Diagonal system of control

[whitehound]

Honestly folks, can anyone truly say that the officiating in this world cup has been worthy of the players, the fans and the game?
-Isnt it time to admit that three referees just arent enough to cover a 110 yard pitch in the increasingly fast paced action in todays game?
-We are trying the headset thing and it is still resulting in some rediculously blown calls
-people are willing to discuss instant replay
-we are back to talking about dealing with diving WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADDRESSED IN OTHER WCs.

-are you willing to try more referees or maybe a oujii board is a better option?

How about:
- center referees that work overlapping diagonals on opposite sides of the pitch to get rid of the dead spots
-dont talk to me about consistancy as I think we can all agree that there is none in this WC except to say that it is all consistantly bad.
-regarless how you personally feel deliberate handling should be called, you have to admit that there is ZERO consistancy with this call in this WC with some referees calling every contact with the hand and some seeeming to look for intent.
-dont talk to me about the flow of the game, the italian referee in the spain/france game made darn sure that there was ZERO flow of the game.

- 2 assistant referees with the same responsibilities that they currently have
- 2 goal judges to assist with goalline decisions

...............if you arent ready to try something different and you think that the officiating hasnt changed results, ruined games and made a joke of the opening round of the world cup then I guess we are going to have to dissagree.

[NHRef]

What do you mean by overlapping diagonals for CR? Local high school uses two man system on the field and it has HUGE dead spots on the field where with both refs properly positioned, no ref is within 50-70 yards of the play. Basically the positioning here is draw a line corner to corner diagonally and that is what each covers, however they don't go down into their "pointy" end of the field they stay more along mid-field basically with the offside line. Results in LOTS of things happening nobody sees and gets more inconsistent that what folks here are complaining about.

I am all for improvements, but some suggestions just don't make sense and some would cause downsides that are worse than what they are fixing (video replay like the NFL). No I don't have the answer, but tossing in things just to try isn't the answer either.

My personal view on the level of consistency at this WC is that it was caused primarily by FIFA and players not just the refs. FIFA gave the refs instructions which were not what the refs where accustomed to, so the refs are doing what is not "natural" to them. the players were having things called they weren't use to. Refs feared FIFA repurcutions is they didn't do what they were told, players didn't adjust.

I also think you will see a mellowing of the "pull cards first, talk later" attitude going forward from here on in. Especially since Ivanov was sent home after pulling tons of cards in a VERY dirty game.

[lotharis1]

i agree in principal that;

- a high amount of calls have blown games at this (and other) tournament
- there is a definite need for a change in the way a match is officiated
- 1 official can clearly not see everything on the field
- there are inconsistencies between how fouls are called
- diving is something which needs to be removed from the game

however... there have been tests with 2 center referees each covering a different part of the field... and I think it has been dissasterous because the fact that two different refs, who come in with two different ways to call the game confuse players who cover the entire field, and get one thing one way and another the next....


what I suggested prior to the 2002 World Cup (knowing what had gone on in 98)... and thus subesquently after it because of its bad officiating, and horribly missed calls...

was that you leave the 1 center referee in charge of calling the game...
you leave the two linesmen on the sideline, and 4th official in their current roles...

in addition to that... I am suggesting

- 2 on field officials (each covering 1 half of the field, and near the opposite side of the field as the linesmen who covers that half) who look for offenses which the ref might not be seeing... and if spotting one raise a flag the same way the linesmen would... and then discuss it via headset and the center official determines whether to call the foul, or issue the card... based on what the other official has pointed out...(much in the same way he already does with the linesmen... whose vantage point limits them to what the can/can't see)


i am also now suggesting in addition to that...

- a FIFA Match Review Board... which is situated in a media room, equiped with multiple angles of video cameras and replays with which to quickly and accurately assess what happened on the field... and a head Match Review official to make the call... and radio down to the head referee to adjust a call within the appropriate amount of time required (similar to the racecontrol in a F1 or Indy Car race)

for instance if a goal is scored and came from an offisides play... they could radio down before the ball is kicked off... and the goal should be waved off... the foul called... and the kick positoned right where the offsides occured, thus no play on the field would be negated, that did not occure in err...

or in the event that a handball is spotted they could radio down before 10-15 seconds has passed... or in as much time as no team would generate an entirely different goal scoring opportunity which would be negated... by a handball call which would go their favor... but give them less advantageous positoning on the field... as in to say... yes there was a handball but advantage was played by not calling it.. so let it go... OR... there was a handball... and this has put one team at a disadvantage so call must be made...


now these changes might be too expensive for youth and lower level games... but at the World Cup (or Champions League matches, or within a highly equiped domestic associations league matches), where they more than have the money to make up for it... and the stakes of getting the calls right is so high... they ought to be spending the money and making the changes necessary to get the calls right...

