Scottish FA to let match referee review video post-match for simulation

[bluedevils]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/08/01/ufnsfacheats101.xml

Heard about this on Sky Sports News today, and googled it and found several articles, including the above.

Post-match, the referee will be allowed to view the video of the match from the official broadcast. He will have an opportunity to re-examine any potential cases of simulation and cautions (and, presumably, sendoffs if 2 CT) CAN be issued based on his video review.

[campton]

I dont like it. I think getting away with things is part of the game.

[AspireNatlRef]

Opens the door to question other events after the match by video review. Where will the line be drawn. Not a good idea in my book...

ANR

[Tarheel Ref]

Opens the door to question other events after the match by video review. Where will the line be drawn. Not a good idea in my book...

ANR

The line between the goal posts and under the crossbar and only regarding whether the whole ball crossed over that whole line is the only place I can think of that would be appropriate for post-game review with an eye towards correcting mistakes. Otherwise ITOOTR.

[falcon.7]

From the article:
"Referees will watch recordings of the games they officiate and award yellow cards for incidents of 'simulation' they may have missed."

Well that right off the bat is a violation of the LOTG - you can't issue a caution ex post facto and play has restarted. I agree with ANR - first diving, then offsides (plural), then penalty kicks, then goals, then...

Video evidence would be a great help some ways - determining if a ball had crossed completely over the end line for a goal, for example. Letting referees change their minds after the game and violating the Laws while their at it is not one of those ways.

[GKbenji]

From the article:
"Referees will watch recordings of the games they officiate and award yellow cards for incidents of 'simulation' they may have missed."

Well that right off the bat is a violation of the LOTG - you can't issue a caution ex post facto and play has restarted.

I have a hunch the article writers got a bit confused between actual cautions and suspensions or "points" that leagues award towards suspensions, a la MLS. You can't give a post-facto card, but you certainly can discipline players later for violating league policies.

[AspireNatlRef]

I have a hunch the article writers got a bit confused between actual cautions and suspensions or "points" that leagues award towards suspensions, a la MLS. You can't give a post-facto card, but you certainly can discipline players later for violating league policies.

Now that I agree with, however that is not how I read the article. I thought this was already done in SFA?

ANR

[DonJuego]

I like this as long as nothing changes the results of games. It just post-game discipline. Ideally, I think the only thing the ref should evaluate is whether or not there is indisputable video evidence that a player intentionally tricked the referee. If so -- discipline is in order. Nothing changes the game result.

[Englishref]

I bet we see diving drastically reduced in the SPL this season... :cool:

[NHRef]

Diving is one of the really bad things about soccer today, in my opinion. Its something that must be dealt with and for reasons we all understand, its a very hard thing to do often times during the game. This gives the ref the chance to catch and punish it and hopefully it will diminish.

However this opens up a few more "protests" coming along. For example, the article says that if a YC is given for a tackle and post game review shows the attacker dove and there was no foul, the YC can be recinded (and given to the diving attacker), which is ok. However, what if the called foul that now was called back in effect, resulted in a PK which resulted in changing the result of the game? The article says results won't be changed, but sooner or later someone is going to protest that they lost 1-0 on an incorrect call.

[Gary V]

Diving is one of the really bad things about soccer today, in my opinion. Its something that must be dealt with and for reasons we all understand, its a very hard thing to do often times during the game. This gives the ref the chance to catch and punish it and hopefully it will diminish.

However this opens up a few more "protests" coming along. For example, the article says that if a YC is given for a tackle and post game review shows the attacker dove and there was no foul, the YC can be recinded (and given to the diving attacker), which is ok. However, what if the called foul that now was called back in effect, resulted in a PK which resulted in changing the result of the game? The article says results won't be changed, but sooner or later someone is going to protest that they lost 1-0 on an incorrect call.

"Incorrect calls" - judgements - are not protestable.

I agree with earlier posts that say the journalist probably simplified it too much. It will not be a caution given after the game, but rather points toward suspensions. That concept was noted later in the article by someone from SFA. Leagues can fine or suspend for a lot of things, not just things that the referee notices.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise on the issue of video. The only thing I'm not sure about is that cards that were given in the match might be taken away. That gets on the slippery slope of overturning referee judgement. But reading between the lines it looks like SFA already does that by entertaining protests on cards now.

[Jasonma]

I am not a ref, but this parallels a concern I've had about MLS's decision to review incidents that were seen by the on-field crew this season, so I want to ask a question.

