Our games are becoming more competitive than ever, especially as the standard levels out and more counties are capable of winning to at least get to an All Ireland final (given the right draw).
I think the GAA's policy for pouring money into coaching and coaching staff towards kids is paying off. Certainly is for Dublin hurling !
Another good recipient for our GAA money to be used by imo is the installation of CCTV type video cameras in every county ground that coul dbe used as a championship venue. That means 34 ish grounds I'd expect.
Then if a player is reported by whatever new procedure is brought in as having perportrated something that requires review - a retro suspension can be handed out. There will be no whinging about unfairness as there will be a policy and soon I'd hope, all dirty fouls will be eradicated from the game- as players will realise they will be suspended !
Again in my opinion, there have been a few contentious incidents during the season thus far that need something to augment the powers of observation from the ref, his linesmen and his umpires.
I would be in favour of having video replays reviewed by a GAA ref in whatever booth to give the ref a proper opinion on what any decision should be.
An american football style 'three challenges' type scenario could be used - so the game isnt completely cluttered up with stopages.
Again these ideas will cost money to implement, but the assocation has the money for such capital investment and this kind of technology is getting very cheap to buy - and hard disks for storage are cheaper still.
A 'video ref' woul dhave given a quick answer on sunday and the hoo ha and arguing would have stopped instantly on sunday before the final whistle.
Our players and teams and refs train a lot all year round. an Inch is an advantage, we need to shore up loopholes and policy and procedure and if video replays can ascertain if a point was a point or a wide etc through a challenge - I think we go from being the slap happy paddys to an organisation whoi does everything it can to promote fair play and cut out all contention.
Croke park? what do you say?
No thank you. Days like the Leinster final are precious few :)
I'm all for human error in the games. I don't like the idea of further distinction between our club and county games either. It only leads one way.
Fair enough Zap,
but in my opinion and form my own playing experience, theres nothing worse than feeling cheated out of a game based on a bad decision by a ref. While this is going to remain par for the course in club football, the intercounty stuff is to my mind so serious that human error that can be recified immediately so easily through technology based assistence is no sleight on an official and both teams will accept the result of a 'video ref' in the final seconds of a Leinster SFC final for example!
Leinster finals may be precious few - but eg they are precious fewer for the likes of Louth who would have at least obtained a replay or a victory if we had proper video review procedures in place !
Quote from LB
.....nothing worse than feeling cheated out of a game based on a bad decision by a ref.
What bad decisions could/would be over turned by having video evidence?
How many cameras would need to be at these grounds? Would these cameras need to be manned or would static cameras suffice?
I'm with Zap on this.
There is no doubt that changes have to happen.
All of the major debating points this summer have been caused by TRIAL BY TELEVISION.
We all have our opinions one way or another.It is easy doing so having seen incidents in slow motion etc. The Ref has to make a decision as it stands without the help of outside "interference". He has not the same privileges as those viewing at home. Why should he as this is only sport. Are we not all supposed to be better persons as a result of playing games?
As of now a Ref is supposed to fill in his report as he saw the game NOT with the assistance of the camera [Pat Spillane or Tony Davis].
The only answer is immediately after the match [not next day] fill in his report with the assistance of his umpires and linesman. This way we can all enjoy the coverage on TV as we do but it does not change the course of the game.
Its not cameras and a 9th official that is required.
I think the following is all thats needed.
Go with the Ladies version of timekeeping - no longer an issue for the ref.
Umpires should be appointed independently by the GAA and not brought along by the ref.
Every Ref, linesman and umpire must take a communications course.
Dont appoint referees to a Provincial final that are not match fit, physically or practice wise. According to todays independent Mr Sludden had only reffed one championship match and zero division one leagus matches in the last season.
Surely on the very best should be appointed to provincial finals.
Quote from: Denn Forever on July 15, 2010, 11:40:54 AM
Quote from LB
.....nothing worse than feeling cheated out of a game based on a bad decision by a ref.
What bad decisions could/would be over turned by having video evidence?
How many cameras would need to be at these grounds? Would these cameras need to be manned or would static cameras suffice?
I'm with Zap on this.
from the last couple of weeks we have two/three disputed points in the Galway v Sligo replay game - one point victory by Sligo.
One contentious point in the Cork v waterford hurling draw last weekend.
Then the meath 'goal' in the leinster final.
The 'winner' of all three games decided upon these scores.
