Here's a suggestion as to how you could introduce a video referee system without too much drama:

Each team gets 2 or 3 decisions reviewed per match (much like cricket)
These reviews are only allowed on goals scored (or deemed not scored as the case may be), penalties involving red (and maybe yellow cards).

If the video footage is indecisive then the field referee's decision stands.

Seems fairly simple to me.

Sepp Blatter's argument that the game needs controversy is astonishing. Surely everyone would prefer more accurate decisions to controversy?

Is the call for video intervention only coming from countries whose sports use it (cricket nations/USA)? Do other nations, the overwhelming majority, care for video?

Its a reality that video refs occur in all major sports comps....if they dont use it there should be a ref incharge of each end looking at goal and infringments in the penalty area.

It's more difficult then people make out.

For example the disallowed USA goal against Slovenia the ref was sure he saw a foul by a US player so he blew the whistle... the ball went into the net after he blew... the play after that moment was dead. How would this situation play out if we had a video ref? The on field referee would have to stop blowing for those tough calls and let play go on, which creates it's own difficulties.

It happens in Rugby League where refs will not stop an attacking play for a possible infringement in the hope that a try will be scored and they can refer it to the video ref... if a try isn't scored then the attacking team just gets away with the infringement all together.

Try it on this mornings incident... neither the referee nor his assistant saw it cross the line so the German keeper moved the ball down field and Klose nearly scored. What would have happened if Klose did put the shot away and the referee awarded the goal. As it was the first stoppage of play the video referee would then have reviewed the Lampard incident and awarded the goal. It would have been a farce. In football video replays are only suitable for reviewing a call where the play is stopped not a non call where the play continues. The only viable solution is to have a goal line assistant referee to help with fouls, dives and goal scoring incidents like this morning. Voila! No more Henry handballs, Diego dives or Lampard no goal goals.

That's not such a bad idea.

Which is exactly what was trialled in the Europa League this year. And I think is going to be expanded to the Champions League next season as well. Probably see it at Euro 2012.

Sports like Rugby League/Cricket have natural breaks in play all the time which allow for video ref intervention (in the case of rugby league its just about always about awarding a try so that works because play would be stopping anyways). I just can't see it work in flowing sports where you by the time you decide to challenge a decision the ball could be up the other end with an attempt on goal, indeed Germany nearly scored about 10-15 seconds after Lampards goal.

it's hard to believe they haven't got goal line assistant referees. it's easier to implement, more workable and probably more reliable then video (unless they're all eunuchs, like most linesmen).

I support any system that robs the poms.

I like this, but how about adding an extra linesman to each side of the field? Currently there's one on each side, but they are on opposite halves, as depicted by the diagonal system. I feel that goal-line referees would be underutilised.



If they added assistant linesmen to the vacant touchlines, 'corner refs' that hover around opposite penalty boxes but always stayed closer to the goal than the linesmen (say no further beyond the penalty arc). Then there could be a lot more consistency with decisions on goal-line decisions and dubious corners and there would be better decisions on offsides and fouls in the box too. Also, it takes some pressure off the existing linesmen.

Why would it have been a farce - we would have ended up with a correct decision. Hardly seems like a farce to me...

The other thing that could be considered is an assistant referee up in a box watching the TV. He could be in direct radio contact with the on-field referee and advise him of any issues as he sees fit. That way it's still the on-field referee making the decision (based on advice from an assistant referee). Don't know why he's able to take advice from assistant referees running up and down the sideline, but not one up in the stand...

First world problem. Most poorly officiate line I see is line for water. I walk 46 miles.

What is first world problem

Try the queues at Peel Thunder, their longer than a WACA beer snake.