WE SHOULD ASLO HAVE IT TESTED BEFORE THE WORLD CUP STARTS!!! as the World Cup is the games greatest stage, and should not be used as a test lab for unproven or untested officiating techniques....

[MidwestRef]

I’m not writing this as someone who favors changing the officiating system, but merely as someone with some questions about soccer officiating compared to other sports’ officiating methods. I’ve also umpired baseball and officiated a little basketball and football during the years, so that may positively or negatively cloud my opinions.

1) The primary reason I’ve heard for not increasing the number of “whistles” on the field is because different referees see and call things slightly differently. However, doesn’t the same problem exist in basketball and ice hockey? College basketball never uses set 3-man teams, so you will mix and match different personalities and styles. As a huge Big Ten basketball fan, I can tell you who calls a tighter game vs. allowing more contact, yet there seems to be some teamwork on the court. One could also say the same thing about baseball with each umpire having a slightly different strike zone interpretation. Even futsal has two referees with whistles, albeit on a smaller field.
2) Until all international soccer officials are professional referees, the never-ending issue of duty to primary job vs. duty to refereeing will exist. No offense at all to Kevin Stott (he’s just the example in this case), but he is teaching school all day and then has to devote time to film study, fitness, and other refereeing aspects after his primary job is complete. There are other officials who have more rigid job schedules than Stott to be sure. It’s difficult for these officials (or really any non-professional referee for that matter) to equal the professional players who live and breathe their sport 24/7.
3) The ratio of officials to players on the field is lower than any other sport. In football, it’s 7/22 (basically 1/3). Hockey has 4/12 (and the linesmen now appear to be able to advise the referees on items they might have seen), baseball has 4 or 6/13 (assuming you have the based loaded), and basketball has 3/10. Given that soccer has the largest playing area of these sports, is it fair to the referees to have a ratio of 3/22 (for these purposes, I’m excluding the fourth official since 95% of games throughout the world don’t have a fourth)?
4) If there were 2 officials with whistles on the field, would the flow of the game really be disrupted that much? Would we see more fouls called to choke the flow of the game? I don’t know the answer to this question – it’s just a matter to consider.

I can definitely see the pros and cons of the current system. I’m also someone who enjoys seeing how things can be improved. I’m not sure what kind of experimentation or research could be done to determine if there really is a better way to improve how a game is officiated, but it cannot hurt to try some new things and see what does and doesn’t work.

[billf]

I would like to comment on hockey because I see that sport as most similar in terms of the role of the referee. I don't like the two referee system in the NHL. You see too much inconsistancy between the two partners and there are times when the back guy is calling something that's right infront of his partner who has a clear look and doesn't put up the arm. It makes things worse, not better IMO.

[MidwestRef]

As a rebuttal on hockey, has the amount of "cheap stuff" not called decreased? I don't know the mechanics of hockey officiating, but perhaps the officials are trained to focus on specific areas of the ice surface? I know that it's sometimes easier to see something across the field or court than having it occur 3 feet in front of you. Not sure if there is a right answer, just a possible item to consider as a rebuttal.

[billf]

As a rebuttal on hockey, has the amount of "cheap stuff" not called decreased? I don't know the mechanics of hockey officiating, but perhaps the officials are trained to focus on specific areas of the ice surface? I know that it's sometimes easier to see something across the field or court than having it occur 3 feet in front of you. Not sure if there is a right answer, just a possible item to consider as a rebuttal.

IMO, no the amount of cheap stuff has not decreased. My understanding is that they are not trained to focus on different areas. Many of the things I see called by a back official in front of the other guy are things like hooks, holds, and trips that would be more obvious to the guy right there. I notice quite a bit of players trying to play one ref against the other and I think that would happen in soccer too.

[whitehound]

What do you mean by overlapping diagonals for CR? Local high school uses two man system on the field and it has HUGE dead spots on the field where with both refs properly positioned, no ref is within 50-70 yards of the play. Basically the positioning here is draw a line corner to corner diagonally and that is what each covers, however they don't go down into their "pointy" end of the field they stay more along mid-field basically with the offside line. Results in LOTS of things happening nobody sees and gets more inconsistent that what folks here are complaining about.