If the CR is reviewing the game and (possibly) adding points for simulation, wouldn't it be fair for him to deduct points if he found that on review a card he gave for simulation during the match was incorrect?

It seems to be a bit of a double standard to say he can only review the game to catch things he didn't catch, but not to correct things he saw wrong.

[NHRef]

"Incorrect calls" - judgements - are not protestable.
.

Agreed, but we are walking on thin ice here, he is already given the power by change a "judgement" by giving cards or removing them, thereby allowing the ref to change his mind after the subsequent restart.

I will bet ANYTHING that as soon as an after the game review decision changes the outcome of a meaningfull game, be it WC advance/eliminate, relegation/delegation etc. There WILL be a protest and it will have to be seriously considered given that they are already stretching the limits of what can be done.

[jclepp]

EDINBURGH, Scotland: The Scottish Football Association wants to issue retrospective bookings for diving this season — a move FIFA has warned is against the rules of the game.

New SFA chief executive Gordon Smith said Wednesday that referees will watch recordings of matches they officiate and give yellow cards for incidents of "simulation" they missed.

But a FIFA statement on Thursday said that would violate international soccer rules.

"The disciplinary decisions taken by the referee on the field of play during a match are final," the statement said. "If a referee has seen an incident during a match but determined that it was not a case of simulation, this decision taken by the referee should be considered final."

The SFA had yet to respond to the FIFA statement. The association had planned to start the measure on trial basis before introducing it fully on Jan 1. However, it will now have to propose a rule change to the International Football Association Board, which does not meet until March.

[Shackleton]

How is post-match video review for simulation and appropriate sanctions any different than post-match video review for violent conduct and appropriate sanctions?

If the latter can be done by league and is still within the LOTG, why can't the former? I don't see any rule-based distinction between the two.

From a fan's perspective, I absolutely and wholeheartedly support this initiative. I hate diving and believe this could be somewhat effective in eliminating the worst cases of it. I don't buy the "it's part of the game" argument. Yes, it is part of the game, but a crappy and dishonorable part that should be eliminated if practical. I also don't buy the slippery slope argument. It's simple to draw a line at allowing disciplinary action, but not changing results.

[ref2coach]

It amazes me. So many here are upset. "Slippery Slope", "Thin Ice" "Post game review is against the Laws." This will lead to questioning the referees decisions, etc. etc. I thought the consensus was that calling Sim/Emb during the game was "to hard". We need "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" to punish Sim/Emb. You are getting what you advocated for. :confused:

Here we have the Scottish FA who is, by the way, one of the 8 permanent members of the IFAB saying Sim/Emb is not being properly being dealt with by referees in the Game today. :eek:

Was I not the one who predicted that if referees continued with the "mind set" that a USB caution for Sim/Emb was in some way a different "type" of caution requiring "extraordinary" proof to sanction, it would eventually result in "directives" or "something" that would diminish our "in the game, on the field authority?

Just let it go during the game we can review it after the game to get our "proof beyond all reasonable doubt". OH WAIT most of us don't do games with 8 to 12 camera angles and a post game video review booth. So I guess the consensus is to just continue to allow Sim/Emb to deteriorate the sporting behavior in our games unpunished.

Sim/Emb it is "just a caution" when the majority of referees "decide" to treat it that way there will be no need for 'post game review". :)

[Alberto]

It amazes me. So many here are upset. "Slippery Slope", "Thin Ice" "Post game review is against the Laws." This will lead to questioning the referees decisions, etc. etc. I thought the consensus was that calling Sim/Emb during the game was "to hard". We need "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" to punish Sim/Emb. You are getting what you advocated for. :confused:

Here we have the Scottish FA who is, by the way, one of the 8 permanent members of the IFAB saying Sim/Emb is not being properly being dealt with by referees in the Game today. :eek:

Was I not the one who predicted that if referees continued with the "mind set" that a USB caution for Sim/Emb was in some way a different "type" of caution requiring "extraordinary" proof to sanction, it would eventually result in "directives" or "something" that would diminish our "in the game, on the field authority?

Just let it go during the game we can review it after the game to get our "proof beyond all reasonable doubt". OH WAIT most of us don't do games with 8 to 12 camera angles and a post game video review booth. So I guess the consensus is to just continue to allow Sim/Emb to deteriorate the sporting behavior in our games unpunished.