I am sure there were more, and I am sure there will be more as this season and future seasons pass. If we use video evidence for scores, then there is no dispute and contention.
To answer the other question - cheap static fixed cameras recording to hard disk will provide the recordings for CCCCCC reviews for reports of player strikin or 'incidents'.
Similar cameras in strategic locations covering three angles of the goals can dolikewise for a 'video ref'.
We could also implement chip/tag technology to determine if a ball has crossed the sideline/endline /goaline or was indeed between the posts for a point.
Imo its a small investment in technology to ensure correctness in scores and results.
Referees are human and they plus officials are suseptible to mistakes.
If technology is set up correctly, it rarely makes mistakes - eg the hawk eye or eagle eye thingy in tennis.
Could also give more responsibility to the linesmen and make them referees assistants. I saw that McEneaney used Coldrick a few times in the Munster Final, not that it did any good for the Canty incident. Umpires, it would appear, are beyond upgrading.
Use 2 refs for provincial finals and onwards. Or else provide them with binoculars.
Quote from: fearglasmor on July 15, 2010, 01:39:54 PM
Its not cameras and a 9th official that is required.
I think the following is all thats needed.
Go with the Ladies version of timekeeping - no longer an issue for the ref.
Umpires should be appointed independently by the GAA and not brought along by the ref.
Every Ref, linesman and umpire must take a communications course.
Dont appoint referees to a Provincial final that are not match fit, physically or practice wise. According to todays independent Mr Sludden had only reffed one championship match and zero division one leagus matches in the last season.
Surely on the very best should be appointed to provincial finals.
I go along with this type of change as it's really only tweaking it but would produce better results.
Are we going to have to succumb to/embrace video technology eventually, at some point?
If yes, then let's get to feck on with it; if no, then we'd better build a cast-iron defence, especially after the soccer-heads have fallen over each other to proclaim it the best thing since sliced (Hovis) bread (and like the rugger-buggers had been brawling with the ref about every contentious decision over the past decade, in the sorry absence of same).
For Christ's sake, under no pitifully misguided circumstances, let's not have another debacle like the (eventual) adoption of yellow and red cards, an inevitability that was resisted for many years with threats of self-immolation at the stake of Gaelic Games purity and sanctity, and perdition for all and sundry. Now please do excuse me, whilst I wander down to the shore, to hold this fecking tide back. It makes a right mess of the sandcastles (in the sky), fecker!
Edit And just to put this in perspective, in the time it took Martin Sludden to walk back to his umpire on Sunday last (his distance from the umpire notwithstanding), he could have had communication through on his earpiece from the video-ref advising him that the 'goal' wasn't actually a goal at all. Arguments about interruptions in the game are spurious. We're dealing with modern technology here, not steam-driven smoke-signals.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 16, 2010, 12:01:46 AM
Are we going to have to succumb to/embrace video technology eventually, at some point?
I think it's more of a case of succuming to pressure from the usual places. This incident with the Leinster final was always going to be used to highlight someones agenda. I have no problem with embracing technology (such as whistles and flags) but I do have a problem with it it when it can't be equally used at every venue (reasonably) in the country.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 16, 2010, 12:01:46 AM
Edit And just to put this in perspective, in the time it took Martin Sludden to walk back to his umpire on Sunday last (his distance from the umpire notwithstanding), he could have had communication through on his earpiece from the video-ref advising him that the 'goal' wasn't actually a goal at all. Arguments about interruptions in the game are spurious. We're dealing with modern technology here, not steam-driven smoke-signals.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again anyway!
A ref has to ask for assistance from a video ref. Sludden would not have asked for assistance on Sunday, so video technology would not have made one iota of a difference last week. Sludden had an umpire who had a perfect view of the incident and who raised his arm (rather than the green flag) to let Sludden know he wanted to give him some information. Sludden refused to even listen to what the umpire had to say and ordered him to put up the green flag.
It wasnt just Sludden's incompetence that caused the controversy, his arrogance was equally as important.
Quote from: Hound on July 16, 2010, 08:34:34 AM
Sludden refused to even listen to what the umpire had to say and ordered him to put up the green flag.
Dramatic.
Something now has to come out of this to stop Trial by TV.
The only way to stop trial by tv is to ban tv - how realistic is that? The public have come to expext a high level of coverage and this leads inevitably to demands that correct and fair decisions are arrived at. It has lead to the third umpire in cricket and the video ref in rugby where a lot of mistakes have been ruled out.