I am all for improvements, but some suggestions just don't make sense and some would cause downsides that are worse than what they are fixing (video replay like the NFL). No I don't have the answer, but tossing in things just to try isn't the answer either.

My personal view on the level of consistency at this WC is that it was caused primarily by FIFA and players not just the refs. FIFA gave the refs instructions which were not what the refs where accustomed to, so the refs are doing what is not "natural" to them. the players were having things called they weren't use to. Refs feared FIFA repurcutions is they didn't do what they were told, players didn't adjust.

I also think you will see a mellowing of the "pull cards first, talk later" attitude going forward from here on in. Especially since Ivanov was sent home after pulling tons of cards in a VERY dirty game.They sacrifice the middle of the field because they must ALSO cover offside which THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO WITH TWO AR's.......It is too easy to blame FIFA. I am sure FIFA didnt tell people to change to the three caution system or to forget who got the first caution before issueing a second or to award phanton PKS

[usatowin]

Rather than just saying more eyes, what specific errors would have been prevented?

PK against the US? AR could (should) have helped.
PK knocking out Australia? Ref right there.
Offsides (plural, not error)? It's physically impossible to do better.
Crouch hair pull?
Handling in crowd in box?

OK, those last two we're on to something. It's stuff in a triangle from the top of the D, to the goal, to the ref's corner flag that's where the system fails. Everything else, the refs are in position, but blow it for another reason.

So... If you remember before, I said instead of having 5ths, make the 4th's ARs goal judges. Stick them on the goal line. They move from the corner flag to the six yard box, with flags and same powers as ARs. Kills the one dead zone on the field without changing the game or the system of control used at all levels.

[NHRef]

They sacrifice the middle of the field because they must ALSO cover offside which THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO WITH TWO AR's.......It is too easy to blame FIFA. I am sure FIFA didnt tell people to change to the three caution system or to forget who got the first caution before issueing a second or to award phanton PKS

I am trying to understand your positioning thing, not cut it down. My only experience with two refs is high school, and true, there are no ARs. However watching it, even last night in a summer "High School league" there were many handlings, pulls, holds that were unseen in the dead zones, basically from the end line about 1/2 out to mid field and from touch line in about 1/2 way. Both refs are blocked out and the "smart" players know these zones and start grabbing.

No matter how many refs, the phantom PK wouuld happen cause one would see it as a pk. the 3rd cuation probably not, but shouldn't have happened as it now, so who knows.

Can you explain your "overlapping diagonal" I still can't picture it.

[billf]

I am trying to understand your positioning thing, not cut it down. My only experience with two refs is high school, and true, there are no ARs. However watching it, even last night in a summer "High School league" there were many handlings, pulls, holds that were unseen in the dead zones, basically from the end line about 1/2 out to mid field and from touch line in about 1/2 way. Both refs are blocked out and the "smart" players know these zones and start grabbing.

No matter how many refs, the phantom PK wouuld happen cause one would see it as a pk. the 3rd cuation probably not, but shouldn't have happened as it now, so who knows.

Can you explain your "overlapping diagonal" I still can't picture it.

It seems rather simple to me with ARs. You basically go corner to corner but in half the field.

[Zaius]

I would like to comment on hockey because I see that sport as most similar in terms of the role of the referee. I don't like the two referee system in the NHL. You see too much inconsistancy between the two partners and there are times when the back guy is calling something that's right infront of his partner who has a clear look and doesn't put up the arm. It makes things worse, not better IMO.

I have watched a lot of NHL games and I have to tell you that the system in place is about as perfect as it can be. The times when a farther away ref calls something a closeby ref doesn't call is rare and when it does happen I've found that the rate of accurate calls is greater than 75%, and can be judged as being a call that could go either way for the other 25%.

The reason two referees isn't as confusing for hockey as it would be for football is that hockey's laws are extremely well defined and room for judgment is minimal. So I have to admit that such a system in football woul introduce some confusion among the players. A remedy for that would be for the laws of football to have additional grey areas removed. The purists (who are in the majority when it comes to changing laws) would of course be opposed to lessening the power of the referee in making subjective decisions.

Another thing I'd like to add is that the replay system in the NHL is very succesful. Replays are only used for close calls at the goal line and are initiated by the referees themselves. What's wrong with a referee saying "this was too close to call for my eyes, let's let the replay decide this" We all know that referees can't see everything and sometimes force themselves to make decisions when they wish they had more information. Though you might say this kills the flow of the game in football, we could put a system in place where a decision is returned on goal/no goal within 30 seconds if not less, if a refereeing team has full access to all angles of the play and is well trained in drawing maximum information from the various camera feeds.

