start dishing out some HEFTY suspensions.

I think with this in place a lot of these "difficult" decisions will go away, quite frankly a lot of them are being generated by unsportsmanlike play from flopping players. Stomp that out first and then see where we sit.

[Jack]

If yesterday showed anything it is that often replays are not conclusive.

My thoughts too. Unless they put in cameras to cover every possible angle mistakes would still be made. I'm still not sure if Mido handballed after seeing the replay numerous times but if there were other cameras picking up other angles the correct decision could be made.

[thenodrog]

My thoughts too. Unless they put in cameras to cover every possible angle mistakes would still be made. I'm still not sure if Mido handballed after seeing the replay numerous times but if there were other cameras picking up other angles the correct decision could be made.

Well I am. Have you ever seen every man jack on the Riverside erupt and claim handball so spontaineously? Peacock and Chiles never mentioned that did they when they said that the ref's view was poor. Anyway....

1. the penalty was just..... just.

2. the sending off never was and never should be! How a rule exists where a player can be sent off and spectators cheated when the actual foul was so obviously unintentional is scandalous?

3. Mido's handball should have been absolutely nailed on obvious to the linesman. What was he thinking of? Unlike the farcical pen award against Oijer the other week Mido had absolutely ages to see that ball coming at him! Undeniably Hand (arm) to ball. If the jumped up prats want to be called 'referees assistants' why tf dont they act like one?

I've supported the introduction of video technology frequently on here. Not so much to see that every little decision is correct but to put an end to weak refereeing and big club bias....... which by definition means that it will NOT be introduced.

btw Interesting poll result here........

http://sport.aol.co.uk/blackburn-rovers/hu...120052509990001

Stomp that out first .......

You've been over there too long! The correct term is 'stamp'.

Edited November 20, 2006 by thenodrog

[bluebruce]

People who don't want video technology absolutely shock me. PARTICULARLY Rovers fans- we seem to be at or near the top of the league in getting screwed by bad decisions. For a very long time now indeed. Seems the majority of football fans in general are in favour of this technology- methinks some sort of campaign or petition is in order.

[Neil Weaver]

First time I've been on here since the game, and saw the BBC highlights last night and wondered (like philipl, Simon and gumboots) what the hell Gavin Peacock had been smoking. The penalty - harsh pen and very harsh sending off but I could just about accept that : at a guess I'd reckon 5 out of 10 refs wouldn't have given a pen, and of those that would less than half would have waved a red card. As far as I'm concerned, that's down to refereeing consistency.

Our pen claim - at the time, I really couldn't tell (I sit in the JW Lower, about half way between the BE and half way line, so not too dissimilar to the view the ref had). So to the TV highlights. JW angle camera - similar to my view 'live' it looked iffy but couldn't be conclusive. Riverside angle camera - pretty clear, outside chance it might have been chest (the lino's view). Blackburn End angle - nailed on handball, the ball clearly goes past Mido's body, he sticks an arm out and the ball drops in front of him. I wonder if him already being booked had a bearing on it - I would guess a deliberate handball would have meant a second yellow? For whatever reason, the BBC showed the three angles in the 'live' highlights but when Peacock gave us the benefit of his thoughts, didn't show the BE view (where it was blatent) and argued there wasn't enough evidence to give it. Imagine a court case where there are three pieces of evidence : the witness isn't 100 percent sure, the weapons evidence isn't 100 percent conclusive either, but we have DNA evidence that is clearcut. But let's ignore the DNA evidence.

So, Jack (and congrats on a post on the footy board ), video replays might not mean having hundreds of cameras as this shows.

I'm not the world's biggest advocate of live video replays being introduced but what about something similar to what was recently introduced in tennis where a player can call for something like two video adjudications per set? What about something like one video appeal for each team per half? So not as many pauses as American Football but hopefully improved decisions.

EDIT - one final thing (since I've just been watching the video ) - Jol, who I did and still think of as a pretty honest sort, said after the game that Ghaly shouldn't have been sent off cos there was no intention. How does that stack up against Tugay's red then?

Edited November 20, 2006 by Neil Weaver

[USABlue]

You've been over there too long! The correct term is 'stamp'.

If you like to lick their backsides and put them on envelopes yes

Edited November 20, 2006 by USABlue

[3recurring]

Premier League to submit proposal to Fifa for use of video technology

[Mr. E]

Premier League to submit proposal to Fifa for use of video technology

that's great, I'm very glad to see they're moving in the right direction. Ultimately it's for the good of the game.

[Presty On Tour]

i'm not a fan of all this video technology until it has been tried and tested, i think it could ruin the game and end up like american footy with stoppages and time outs and challenges on the decisions.

i can hear it now, theres a flag on the play, no it's not offside, illegal contact, 10 yard penalty!!!

wot ever happened to jumpers for goal posts, a kick about with mates in a the park and honest fairplay in the game?