[TheJacko2000]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35736241

A trial of the use of video assistant referees for "game-changing decisions" in football will begin no later than the 2017-18 season.

Technology would only be applied to key incidents concerning goals, red cards, mistaken identities and penalties.

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) says it has had interest in hosting live trials from 12 national associations and one confederation.

The news was announced following a meeting of the IFAB in Cardiff.

New Fifa president Gianni Infantino, who believes greater use of technology within the game is inevitable, called it a "historic" day for the sport and said the decision proved the game's leaders were "listening to football".

The IFAB, which is made up of the four British football associations and Fifa, says a final decision on approving the technology for use throughout the game will only be made following a thorough period of testing and an agreement on the protocols for its use.

Infantino said: "We cannot close our eyes to the future but it doesn't mean to say it will work.

"The flow of the game is crucial. We cannot put that in danger. That is why we have to be open to test."

In addition to the video technology trials, the IFAB has also decided to end the 'triple punishment rule'.

It means in instances in which the referee feels defenders have made a legitimate attempt to make a tackle inside the penalty area, they will not be sent off if they commit a foul. A penalty and, possible goal against their team, is deemed sufficient punishment.

This would not apply when the offence is holding, pushing or pulling, the defender does not attempt to play the ball or the offence would be worthy of a red card if it had been committed elsewhere in the penalty area.

How will video referees work?

Will the natural flow of the game be disrupted?

The IFAB is determined this must not happen. At their news conference on Saturday, it was stressed repeatedly that if the flow of the game was hindered, the video experiment would not be implemented on a full-time basis. Logistical issues, such as when a referee stops the game for a video review, are the major reasons the IFAB have been so reluctant to say when the experiment will begin.

What about offside?

Ordinarily, referees will not stop the game to review an offside decision. However, there is a caveat. Goals can be reviewed so if there is a potential offside in the build-up to a goal, this can be checked.

Will we see it in Britain?

It is possible. The IFAB says 12 countries have expressed interest in hosting trials. Scottish Football Association chief executive Stewart Regan said the Scottish Cup could be the ideal vehicle, so it is fair to assume Scotland is one of those interested.

At which levels of the game will it be used?

This is still to be decided. Football has always been proud of the fact the game is essentially the same, whether it is played on a park or in the biggest stadiums. Technology, clearly, is not available to all. However, even at a professional level, not all grounds in all countries have access to the number of cameras needed to provide adequate cover to make key decisions.

Will players like it?

Generally speaking, those involved in the game - be they players, managers or officials - are willing to embrace anything that ensures more correct decisions are made. No system is 100% foolproof. But tight goalline decisions, such as the one that went against Tottenham in Saturday's north London derby, are now being made correctly because of video technology. Provided it is implemented properly, there is no reason to believe further improvement will not be made with the forthcoming trials.

Further rule changes

The IFAB unanimously approved a comprehensive revision of the Laws of the Game - an 18-month project, led by former English referee David Elleray. It is the most comprehensive revision of the laws undertaken during the IFAB's 130-year existence.

The word count has been halved and gender neutral language introduced throughout.

One of the amendments relates to a player who is injured by a challenge punished by a yellow or red card. Rather than the injured player having to leave the field, which gives the offending team a numerical advantage, the player will be able to have treatment on the pitch (Law 5).

The kick-off is also changing, with players able to move the ball in any direction, rather than just forward (Law ,

There will also be experimentation with a fourth substitution within extra time, although the league or competition for the trial is yet to be decided.

Think this is great news, hope the trials go well.

[Albionwarrior]

Lets wake up an smell the coffee

When are we going to use video replays as in rugby?

Not for every decision but ........ To decide if it was a penalty if the ref is unsure and the old argument that it will disrupt the game is rubbish ... what the 4th official sees, we see on the screen so the decision is 99/100 correct ... we always have a small argument on a very small number of points.

Look at the 2007 Rugby world cup final on you tube and what do you think about Mark Quato's try (touching the line is out in rugby) it was that close that yes or no appears both to be right ... it wasn't given but most people would agree that if it was given it was correct.

Dive would be seen and players punished.

Thinks that the referee missed during the game could, if you wanted, be retrospectively checked ... not to change the result but sanctions on players if the referee missed it ... If someone is kicked off the ball it can be sanctioned later if proved.

I think it will happen ... the sooner the better, plus believe it or not ... it will add to the game and the results/outcome will in the main be more honest

Albionwarrior

[The Black Pearl]

Lets wake up an smell the coffee

When are we going to use video replays as in rugby?