[USSF REF]

2 referees: It appears that the players didn't like it in any of the leagues it was tested in. The tried it for a little over a year, and eventually the players got so frustrated (at least in the USA) that they asked for the experiment to stop.

In that system a referee was running from the halfway line to the corner that was opposite the AR, and the same with the other ref but on the other half.

Referee's complained about the system too.

All you people saying it worked in hockey, of course it will work in soccer, please explain why the PLAYERS reaction to more refs was negative if the system is so great. Before they did this experiment I would have thought adding another referee would help too, but now that they actually tested the system and it failed, I can't support it.

[Zaius]

All you people saying it worked in hockey, of course it will work in soccer, please explain why the PLAYERS reaction to more refs was negative if the system is so great. Before they did this experiment I would have thought adding another referee would help too, but now that they actually tested the system and it failed, I can't support it.

It would not work in soccer the way soccer rules are now. The rules are all tailored for a one referee system.

[billf]

I have watched a lot of NHL games and I have to tell you that the system in place is about as perfect as it can be. The times when a farther away ref calls something a closeby ref doesn't call is rare and when it does happen I've found that the rate of accurate calls is greater than 75%, and can be judged as being a call that could go either way for the other 25%.

The reason two referees isn't as confusing for hockey as it would be for football is that hockey's laws are extremely well defined and room for judgment is minimal. So I have to admit that such a system in football woul introduce some confusion among the players. A remedy for that would be for the laws of football to have additional grey areas removed. The purists (who are in the majority when it comes to changing laws) would of course be opposed to lessening the power of the referee in making subjective decisions.

Another thing I'd like to add is that the replay system in the NHL is very succesful. Replays are only used for close calls at the goal line and are initiated by the referees themselves. What's wrong with a referee saying "this was too close to call for my eyes, let's let the replay decide this" We all know that referees can't see everything and sometimes force themselves to make decisions when they wish they had more information. Though you might say this kills the flow of the game in football, we could put a system in place where a decision is returned on goal/no goal within 30 seconds if not less, if a refereeing team has full access to all angles of the play and is well trained in drawing maximum information from the various camera feeds.

I don't think you watch enough of the NHL because at least two times a game there are calls that baffle me and hockey fans complain more about referees than soccer fans if you can believe it. Even the replay system has flaws. The 2004 SCF should have been won by Calgary but the video replay official either missed it or never reviewed the play. That led to every goal being reviewed from Toronto this year.

[billf]

...I can't support it.

You'd support it if it were your ticket to MLS...

[USSF REF]

You'd support it if it were your ticket to MLS...

I don't know what you're implying.

BUT if you think that I would be in support of changing Law 5 to a less effective system for my personal gain, I would say that you are wrong. Why should we do something that has been given negative reviews by the players. They would know better than anyone if we should keep the system or not.

The most important thing here is improving the game and making it more marketable in the USA. Doing something that the players find ineffective could damage soccer's marketability more than leaving it alone.

However, I fully believe a video review system could be used effectively, if you find a proper way to utilize it that won't change the basic principle of continuous movement within the sport.

The growth of the sport is more important than personal gain, absolutely.

Besides... no one besides Mark is getting in to MLS from NJ as long as the adult assignor who is around now is the man in charge.

[billf]

Don't get your panties in a bunch. My point was that the experiments were embraced by those who tried it out because they had a vested interest in makine them successful, i.e. more chances to get top level games so it isn't like these guys did it half assed.

I knew it wouldn't take long for NJ to break you. :D

On a serious note, you can try the other side of the river.

[Craig P]

1) The primary reason I’ve heard for not increasing the number of “whistles” on the field is because different referees see and call things slightly differently. However, doesn’t the same problem exist in basketball and ice hockey?
Yes, and because of it, college hockey has stuck with a one-referee system despite dalliances with two (early 90's in Hockey East, late 90's/early 00's in the CCHA, IIRC). Technically, the assistants are empowered to call penalties, but they are strongly discouraged from doing so unless it's clear that something flagrant occurred that the referee did not see.

[USSF REF]

Don't get your panties in a bunch. My point was that the experiments were embraced by those who tried it out because they had a vested interest in makine them successful, i.e. more chances to get top level games so it isn't like these guys did it half assed.

I knew it wouldn't take long for NJ to break you. :D

On a serious note, you can try the other side of the river.

Which river ;) haha. I was thinking Delaware, those guys like me over there in EPA. Yeah, NJ has definately broken my spirit.

On a serious note, I don't wear panties.:p