Instant Replay , We have the Technology so why not ?

Discussion in 'World Cup 2014: Refereeing' started by puyol, Jun 24, 2014.

?

Should Instant replay using a fifth referee be used ?

  1. Yes

    30.0%
  2. No ( please explain your reasons of why not )

    70.0%
  1. puyol

    puyol Member+

    FC Barcelona
    Dec 24, 2009
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    i don't understand , the actual play time in each half is between 20-25 minutes , that means almost half the full 90 minutes is wasted with ( goal kick , free kick , corner , fouls , injuries , throw ins , subs , etc etc etc )

    so they can't waste 5 seconds to review a crucial call that can effect the outcome of the result ? if every single person on the planet watches the instant replay and immediately knows that it is a wrong decision then why can't they let a fifth referee in front of the monitor to inform the main referee instantly by talking to him through the ear piece that this or that happened ?

    they wasted MILLIONS for the goal line technology although it could have done through replay ( there was an option for the referee to choose in the confederation cup )

    but until now they are wasting those poor teams efforts who worked hard all these years along with their fans because " they don't want to waste time " by allowing ridiculous mistakes over and over again with the golden excuse " i couldn't see it because it was too fast for my eyes or my vision was blocked "

    well .. almost half the 90 minutes are wasted and there are 30 cameras with most that have super slow motion all over the freaking pitch ... USE THEM !!!!

    heck give that fifth referee ( experienced , age doesn't matter since he isn't required to run ) a 100" Ultra HD TV ( FIFA are rich aren't they ? ) and let him see all those incidents with Super slow mo and immediately inform the main ref what happened , will there be any more complaining going on afterwards ?

    this is a solution to everything and should've been implemented ages ago , yet they still don't want to use it for strange reasons ...

    and for some who are saying " well you can't use it everywhere " well actually you can , almost every single game has video coverage in all countries and heck even if you say " well we need good cameras with slow motion and high quality , well when Tennis first used hawk eye did they use it on every single court ? nop only 1 or two and even till now they only have a couple of courts with that technology because if they can at least use it in some games where it makes a difference then why can't they ?

    we are talking about football , the riches sport in the world , surly they can afford 1 extra referee ( not those two useless ones on the side on the goal that don't have any jobs what soever and just stand there doing nothing the entire time even if incidents are directly in front of them ) , all you need is to give him a tv and that's that , instant report of what happened seconds afterwards to the main referee and no more mistakes.

    PS : my main language isn't English so i apologize in advanced if my grammar is bad .
     
  2. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    Why not just remove the referees from the field and replace them with a camera on following every player and a room filled with guys watching the corresponding monitors. They could make all the decisions from there.

    Seriously, the logical conclusion of video review/replay is to eliminate the human officials from sporting contests and just have robots/cameras/lasers, etc. monitor the game and make the decisions. Perhaps that is what you want.
     
  3. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    Hopefully we will get to that stage eventually as in many cases it is physically impossible for an official to make the correct call. In the interim giving the fourth official access to the media broadcast to enable him to quickly check replays of any contentious decision is the simple, cheap and quick solution.
     
    puyol repped this.
  4. lemma

    lemma Member

    Jul 19, 2011
    Millions of people knew that Esse Baharmast was the worst referee in the world, and why are Americans refereeing at the world cup finals they don't know anything about soccer.

    Millions of people around the world knew that the penalty given to Greece today was one of the most disgraceful calls in the history of the game. How many people had to be told what contact to even look for before they saw it was a clear penalty?

    Your post is long on tears and very, very short on specifics. You acknowledge no possible shortcomings of video review. Are you perhaps living in a dream world where the video referee will so often be able to restore justice to the universe in the cases that upset you?

    Which decisions will be subject to review? How? Who controls the camera angles? Should the video referee be allowed to overrule the referee's view of intent? Can slow motion be used, yes or no? Slow motion has a big impact on how some judgement calls look. Does the decision on the field take priority and only clear evidence to the contrary be allowed to overrule, as is the case in other sports as far as I know? Or is some other standard to be used.

    I don't see how video review would have been used for any of the penalty decisions in these finals, except perhaps the one in the Mexico/Croatia handling miss. I cannot see how video review could be used for yellow/red card decisions that the referee saw. It would be hard to see how it could be used effectively in cases of supposed "diving".