If fairness is what we want whats the problem. Just because you dont have cameras at all matches should not mean that you can't have fairness where ever possible. That would be like saying that nobody should be charged over CCTV footage because not every row is covered.
Quote from: Zapatista on July 16, 2010, 08:26:44 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 16, 2010, 12:01:46 AM
Are we going to have to succumb to/embrace video technology eventually, at some point?
I think it's more of a case of succuming to pressure from the usual places. This incident with the Leinster final was always going to be used to highlight someones agenda. I have no problem with embracing technology (such as whistles and flags) but I do have a problem with it it when it can't be equally used at every venue (reasonably) in the country.
thats just it - we have already embraced this change - we are using video evidence to ban players retospectively - thats why there is a furore and outcry from Kerry as these measures are still relatively unprecedented and there is no proper adoptation in the procedures for this.
We need things to be on a level playing field and have cameras at all games or none.
by the swame token, we know that the answer will be that we will eventually have the cameras installed and eventually hopefully there will be fewer and fewer incidents for cccccccccc
to look at until its the odd isolated incident.
As FOSB says, in the time taken to walk to the umpire, the video ref will have made the decision. Hound if this video procedure was in place, then refs would know they can use it and wouldnt hesitate for a second to go to it and ensure they are blameless from any ultimate contentious decision.
I would think referees would love the prospect of a video ref.
A system that can confirm if a ball is over the line/sideline or between the posts takes these decisions away from officials also.
In life an work we automate things to make it easier for ouselves. The yanks have it right for their sports, we surely can implement new things successfully to improve decision making and lessen contention also.
its fairly obvious that refs cant see everything, umpires and linesmen likewise.
They need help in making sure that a game is going to have undisputed big decisions like goals/points.
We are starting to have more and more of these incidents- I contend that it is due to the levelling off of teams/standards and that games are now more competitive and closer than ever - so we need additional measures to address these before we have a problem in every game !
That would be a disaster and make a joke of our games - especially when its so easy to take steps to remedy.
Tradition is great, but sometimes we need to progress things.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 16, 2010, 01:14:57 PM
its fairly obvious that refs cant see everything, umpires and linesmen likewise.
They need help in making sure that a game is going to have undisputed big decisions like goals/points.
We are starting to have more and more of these incidents- I contend that it is due to the levelling off of teams/standards and that games are now more competitive and closer than ever - so we need additional measures to address these before we have a problem in every game !
That would be a disaster and make a joke of our games - especially when its so easy to take steps to remedy.
Tradition is great, but sometimes we need to progress things.
Ah now. You not doing you argument any favours with the above. Games are more competitive or close than they were 10/20/30/40/50 years ago. I think not.
I'd say you will find there were the same number of incidents 40 years ago.
What has changed is the blanket tv coverage, the frame by frame analysis by tv and newspaper. The popularity of interactive tv and radio programmes all combine to elevate all incidents to unprecented levels.
None of this can be reversed of course so maybe the GAA will be forced to bring in technology. My view is that it will be another step on the slippery slope to a severing of the connection between club and county teams. It is just becoming less and less tenable to maintain the amateur ethos of representative football in the face of the GAA hierarchys manic drive towards professionalism in all aspects of intercounty GAA activity.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 16, 2010, 01:10:52 PM
by the swame token, we know that the answer will be that we will eventually have the cameras installed and eventually hopefully there will be fewer and fewer incidents for cccccccccc
to look at until its the odd isolated incident.
Do you mean the CCCC or TSG?
Quote from: fearglasmor on July 16, 2010, 02:14:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 16, 2010, 01:14:57 PM
its fairly obvious that refs cant see everything, umpires and linesmen likewise.
They need help in making sure that a game is going to have undisputed big decisions like goals/points.
We are starting to have more and more of these incidents- I contend that it is due to the levelling off of teams/standards and that games are now more competitive and closer than ever - so we need additional measures to address these before we have a problem in every game !
That would be a disaster and make a joke of our games - especially when its so easy to take steps to remedy.
Tradition is great, but sometimes we need to progress things.
Ah now. You not doing you argument any favours with the above. Games are more competitive or close than they were 10/20/30/40/50 years ago. I think not.
I'd say you will find there were the same number of incidents 40 years ago.
