Instant replay

The video evidence is the use of a TV recording for factual decision of an arbitrator.

American Football

The comprehensive use of camera images as video proof is in the NFL, the American professional football league. There can be almost any decision of the arbitrator challenged by head coach one of the teams ( challenged ), but only twice in a game. The main referee ( referee ) then goes to a special video booth where he checked his decision within 60 seconds with the help of available television pictures. If the decision made ​​(the ruling on the field stands ), is the team that they had challenged deducted a time-out.

Basketball

Also in the American Basketball League NBA video proof is approved. At the beginning of video recordings were only used to decide whether the ball has left at the end of the 24-second clock or time the thrower's hand. It is now decided by video evidence and also Unsportsmanlike fouls. Likewise, the referee can determine whether the player was on a roll behind the 3-point line. When fouls the number of free throws can be decided with the help of a video proof. Furthermore, if the game clock is stopped not directly or a foul or the like, to decide how much playing time is left. The Basketball Federation FIBA announced on 6 April 2006 that in FIBA tournaments in the video evidence can be used to decide whether a buzzer beater is still performed within the season. For the first time the video evidence was used in the Basketball World Championship 2010.

Cricket

In high-class international matches in cricket, ie Test matches and One- Day Internationals, the video evidence is used both as part of the Decision Review System and the Third Umpire TV replay system. This more technical systems are used to make decisions out of the video image. These are record primarily Hawk - Eye and the so-called hot spot cameras which video images in the infrared range.

Hockey

In Hockey TV recordings are internationally certified by the Association as video evidence. An additional video referee with an independent monitor may upon request by the Chief Judge that support it .. This can be clarified whether the puck crossed the goal line, and this happened in compliance. In addition, it can be determined via the monitor of the video referee who actually played game time regardless of the official scoreboard and the clock in the timing. In addition to international events such as the ice hockey tournament at the Winter Olympics or the Ice Hockey A World Championship is also made in some leagues this rule use. There is also a special camera above the door.

In the North American Hockey League NHL video recordings are evaluated by a video judge who sits in the NHL office in Toronto. Is a video of proof required, the referee can call the video judge, who then must use all the available camera angles to make a decision, he must inform the referee by phone within minutes.

Football

In football, the video evidence by FIFA was not approved until July 2012. Then - shortly after Euro 2012 - they decided to introduce the goal-line, so the use of technical aids, to determine whether the ball has completely crossed the goal line. The permissible systems are the (already proven in tennis ) Hawk - Eye system to monitor the line ( goal camera ), the Goal Control System as a competitor with the same functionality as the Hawk - Eye system and the GoalRef system ( chip in the ball ).

Discussions about the benefits of video evidence come regularly after wrong decisions of the referee. Examples:

• The referee misjudges a foul in the penalty area and therefore not given a penalty
• The referee misinterpreted a swallow in the penalty area as foul and therefore given a penalty
• The ball has not completely crossed the goal line; the referee sees the ball in the goal and therefore decides to 'Goal '

• Germany in the second round against England the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, the ball was in the goal. Television footage showed clearly ( through slow motion, different camera angles, etc. ) that the ball for a split second was clearly behind the goal line before he jumped up on the crossbar and the New German goalkeeper Manuel was caught. The referee decided here, quite in accordance with the rules on " no goal " because the situation because of the natural limits of human Wahrnehmungssfähigkeit either for him or for his assistants out of the game (ie, without the help of technical aids ) was objectively unequivocally recognizable. ( Note here, for example, the official instructions of the DFB to football rules: If there is doubt whether the ball was completely in goal, is to continue to run the game the referee. )
• In Group D England - Ukraine at the European Championships 2012 Results by Marko Devic was not recognized.

• In a league game in October 2013 flew a geschossener by Stefan Kiessling ball laterally through a hole in the goal net into the goal; the referee wrongly recognized to ' gate'.

Supporters and opponents of the video evidence will not apply to interim solutions or compromises that both sides would meet, get involved. For example, a discussion is limited for both teams use, as it is practiced in tennis. The captain or coach of a team, the possibility of no more than 1-3 appeals are given throughout the season to prevent potential abuse and many game interruptions. The magazine 11 Friends has positioned itself against the video evidence.

Tennis

In tennis, procedures such as Maccam, Auto Ref or the Hawk-Eye can be used as video evidence.