Russell Berrisford wrote an interesting post today on video replay technology, with some intriguing scenarios with situations that could arise with its implementation. You can read them all here.

Berrisford’s post follows my five-point model for video replay technology. In the interest of Hegelian synthesis, it’s worth making several amendments based on Berrisford’s examples.

Each of his thought experiments touches on something I wrote in point four:

Let’s say a team “scores” a goal that crosses the line, but the goal isn’t given by the referee. The team denied the correct goal can only call for a replay once the play is stopped. That means that any intervening action must stand, so if the opposing team runs the length of the field and scores following the goal not given, that goal must also count.

This obviously won’t affect situations in which a team “scores” from an offside position, but the opposing team must call for a replay to have the goal chalked off before the resumption of play or else the opportunity is lost for good.

So if this point stands, then the answer to Berrisford’s examples in numbers 2 and 3 is yes. The other two examples involve whether or not the referee spots other infractions unrelated to the request for video replay that either negate previous calls or give the referee a look at other calls he didn’t make at the time.

This is trickier, particularly in Berrisford’s first example involving a hypothetical case where video replay indicates the ball didn’t cross the line because an opposing player handled it. So an amendment—there should be a distinction between the reason given by the team/manager for the request for video replay (limited to goals and offside decisions) and the license of the referee in making post hoc decisions, including fouls not initially given. But they should not be able to reverse decisions made in the intervening break between the incident and the next available pause in play.

So, moving forward…