    The main possible use could be for some offside position determinations. Certainly false negatives that lead to goals could be reviewed during a celebration. But false positives raise important questions. If the whistle has gone, you can't just give a goal that might have occurred. So does the referee now refrain from blowing the whistle just in case? Great, now the AR is standing there out of position. So does the AR not give a signal and just keeps on going and they just leave it to the video review? Or do the officials only delay the whistle when it is "close"? How are they supposed to know if it is "close".

    I am not opposed to video review in games, but there are many details to consider, and they will not really eliminate many of the controversies that take place.
     
    guignol, Scrabbleship and unclesox repped this.
  5. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    #5 unclesox, Jun 24, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2014
    Voted no.
    I'll use the same scenario as I've done the last 10+ years.
    Blue team is attacking and Blue player with the ball goes down in the area on a challenge from Red defender.
    Ref waves play on, and Red team counters quickly. Red player finds himself going through 1v1 against Blue goalkeeper.
    Blue defender races from behind and commits professional foul inside the area which injures Red player who cannot continue.
    Meanwhile, video replay shows that Blue player had been fouled and should have gained a penalty before the Red counter had begun.
    You're the ref. Sort it out for me.
     
    That Cherokee and Tuco repped this.
  6. Emile

    Emile Member

    Oct 24, 2001
    dead in a ditch
    Whether it's a good idea or bad, people who like replay always undersell both the time needed and the potential complications that arise from video replay. Sometimes you have calls like the Tevez non-offside last time where it is completely evident after a single viewing was wrong. But for each call like that, you have scores of close calls, scores of judgement calls, cases where review would be difficult to ascertain certainty. These are not 5-second reviews. I've read some people say that if you can't decide in x amount of time, then move on - but that will never fly with the perpetually outraged and conspiracy seeking fanbase, it will simply be another point of conflict. It would be ideal if you could have someone quickly alert the ref when a clear mistake has been made, but defining a 'clear mistake' to satisfaction is impossible.

    This quick and easy was promised in American sports. American football has had to define and re-define what a 'catch' is and what a 'throw' is because looking at things in super slow-motion creates a heightened need for consistency. Basketball games now have review after review in the final minute to adjust the clock, while on the next play a 50/50 foul call ends up having far more import. Even baseball, which is almost entirely non-judgement calls, has run into significant issues in the first year of replay deciding what is a catch, plate-blocking rules, and so forth.

    If you are prepared to have every close offside call looked at multiple times, every close non-offside call, every off the ball incident, whatever else you want, then support it. If you are prepared for minutes-long inspections of close plays and if you are prepared for the outrage after a close call is changed or not-changed, then support it. But don't tell me it's easy. I'm not ready for it, but I get that others are. It is a philosophical debate not a moral one.

    I do think offsides will be the next to be (nearly) automated, as with the very successful GLT. I don't see why there can't be player tracking cameras by the next World Cup, similar to those the NBA uses in all games, which can provide a definitive 3D model. There is still that little bit of judgement needed for involvement in play and noting who touched the ball last (although the cameras could perhaps note that as well), but I can definitely see that working.
     
    guignol and colman1860 repped this.
  7. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    An unfortunate scenario, but you would sort it out the same way you would if the same thing happened and when you turn around you have an AR standing 90 yards behind you with a flag up (who then tells you about x, y, or z bad thing in the area by the red defender that you didn't see when you waved play on). Likewise, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that this might only be implemented at certain levels and not used at others. I find the issue of time for a review and whether the game may need to be held up and what plays may be reviewed to be much more complicated, but this example of a delayed call is a risk that we already live with. That said, I'm shocked as it is that we finally got to goal line technology and I don't expect to see any replay review during my lifetime....
     
  8. chaoslord08

    chaoslord08 Member

    Dec 24, 2006
    Fayetteville AR
    Club:
    West Bromwich Albion FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The thing is, the majority of "contentious" decisions are In The Opinion Of The Referee. There are relatively few contentious decisions that are flat out, black-and-white wrong. How many times have you heard "I think that's soft, but I've seen it given"?

    So now with replay you are taking something that most of the time is one person's opinion and giving it to another person. What if those two don't see eye to eye on the situation? You are now 100% undermining the authority of the referee. Go look at the referee board and if it's ACTUALLY a contentious decision (as opposed to unjustified fan/commentator outrage), you'll usually see a pretty good, fairly even split among the referees. So what is the point of undermining the referees authority and changing a correct decision to a different but also correct decision? It doesn't serve the game.

