Cause of many bad decisions made by the refs in a lot of the games at EURO2000.Should there be a TV ref to help out in situations where there is resonal doubt about the refs call of jugement, like they have in NHLishockey.

Ricococo.

Do you mean instant replay??

Maybe they do need it ...... but how to incorporate it into the game?? It takes time to assess the situation and what happened. Maybe they should give referees a direct radio link to a person up in the boxes watching the game on TV. Of course these common sense decisions often desert people.

we need it of course but how. do you stop the game in the middle of a goal mouth scramble. i only works in Rugby and NHL because the game has alresdy stopped anyway

Actually the Swedish coach suggested there be 2 refs in a game.. sort of like hockey where one ref would cover one side the other would cover the other side.. http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

The instant replays devour any argument about Bad refereeing ...that is the whole idea of having them, the reason why the refs call for them in Rugby League is obviously because the ref in charge can't make the proper call due to ..One:> either blind and stupid..."like a few of them are"...Two:> He is unsighted from the ball..Three:> He is fighting for his life while being surrounded by angry, protesting idiot players..etc ..etc..the instant replay must be called into the game any time that the ref needs to make a fair call on any incident, that way there can be no arguments about the final descision, even the madmen in the stands cant dispute it...and who cares if the game stops for 30 seconds or so, at least this way no one can complain...how many of these "Incidents" actually happen in a game..????
perhaps two or three at the most..and how many times have there been bad calls that have cost teams a winning result....and players getting booked and sent off for minor infringements..the replay cam would/should eliminate all this...

I think using either two refs or a tv ref can work. Two refs, one one either side of the field covering the length of the field as normal.
Or a tv ref who can be referred to in extreme cases, eg goals and red card decisions.

I think the TV refs could work but only for some desisions. It would sometimes take to long for the TV ref to watch the action again and again. For example the other day in the rugby (New Zealand v Scotland) it took around 5 minutes to say if there was a try or not. This would slow down the game too much if it was used in Football.

Ste

I think that cameras are needed, but only to see if the ball crosses the goal line. Bad decision, add to the intensity of the game, and it wouldn't be the same without them. But if a goal is cored and not given then this is not fair, as it is not giving a team credit for a perfectly good goal. A seperate ref could sit in the stands watching it on TV with replays, and a radio link to the ref on the field. Unless the "video Ref" gives a goal the match continues

However (from my other post about time taken to watch replys) I went to see Lancashire Lightning play the other day and the video umpire was used a few times and I have to say the desisions where made very quickly so it might be possible to use it in football.