Sim/Emb it is "just a caution" when the majority of referees "decide" to treat it that way there will be no need for 'post game review". :)

Hear! Hear! This is exactly what needs to happen given the sophistication and the degree to which players cheat in today's professional game. I see nothing wrong with this approach. I want justice. Just because a player got away with it in the match does not mean he is given a free pass to the next match. These are not extraordinary steps. They are what is clearly required. As to the arguments about a slippery slope. Ha! You must be joking. When I see a player feign injury when he wasn't even touched and it leads to a send off, why should we protect him if the evidence post match shows he simulated. Does that remind you of any recent matches? Just look at the ridiculous antics witnessed in the U-20 world cup. There was much needed disciplinary action that was not enforced and that clearly should have been.

[DonJuego]

Diving is one of the really bad things about soccer today, in my opinion. Its something that must be dealt with and for reasons we all understand, its a very hard thing to do often times during the game. This gives the ref the chance to catch and punish it and hopefully it will diminish.

However this opens up a few more "protests" coming along. For example, the article says that if a YC is given for a tackle and post game review shows the attacker dove and there was no foul, the YC can be recinded (and given to the diving attacker), which is ok. However, what if the called foul that now was called back in effect, resulted in a PK which resulted in changing the result of the game? The article says results won't be changed, but sooner or later someone is going to protest that they lost 1-0 on an incorrect call.

I would never rescind a card post-game. What I would do is increase the penalty on the diver because it resulted in the card on the other team.

[Englishref]

Hear! Hear! This is exactly what needs to happen given the sophistication and the degree to which players cheat in today's professional game. I see nothing wrong with this approach. I want justice. Just because a player got away with it in the match does not mean he is given a free pass to the next match. These are not extraordinary steps. They are what is clearly required. As to the arguments about a slippery slope. Ha! You must be joking. When I see a player feign injury when he wasn't even touched and it leads to a send off, why should we protect him if the evidence post match shows he simulated. Does that remind you of any recent matches? Just look at the ridiculous antics witnessed in the U-20 world cup. There was much needed disciplinary action that was not enforced and that clearly should have been.

Totally agree. The sooner FIFA and the IFAB realise their softly softly approach to diving hasn't worked, and more importantly, that referees do actually make mistakes, and there's no problem in correcting a mistake post-match, the better for the game of football. It's all well and good FIFA saying they're going to stamp down on diving by instructing referees to issue cautions, but it's a completely different thing those referees actually doing it. When you caution a player for simulation, you are calling them a cheat, and therefore you must be 110% sure of your decision. Therefore, the vast majority of cases of simulation go unpunished as the referee gives the diver the benefit of the doubt. As for their brainwave of red carding divers, that's just laughable. The only near foolproof way of dealing with it, is for referees and/or FAs to retrospectively use video footage to catch the diving cheats. Unfortunately, I can't see FIFA changing their "referee's decision is final" stance, or "we don't want to undermine the authority of the referee" ethos anytime soon, no matter how much of a detriment diving has on the image of football. :rolleyes:

[ref2coach]

It's all well and good FIFA saying they're going to stamp down on diving by instructing referees to issue cautions, but it's a completely different thing those referees actually doing it. When you caution a player for simulation, you are calling them a cheat, and therefore you must be 110% sure of your decision. Horse Feathers!!!

Therefore, the vast majority of cases of simulation go unpunished as the referee gives the diver the benefit of the doubt. So true it is painful.

When an offensive player breaks past his defender on the wing, the defender knows he is beaten, there may or may not be other defenders who might be able to get there in time or maybe not. The defender blatantly fouls the attacker to prevent him from progressing toward the goal. The referee has to look at the situation and make a judgment. If his judgment is that the defender knew that he was being beaten and none of his teammates would be able to prevent the continuation of the attack, what judgment does the referee make? One of two, Caution, for "tactical" foul or Send Off for DOGSO. Why is the referee making one of those two decisions? ITOOTR the player has "cheated". The player cheated by fouling the opponent who ITOOTR had an opportunity taken from him in an manner that exceeded just a foul.

Tactical fouls are cheating, Simulation/Embellishment is cheating they are no different from each other. Neither one requires more judgment than the other. The only difference is that in one professional league, the referees in their league have done such a poor job punishing sim/emb that they are adding video review to get it correctly punished.

What measure will it take to get the rest of us to quit "giving the benefit of the doubt" to the simulators in our games.