Video evidence after the games

[cyberfish]

This week Tsirilo was not disciplined for receiving a red card, because the disciplinary board decided that based on video evidence Tsirilo was unfairly ejected from the game.

I have been a supporter of the use of video in games, but I find this decision ridiculous (and this is not because after watching the video I believe Tsirilo was rightfully ejected).

Using video after (or even during) a game is a great idea, but not the way the superleague seems to be doing it: arbitrarily. The only way it can be constructive is if there is a formal system in place that governs the use of video (and other) evidence from a game.

It is not by accident that FIFA does not endorse the heavy use of video in football. It is very difficult to implement decision making via a panel. Most of the time, even the video is not conclusive, and even in clear cases the subjectivity of the reviewers heavily weighs in how they see a play. Is a committee's judgement any better that the referee's?

Another major problem with using video after a game is the fact that it must be equally applied to all games. The way the superleague does it, it heavily favors the "big" clubs. It reviews plays whenever there is a lot of television coverage and from many different angles. Multiple cameras are the privilege of big clubs. Just watch some footage from rural games where the lone camera shows panoramic views that make it impossible to judge the play with any certainty.

But even if we assume the superleague makes sure there are enough cameras in every game, there is an even more serious problem. What kind of events should be reviewed?

Would they review events that were not punished in the field of play? In our example, Tsirilo pushed the opponent with his knee when he was out of balance with intent to make him fall. The assistant judged this to be a violation and the referee ejected Tsirilo. Superleague people watched the video and judged that there was no infraction.

Now, reverse this series of events. If the referee does not punish a player, and video evidence shows that there was an infraction, would the superleague decide to punish a player even though he was not punished during the play? Georgatos had several plays against Aris where video showed he could have received a second yellow card. If the superleague reviews such plays, why didn't they punish Georgatos?

This is all to say, that using video after the fact is not the way to go, and the Tsirilo case exposed (once again) the amateur character of those who run football in Greece.

[slick13]

what about georgatos!!!!

[cyberfish]

Slik, you forgot to read the post all the way to the end :P

and just to add: how about Castilo in Kerkyra? I think this week the superleague will review the game, they will determine that Castillo needs to be punished for hitting an opponent in the face deliberately (actually UEFA condones reviewing video in cases where the referee missed it.) Then they will have to decide if the game should be replayed because if Olympiakos were one man down for a whole half would have given Kerkyra a realistic chance at tying the game. Then they will order a repeat of the Aris-Olympiakos game because according to the laws of probability, it is unlikely a team would come back to win. To be fair, they will play the game from the moment Georgatos should had been ejected the first time when Aris was already ahead 2-0.

I am being sarcastic here. I am sure there will be more cases that would need to be reviewed and if superleague is so concerned about fairness We will be talking about nothing else till the end of the season.

Bottom line: this is a band-aid for BAD REFEREES. The solution is not video reviews a few days later, it is BETTER REFEREEING.

[bar7]

these incidents would of been ejections in either the CL or UEFA.... which is why teams like osfpp dont prospur in European play... They think its the Greek league