Not for every decision but ........ To decide if it was a penalty if the ref is unsure and the old argument that it will disrupt the game is rubbish ... what the 4th official sees, we see on the screen so the decision is 99/100 correct ... we always have a small argument on a very small number of points.

Look at the 2007 Rugby world cup final on you tube and what do you think about Mark Quato's try (touching the line is out in rugby) it was that close that yes or no appears both to be right ... it wasn't given but most people would agree that if it was given it was correct.

Dive would be seen and players punished.

Thinks that the referee missed during the game could, if you wanted, be retrospectively checked ... not to change the result but sanctions on players if the referee missed it ... If someone is kicked off the ball it can be sanctioned later if proved.

I think it will happen ... the sooner the better, plus believe it or not ... it will add to the game and the results/outcome will in the main be more honest

Albionwarrior

I don't like coffee.

I thought FIFA had already said they were going to introduce video replays?

[Albionwarrior]

There you go then .... I'm cleverer than I thought I was

[leeiswba]

Thing is though a lot of the time it's not 100% right or wrong is it. Take Sunday for example still no one can agree whether the benteke incident was a penalty or not even after replays.

[Albionwarrior]

Agreed .... However if they cheat they will surely be caught out on purely repetition and no one is that clever.  Plus if they do cheat yellow or red card or more sensibly a game ban.

[Droitwich Baggie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35736241

A trial of the use of video assistant referees for "game-changing decisions" in football will begin no later than the 2017-18 season.

[caravanc58]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35736241

A trial of the use of video assistant referees for "game-changing decisions" in football will begin no later than the 2017-18 season.

I thought it started at anfield on 13th December 2015.

[Adder]

Thing is though a lot of the time it's not 100% right or wrong is it. Take Sunday for example still no one can agree whether the benteke incident was a penalty or not even after replays.

Agreed, I don't think it should be used to decide on contact situations as in some cases it is very difficult to tell.
Use it for goal line decisions, offsides which result in goals, and penalties to decide if it was inside the box or not.

[TheJacko2000]

Agreed, I don't think it should be used to decide on contact situations as in some cases it is very difficult to tell.
Use it for goal line decisions, offsides which result in goals, and penalties to decide if it was inside the box or not.

The Rugby League method would be fine.  Referee gives the decision then the video ref has to be certain for said decision to be overturned.

[The Black Pearl]

The Rugby League method would be fine.  Referee gives the decision then the video ref has to be certain for said decision to be overturned.

I think a cricket style number of appeals should be used, say one per team per half.

[TheJacko2000]

I think a cricket style number of appeals should be used, say one per team per half.

But cricket has very few grey areas. What would be the outcome of an appeal to the Benteke penalty on Sunday?

[Albionic]

But cricket has very few grey areas. What would be the outcome of an appeal to the Benteke penalty on Sunday?

And cricket players have some integrity

[The Black Pearl]

But cricket has very few grey areas. What would be the outcome of an appeal to the Benteke penalty on Sunday?

The penalty would have stood as there was no good reason to overturn it.

[Aixelsyd]

I think a cricket style number of appeals should be used, say one per team per half.

Sorry very, very bad idea

it does not address or correct the problem of wrong calls at important points of the game

so bad calls are only allowed to happens once in every half?

[caravanc58]

why not just carry on as we are and accept some you win some you lose. I know its annoying when decisions go against your team but its not life or death is it and at the end of the day its just a game officiated by humans who make mistakes like we all do or have.

[The Black Pearl]

Sorry very, very bad idea

it does not address or correct the problem of wrong calls at important points of the game

so bad calls are only allowed to happens once in every half?

I think there is a danger of over use or over reliance, I don't see why an appeal type system is wrong.

[Aixelsyd]

I think there is a danger of over use or over reliance, I don't see why an appeal type system is wrong.

No team should be allowed "challenge" a decision in a game...

Any "replay" system needs to be part of and controlled by the game Officials only.

The system needs to be designed to help the officials make the correct calls in the most seamless and flowing manner.

It should never become like the Rugby League style Commercially Sponsored stage show.

[TheJacko2000]

No team should be allowed "challenge" a decision in a game...

Any "replay" system needs to be part of and controlled by the game Officials only.

The system needs to be designed to help the officials make the correct calls in the most seamless and flowing manner.

It should never become like the Rugby League style Commercially Sponsored stage show.

Not sure how the NRL use their video ref but Super League have got almost the perfect system for football to adopt.

[Aixelsyd]

Not sure how the NRL use their video ref but Super League have got almost the perfect system for football to adopt.

You mean the "Harvey Norman" Referee decision extravaganza



or would you prefer the "AAMI" & "KFC" version



and remember.... No Refereeing decision is any good without a Corporate Sponsor