[Tamdunk]

I think video evidence should be used where things are certain like offside and if a ball has crossed the line. There are occassions where play continues if a ball has passed the line, so it might be unfair to stop the play to check it though. People say it needs to be fair across the board which I agree with, so maybe it should be an option for a referee when he isn't sure. This means we could keep the refereeing up to the ref but would give him a chance to fall back on TV footage for crucial decisions.

This of course would only make people hate ref's even more when they had the chance to check a wrong decision but didn't take it, so you can see whatever happens not everyone will be happy.

Full video evidence - game stops a lot
Up to the ref when it's used - wrong decisions will not be tolerated, ref's will use it all the time, see above point
Don't change at all - Everyone still hates the refs

Reading that back I came to the conclusion while writing it. I dont even know what would be best now.

[chico]

FIFA are shitehawks. They've used their 4 votes to bollocks this at the IFAB. We should these johnny foreigners to feck off back to the 20th century where they're firmly stuck. For once the SFA were actually on the right side of the arguement.

[HibeeJibee]

chico, on 12 March 2010 - 22:02, said:

FIFA are shitehawks. They've used their 4 votes to bollocks this at the IFAB. We should these johnny foreigners to feck off back to the 20th century where they're firmly stuck. For once the SFA were actually on the right side of the arguement.

Alongside Wales, and Northern Ireland. In fact the IFAB is a rather interesting situation isn't it. FIFA, representing its 200-odd members, get only 50% of the votes. As some votes are simple majorities, and some are 3/4 majorities, significant changes in the Laws of the Game can be blocked by only 3 of the home nations. Even if 200-odd reps FIFA and 1 home nation are in favour. And we wonder why Jack Warner & Co despise us...!!