the longer you use video replays, the better the referee's get as the learn instantly what looked bad to them doesn't. Its not the same to them seeing it 4 hours later after a break and seeing different angles. Being told they got a decision wrong on the spot in the moment can only improve their ability to read what really is/isn't a foul and so on.
I'm not sure I follow exactly what you're saying. But I think I disagree, unless I've misunderstood what you've written.
I certainly don't think that instant feedback on their decisions will improve decisions they make in future. Ref's don't (usually) make mistakes because they don't know what is, or isn't, a foul.
They make mistakes because they have to make a decision on how they saw something happen, which isn't always the same as what actually happened. Video replays can be used to help them get more decisions correct, because it offers them alternative views.
It won't actually make the referee any better at recognising a foul though, it just allows him the opportunity to correct what would have been his initial decision.
For example what happens, if it looks like a player has taken a dive in the box and the referee decides to allow play to continue (based on his view of the game). He can't look at a reply, because play is still going on. The defender then punts the ball up field, the forward runs on and scores at the other end. Play stops and the ref reviews the 'dive'. It turns out it should have been a penalty. What happens?
What about the same senario, where play continues, but a player the other striker gets his leg broken in a horror tackle just before he shoots. The ref looks at the 'dive' incident once play stops and decides that play should never have continued, so he goes back and awards the penalty. What happens with the injury? They obviously won't get a free kick for it, as video evidence proved that there should have been a penalty at the other end before hand.
Keep saying the NFL red flag system would work perfectly, as it does in most sports, you get to challenge decisions at first people abuse it, 2 months later people stop abusing it and only use it at crucial decisions, then refs get better due to it, and the amount of poor decisions and stopping play briefly get smaller than before the new system and all the surrounding ref and shouting for 5 minutes basically never happen again.
But football doesn't stop continually like a lot of other sports. Would you only be able to contend a decision where the ref makes a decision that causes the game to stop?
What about when the ref decides to play on after an 'incident'....how does the game stop when you appeal? What if your appeal is incorrect and the ref was actually right to play on?
It would make the game ridiculous imo.
as for poor decisions I think they happen far more often than you think, and yes they should be punished more, if they aren't punished properly wheres the incentive to get better.
As mentioned by most people, consistently poor performances should be punished. The question is, is it right to punish a one-off, but particularly important decision, when someone gets it wrong due to nothing more than human error?
i think its been getting noticably worse the last couple of years aswell, multi angle replays, slow motion aren't new, they aren't around in the last 2 years or 5 years, its been common for donkeys years now. THe only really newer thing which has been a few years is the added lines for offside, which frankly anyone with any dept perception can see offsides the same as before anyway.
I'm not sure that is has been getting worse. If anything, I find it astounding how often the referees are right. Having played many sports I'm used to 'amateur' refs getting far far far more decisions wrong than you see in most televised football games.