    That means if you aren't willing to change things that could be right, then you are saying "If it's defensible in the laws, then you don't change it", which means that 90+% of any situations brought into replay will come out "stick with the original call", which, as it turns out, won't take any of the criticism away. "Oh they are just trying to protect each other", etc. It seems that most fans don't know what they are talking about with respect to "controversial" decisions and will be baffled and probably more outraged when replay doesn't work the way they want it and give them a penalty on a challenge that half of referees say they wouldn't give.

    All that is assuming they can have a correct replay instantaneously. I mean, heck, with offside we don't even always have a perfect camera angle and are left saying "Well it appears..." or drawing lines with MS Paint or something. And the line on the television is not always in the right place (See Brazil x Cameroon). Maybe technology will be there one day, but today, in 2014, it's not.
     
    Scrabbleship and socal lurker repped this.
  9. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    Replace contentious with missed.
     
  10. jarbitro

    jarbitro Member

    Mar 13, 2003
    NOVA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  11. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Tough scenarios are not a reason to avoid being progressive with technology, they're a reason to be dilligent about it.

    As far as I'm concerned the more things we can make like GLT - buzz the ref, ref makes call -the better.

    I think offside should be next and the fact they didn't use that technology is a good sign - that they are evaluating such options.

    I for one would be absolutely in favor of assistant refs off the field making the calls with various angles at their disposal and no game interruption. This would be a huge change and require proper training and testing, but I can't see any way it would make the actual calls worse.
     
    puyol repped this.
  12. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    I'll agree with this. Split second decisions that do not disrupt the flow of the game.
    What I do not want to see is a game held up while someone is spending time looking at video replay(s) trying to determine if something did or did not happen.
     
    JasonMa and Battler repped this.
  13. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Yep, that's exactly what I would want to avoid too.

    And as one baseball incident pointed out today, calls can still be wrong after a review. It's not a guarantee. I think the right way for soccer to approach it is to recognize that refs on the field were a necessity, but to consider starting from scratch with ideas on how to use technology, not simply add technology to the current setup. Instead of giving a ref on the field an additional tool they have to stop play to use, use the tool more effectively and use the ref on the field for the things they are needed for - managing the game. Reduce their stress by letting refs off the field with better angles make calls.
     
  14. puyol

    puyol Member+

    FC Barcelona
    Dec 24, 2009
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    the fifth referee will be viewing the game live , there will be no pausing since :

    1- his view will be from the main vertical camera and he can get better views from it and give live instant calls to the on field referee if he and his assistants gets it wrong ( the vertical camera view is way better than being flat on the field ) and he shouldn't even need replays for that.

    2- "flow of the game" is something people keep on saying although as i mentioned off 45 minutes you only see half of that as actual play time , you are alright with wasting and disrupting the " flow of the game " with fouls/injuries/throw ins ( which by the way the most wasteful thing in a match ) along with other corner/goal kicks that waste 10-30 seconds each but you have an issue with waiting 5-10 seconds for a major call that could destroy a match ?

    3- as i mentioned i don't want the ref to pause the game at all , i just want the off field ref to inform him with any wrong calls that he and his assistants make on the field , the pausing for a couple of seconds is only for the major things that you could allow the off field ref to review and call correctly ( PK,Red card,offside goal ) and trust me when the referee blows his whistle for one of those spending an extra 10 seconds to be sure the call is right will save so many football games from being destroyed , and if spending merely 5-10 sec max to alter a call that could ruin the entire game is not a solution to fix errors then i don't know what is ...
     
  15. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    It's during that "actual play time" where any incidents in question occur. So yes, the flow of the game would be disrupted.

    Wait, who said they were okay with all that?

    Something tells me that not every single stoppage to review each close offside or incident in the penalty box will take 10 seconds max.
     
  16. puyol

    puyol Member+

    FC Barcelona
    Dec 24, 2009
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    you have seen those replays , they takes less than 5 seconds to pop up IN SLOW MOTION , hell there shouldn't be any pause , just the fifth ref telling the main ref to alter his call if it's wrong , and if you're ok with all the other time wasting in game that disrupts the flow of the game anyways then you shouldn't object the same exact thing but this time for making the game fair for everyone.

    after all , FIFA's motto is Fair play isn't it :)

    and if you are absolutely against letting that go for the entire game then at least let the coaches have a challenge call ( once per half ) to review something that they think it was unfair to them with a wrong call ) they can let the fourth official know they want it ) , please don't tell me reviewing 1 issue per team in one half is going to take a lot of time too ? that's like 1-2 minutes int he entire half which already has 20-25 minutes of wasted time.
     