What has changed is the blanket tv coverage, the frame by frame analysis by tv and newspaper. The popularity of interactive tv and radio programmes all combine to elevate all incidents to unprecented levels.
None of this can be reversed of course so maybe the GAA will be forced to bring in technology. My view is that it will be another step on the slippery slope to a severing of the connection between club and county teams. It is just becoming less and less tenable to maintain the amateur ethos of representative football in the face of the GAA hierarchys manic drive towards professionalism in all aspects of intercounty GAA activity.
ok so you dont agree - and we will agree to differ
but can you not agree that TV replay evidence is already being used to ban players?
so what small step forward is required to put real-time video ref fired replays into practice for championship matches !
It is obvious that manual officiation isnt good enough for some incidents.
Quote from: Zapatista on July 16, 2010, 02:20:41 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 16, 2010, 01:10:52 PM
by the swame token, we know that the answer will be that we will eventually have the cameras installed and eventually hopefully there will be fewer and fewer incidents for cccccccccc
to look at until its the odd isolated incident.
Do you mean the CCCC or TSG?
whoever is responsible for banning the players obv- ccccc
lets not stick our heads in the sand and say we dont want this due to tradition or cost.
we have changed the face of Gaelic games over the past 30 years so more change to improve things is nothing beyond us.
The cost of the hardware is very small in comparison to what the GAA take in.
The money ring fenced to pay players can be used to give players increased expenses and to purchase and run Hard Disk digital video cameras.
rather than continue on being the 'sure we'll deal with it when it hapens' nation - we need to put policy and procedure into effect to ensure we cover all areas off.
As a nation we know only too well what the lack of policies, procedures and regulation has done to our economy - banking and financial regulator toname just two that needed prior policy/procedure.
I have a problem with retro analysis of any sort. IMO, there are many compelling reasons to try and ensure that a result is declared at the final whistle. Anything other than a conclusive result is going to lead to acrimony, recriminations and cries of "we wuz" robbed from one side or the other and frequently from both.
Take the latest Paul Galvin peccadillo for instance:
I feel he deserved his punishment without doubt. But others in that game deserved the same treatment and got away scot-free, presumably because the CCCC who reviewed the video some days later did not see fit to 'invite' the referee to look at a video of other controversial incidents.
'Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander' and all that. As it was, Galvin spent several days waiting for the proverbial axe to fall in the full knowledge that he was going to be found guilty of as red card offence. There was never going to be any other outcome, given the fact that TSG had proved his guilt beyond any possibility of doubt. Colm O'Rourke was to defend Tohill's hatchet job on Galvin on the grounds that it was done in the interests of freedom of speech and the public's right to know –or some crap like that.
I don't accept any of this- it was done to boost viewing figures for the interests of his TV bosses and, indirectly, for the commercial sponsors of RTE.
It served to highlight the inadequacies of our present referring system also. Far too many games are marred by referring c**k ups ; followed closely by dissections of selective incidents on public television and then followed by directives from the CCCC to the unfortunate ref to go back and amend his errors.
I'm all for the video referee system used in rugby. Its use might have averted the fiasco we saw last Sunday; then again it might not as Martin Sludden seems to have made his mind up without consulting with anyone.
BTW; I'm not getting stuck into a partisan debate here; Sludden's 'terrible mistake,' could have been made by any other referee just as easily and the teams involved could have been any other pair in the land.
To my way of thinking, a relatively simple change of rule that would allow a sideline official or umpire to directly approach a ref to bring something to his notice would be a massive step in the right direction.
After all, we have a total of six individuals hanging running up and down the sidelines or scratching themselves against the nearest goal posts for most of the time.
By contrast we have one unfortunate hoor out in the midst of the action, who knows full well that his every mistake will be reviewed for the benefit of the nation on TSG or similar. Throw in the fact that he is very likely to be considerably older and slower than the thirty superfit and hyped up players who are passing him out on all sides and it's obvious that we need to come up fast with a more efficient way of controlling our games.
It's quite possible that some referees may choose to ignore the advice given by any or all of his assistants and may decide not to use video playbacks of controversial scores or wides but he won't be able to put it down to human error if he ever finds himself owning up to a 'terrible mistake.'
Lar, while not in the rules to directly approach the ref, the sideline men and umpires have in ther remit to stand with hand in the air/wave at ref to attract his attention towards something he has not seen.
The problem isnt with the alerting of an official, its with the competency of the other officials.
