Video Technology

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3370956/Premier-League-expand-video-technology-correct-calls-FA-prepare-volunteer-English-clubs-guinea-pigs-new-rules.html

What does everyone think? I'm sat on the fence with this. 

Positives - may be able to stop all this diving around which is embarrassing at the moment. It should resolve penalty issues and red card tackles...Vinny anyone?

Negatives - even 30 seconds seems too long to wait for a decision. If it was 10 seconds, fair enough.

Will they show it on the big screen? Currently, they are not supposed to show incidents again where a player has made a bad tackle - whether a card has been given or not.

Will this bring an end to retrospective action, as the incident has been officially reviewed?

Can the video referee get the attention of the on-field referee and tell him about an off-the-ball incident that he may have missed?

I'm all for video technology. The video ref should be able to scrutinize EVERYTHING that takes place on the field of play.
Players should know that their every move will be being monitored, whether it's near the ball or not...and if the video ref spots an offence the play will be stopped and they'll be punished accordingly.
Decisions won't take that long to be made, so let's give it a go and see what happens.

Yes, I'm sure the replaying of video to verify a decision will be a nuisance, but if the game has stopped anyway then it's only going to be a brief interruption.  It'll certainly help identifying cheats, which is a real problem as far as I'm concerned - like Arsenal's perpetual falling over.

Thing is, football now is a results business and we've seen too many incidents where a wrong decision has cost a team a goal, or the game, or the chance to progress in a cup, or a higher league place, or even relegation.  The game is too fast to keep up with and referees need six sets of eyes and the reactions of a house fly just to stand a chance.

why would it take 30 secs ( tv gets replays instantly), even if it did for a foul or offside goal etc it usually takes that to restart the game after players surrounding the ref, Waiting to get the ball back, Players rolling on the floor in agony etc. I don't think you would notice much difference to be honest. I'm with you Den, cut out grey areas

It might take longer if it's not clear cut, but 30 seconds should be more than enough.  Some, like you say Oz, are blatantly obvious and shouldn't need more than a few seconds.

After just about every single stoppage, there is a delay. After a goal, there is always a minimum of 1 minute delay. A 4th/5th ref can view the monitor for all major calls. If he isn't sure within 30 seconds, he sticks with the onfield decision. I can't see this impacting on the match at all except we'd get more decisions right.

Don't shoot the messenger!

Just putting it out there...

I think this is what we're referring to:

'Negatives - even 30 seconds seems too long to wait for a decision. If it was 10 seconds, fair enough.'

It can be done easily between 10 and 30 seconds for most decisions.

Hence my point....the article said 30secs. 

I don't think 30 seconds is too long when you see idiots going down for no reason wasting more than 30 secs to get treatment yet refs barely adding on any injury time.