The most interesting part of this debate is how shocking and ignorant Blatter/FIFA's comments about the matter are. These people actually believe that their views are valid and follow sound logic, which is ridiculous. Or they don't care.

Are you suggesting that because we can't have God-like super-refs that get everything right, we shouldn't bother with pesky things like whether a ball went over a line or seeing a player five yards offside? Because if that is what you're saying, then I guess there's nothing to discuss.

As for the shirt pulling/etc., my complaint there is more of a general observation about how ******ed the refs are in those situations in general--but conveniently, this would also be covered by the rules I proposed since he coukd let a play go and if a goal is scored, review.

To which you will respond "well, do I go back 13 seconds or 16 Omgomgomg too hard" and I will respond "it's a stupid question, you can figure it out by watching, if you can,t you're dumb".

True you have to draw the line somewhere, and eventually you get to the part where it may be more trouble than its worth. Most people here think that such massive decisions such as a ball crossing the goalline and not counting or a player scoring ten feet offsides are worth taking 30 seconds to get right. Im fine with just reviewing immediate goal/no goal plays since there is not much what-if involved.

Call on the field should stand unless theres indisputable evidence the other way. This would work in football if refs actually took the word indisputable to heart instead of thinking about what could have happened and overturning calls on maybes.

The point is that there is no excuse for obvious decisions with enormous impact on the game to be wrong when everyone but the ref can see it on replay within 30 seconds.

I think a challenge system is impossible to implement. Goal line tecnology mixed with post-game reviews of dives and fake injuriess of calls would be a huge step in the right direction.

This.

If you could get the players to respect the ref/game like they do in Rugby then it'd be pretty awesome too, but still, goal line technology has to be introduced.

One important thing is that it's not that important right now to debate the minutiae of any video replay system. Whatever is introduced initially will get tweaked as time goes by. Using 'we might not implement it correctly on day one' as an argument to support the 'no video replays in football' argument is bad logic. I know in cricket they've added new areas of review as the technology became feasible and then taken it away if it didn't work out well. And it works out really well. The worst case scenario is that they introduce it for a year (say trial it in the league cup) and everyone dislikes it, then you remove it np.

Review EVERY goal. The players spend 2 minutes sliding on the ground jumping on eachother incase you haven't noticed, plenty of time to review it there. I like how replay slows down the flow of the game but elaborate celebrations, faking injuries, stall tactics, are all just part of the game

PGUK,

Yeah that's a good point. I just would hate to see an NFL style of challenges where the ref would have to run off the field and go watch something. I'm sure there's some way to do it, but I also don't like rewinding portions of the game if the call was wrong.

They do this in the NBA sometimes and take a point off the board if a 3 was ruled a 2 during a commercial or something. It has seemed to work out but one point in basketball is obv way different than a goal in soccer.

Say we had video replay today. Would it really be fair to let the game continue until there is a whistle or something and then go back and challenge Lampard's shot? What happens if something critical happens in the time before the shot and the challenge? It just seems very tricky.

I'd love a laser system or chip in the ball or something if that technology exists.

Yeah, this.

If you disagree with these changes you should basically be killed.

I think this would be the lesser of evils. It would be much better than not having the goal counted (or having a goal correctly taken away).

Would it be fair???

Um, yes, it would be 100.000% more fair to let them run around for 15 extra seconds and get it right, than to not award a team a goal it scored.

I can't believe "would it be fair" is even a question.

The chip things exists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...ine-technology) not sure how well it works, but hawkeye (which they use in cricket and tennis amongst other sports) works VERY well. It's extremely accurate and processes quickly too.

It could be a lot longer than 15 seconds. What if someone scores a goal? Should that goal stand? The second goal would have never happened if the first goal would have been called correctly. That's what I'm saying isn't fair. Not that it's not fair to get the first call right.

The chip in the ball solution has technology that works and has been around since around 2000 or maybe even earlier.

You stop play *gasp* between the goal and the kickoff for *gasp* 30 seconds. If no decision is made call stands. It's not like the celebration would be over before most calls are made anyhow.

There would be no kickoff if the ref incorrectly rules that the shot wasn't the goal.

What would happen today if Germany took Lampard's shot down the pitch and scored today? It never would have happened if Lampard's shot was correctly ruled a goal. So what would you do if you could review Lampard's goal?

Does everything that happened after that not count?

No, it shouldn't stand. Everything stops when a goal scores, right? So, stop everything and let the backup keeper snort smack off a stripper's ass for a few minutes, or whatever his goal celebration is. The blatantly obvious point here is that if you can restore the game to what it was before the ref screwed the pooch, you do it, because that's what the players playing the game caused to happen--even if it took a little longer to figure out.

This actually happens in the NHL a couple times a season (goal scored on one end, not given, goal scored on other end, replay awards first goal and wipes out second.). Absolutely worls fine and everyone gets it with no problems at all.

Very short answer: Precisely.

They count both in a case like that. But in any case, the ref should be able to whistle and stop the play. They do that when players are down, even if they act like they are hurt. If they stop the game for that nonsense, they should be willing to stop it for an easy replay like that. But even if they don't want to stop it, if after the video shows it was a goal, just added on the score.

What do you do with all of the time it took to review the play? Add it back on or stop the clock? You're starting to get into some major changes to the game and it's not fair to ask Europeans to do all this for a review system that is pointless when you can just put a chip in the ball.

Oh, I see what you mean now. I was talking about when the ref calls it a goal--i.e. all called goals should be reviewed. As for goals not called goals like that one today it is a bit more difficult. I think you need goal line technology where there is immediate indication of a goal by some computer chip type system before you can fully address this problem.

This or you just count it after the fact like you do in the NBA when the ref gets the 3 point call wrong. This seems fine to me. What is the counter to this?

* Count both, yeah

This happens all the time in hockey, if a goal is incorrectly ruled to have not gone in, they just stop play at the next whistle. If it turns out to be a goal, they wipe out whatever happened in the meantime and have a faceoff at center ice. Sometimes that wipes out a goal, but it's better to do that than blow a call that leads to another goal. Given the lack of scoring in soccer, I don't see this being a huge problem either way.

I'm gonna stick with my out of touch old people line. These are the same people who refuse to go anywhere near the self checkout machine at Wal Mart and still go inside the bank to get their money rather than used that new fangled ATM machine.

These guys probably think implimenting goal line technology means next year robot referees and players will be running around some 3D holygraphic matrix like TRON or something equally insane.

You could do this, or just count both. I'm in the latter camp at the moment. Why do you think restarting play and wiping out what happened is better?