A ref is human and if some big 6' 7" lad is standing in front of him at some critical point in the match obscuring his view - then he is not going to see something - whether any of the other officials see it or not is also questionable.
While nobody likes or wants trial by TV - we have arrived at a point in time where we have the technology to review games or more specifically - review reported incidents.
Without cameras being at every ground, I would have to agree with Kerry and Mickey harte and say that this is not fair towards all teams and players.
an instant review system by video ref would stop any future potential incidents like the 'goal' in the leinster final.
If people are worried about a ref being too arrogant and not call for the replay to assist his decision - then have the 'three challenges' option available to both team managers - that way they can have an incident reviewed and the ref can do nothing about it !
I suspect though that refs dont want to be seen to be wrong - so they will revert to video booth after each slightly contested goal/point so they dont get the same blacklisting as mr sludden has.
Once this system is available to refs - they will use it , I have no doubt !
You've made some very interesting points here, lb.
I know the assistant officials may seek to attract the ref's attention okay but, right now, they can be totally ignored if the ref so decides. I accept that the man with the whistle has to be the sole arbiter in all cases but he should be compelled to hear the opinions of one or more of his "extra eyes," if they are offered.
After all, we have four umpires who may as well be scratching their butts or playing pocket billiards for most of the game. Surely it could be arranged that one of each pair could keep his eyes on the actual play while the other could watch out for off the ball incidents?
The ref's view of proceedings can be obscured by one or more extra large guys okay and the same goes for every high ball lofted into the goal mouth or dropping down in midfield. But if a total of 7 officials can't figure out what is going on in a crowded situation, I feel a video review mightn't be conclusive either.
I do feel that the addition of a video ref would be a great idea as it can make great use of modern technology while at the same time being unobtrusive in every way. The faster an incident is resolved, the better to my way of thinking. The way video reviews are used under the present system sucks.
People are being conditioned into accepting that one or more incidents will be put under scrutiny on TSG and then followed by the CCCC asking the ref to go back and take another look at his handiwork.
I think your idea of the 'three challenges' option is a novel one alright but it does have considerable merit. Anything is preferable to having the media playing up all manners of off the ball incidents and the likes until the ref is invariably obliged to admit his mistake(s) in public and has to hand out belated red cards. IMO, there is another flaw in the present system of retro penalising; a retro suspension does not carry the same weight as one handed out on the field of play. Say for instance that two players get involved in a barney and the ref decides to send one of them off- the other escapes his notice and is thus able to complete the full game. Even though he may eventually be red-carded through the present drawn out process of retro review, he will have been able to stay on the field for the remainder of the game.
The selective use of video recording used in the league was even dafter than the present one- ASAIK, all IC games this season are being recorded any may be used if required.
Still video use, even in the form we are discussing, has its drawbacks; obviously, they are of no use whatever if the game is not being recorded!
Extending the role of the assisting officials can be useful wherever and whenever there's a ref and his little elves. ;D
The further we've come the more we've forgotten.
Its amazing to look back at the early days of the GAA and see how many matches were replayed/abandoned due to objections. I don't think the hand cranked cameras of the early 20th century would have been much good for instant replays but as FOSB intimated are not the GAA better off embracing this technology now rather than having it almost forced upon it because of some other howler down the road.
Hound made the point that Sludden was not for listening the last day - I'd concur with that. However a system where the ref could call on it any number of times with each team captain having say 3 calls (with 3 more in extra time as its a new game!!) would not be the end of the world as we know it.
As has been said us animals are smarting as the video evidence has cost us (and yes do the crime so do the time) but this technology should also be to the benefit of teams and players not just for sanctioning purposes.
Funny moment in yesterday's Hurling game Tipp v Offaly. Late in the game, an Offaly shot curled close to one upright, a typical example where you need to be in the right place to judge it properly. A moment of hesitation from both umpires and then ... the closest man waves his arms for a Wide while the other umpire picks up the white flag to wave a Point at the very same time. The cameras must have caught it.
A laugh/groan breaks out across the whole ground. The ref trots in and consults both umpires, making sure to send any players away. The chat last a decent while (making me think both umpires thought they were correct). Final decision is with the nearest umpire - a Wide.
I thought it was a point myself, but certainly the umpire was not well placed to see the ball pass the post coming from the correct angle. Luckily it was not significant to the result or ...... well, you know how us Offaly folks dont like being on the wrong end of a contentious decision. ::)