How does /sp/ feel about the use of a video referee?
Makes games fairer, but should only be used for absolute howlers. Bringing it in at every given opportunity slows down the pace of the game.
it gets the correct decision, 100%
therefor anyone against it is wrong
Good.
>>74945856
I wish this was true.
I want a referee reviewing only dives and giving yellow cards when they see one. And add a 10k fine for each dive. If they do this in 6 month football is cured
Good.
>>74945832
Horseshit that slows the game down a lot and leads to controversy anyway.
>>74945832
it's awful and stupid and a waste of time, but it allows the tv network to plaster more ads on the screen and it placates the refball retards who complain.
but the type of people who complain about referee decisions are incapable of forming complex ideas and should be fed to pigs. once we do this, we can finally get rid of instant replay and productive society can move forward without them.
Fine. The france game showed it works, and it took less than 30 seconds. I say roll it out for the EPL.
>>74947423
dez called and he just said kys bootlicker.
and besides it's much safer for on field refs to not have the ultimate say regardless of anything else.
>>74945832
It's good because the alternative is fucking stupid
>who cares if they get it wrong as long as they get it wrong quickly
>All the Euros in here agree with video refereeing
>Despite my >flag, i actually disagree with it
Bizarro thread it seems
Usually I like it but the NHL's offside reviews are obnoxious
>was this player's skate a millimeter off the ice?
>did this player have "possession" or possession?
>which exact frame does the puck cross the line?
The goalie interference reviews are tolerable at least, those can be hard to call in real time.
Also, each league having a single review command centre is superior to each game having its own reviewer