  17. sjquakes08

    sjquakes08 Member+

    Jun 16, 2007
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No matter what, there will be controversy. Look at every other sport with instant replay. No matter what, some things are judgment calls, and even when there is replay there will be disagreement.

    So sure, with instant replay you can fix the egregious, obvious errors. But all that's really gonna happen is that people will just start getting pissed about the less obvious ones.

    Personally, I say that we let mistakes be part of the game. It's not a court of law, it's 22 young blokes kicking a balloon around. It's designed for entertainment, and to me, imperfection does not take away from that.
     
  18. waitforit

    waitforit Member+

    Dec 3, 2010
    Valcea
    Club:
    FC Steaua Bucuresti
    Nat'l Team:
    Romania
    And nobody explained to you that these things already happen? Have you seen a team attacking and then the referee stops the game becasue the AR flagged him from the other side of the pitch? Especially in the past when they didn't have a direct mean of communication like now
    A team attacks and he stops because in the other half of the field Suarez decided to bite e guy just because. In that case the referee gived Sureaz a red than the play continues with the team whose player was bitten getting a FK irregarless of what happend in the other side

    Here is the thing: we already interrupt the game for every major decision. The defenders will protest, the attacker will protest, the referee takes his time to justify himself and like 2 minutes have passed.So we have the time. Have you seen how nice the FK have become lately. No more encroaching just because of a simple spray. No more will the attacker point to the wall and protest because they went forward. Time saved.
    And sure while at the Honduras goal they protested because the GLT showed 2 instaces now there is no more controversy when players will go to the AR and swear the ball crossed/didn't corss the linie . So no more time wasted. And regarding offside there is no need for camera angles. They can go sensors with that too. Sensor in the boots and change the offside rule to feet only again. And sure it could be expensive but not that expensive and FIFA has 1 billion in the bank could afford it. So could UEFA who should freaking implement GLT in the CL already.

    No more time wasted no more player being angry because they can't accept a decision. If they think they have been wronged it distrupts their thinking so if they have no doubt in their mind about the decion they can concentrate
    Referees should stay of course (I for one want 3 CR) but in major decisions they should be helped
     
    puyol repped this.
  19. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    It seems you just want to blame the referee. Missed means he didn't see it. Contentious means saw it and decided to keep playing.

    Teso, I have refereed now for 10 years. You have no idea what you are talking about. The Greek supporters today are ecstatic. The referee did not miss a penalty. CIV supporters are downtrodden. The referee missed a call. Same play.

    The Italians will NEVER blame their negative tactics, but will blame the referee.

    Unless you have run from corner flag to corner flag, you should not complain about officiating. You want replay? Then I want retro punishment for every dive, every fake, every embellishment by these clowns who cheat and con their way through a game. I want a red card for a dive to win a penalty. I want those rolling on the ground from a fake foul to be banned. How's that?

    The players cheat. The referees have to sort the cheaters from the honest players. Impossible task. But keep blaming the refs if it makes you feel better. It's the clubs who are to blame and the culture of the countries. These squads should be embarrassed to play the matches in these styles. But you want to blame the refs?
     
    That Cherokee and jarbitro repped this.
  20. Orange14

    Orange14 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 27, 2007
    Bethesda, MD
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    For those of you who are American posters to this thread, one simple question - how many NFL (National Football League for those of you abroad) play reviews take 10 seconds? 2nd part to this - how many take multiple minutes? Maybe 50% of the things we've seen in this tournament could be adjudicated in close to real time (the handballs in the penalty box and some off sides), others would require several minutes and multiple camera angles. If FIFA go this route are they then going to permit manager challenges and a mandatory review?

    International football (e.g., soccer) is markedly different from American football as there are relatively few stops and starts to the game. As I said in a post on one of the match threads adding a second field official or goal line officials whose jobs are to look for handballs and other infractions inside the box is a far more logical solution.

    We have also seen match officials from some very small countries call very good games while some from larger countries missed critical calls. there are no easy solutions and "instant" replay review presents its own set of issues.
     
  21. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    1. Contentious can also mean he saw something (or the result of something) but is unable to make a call because he is unsure. Why should the 4th official not be able to assist using the available source?

    2. I have zero problem with retrospective action after each round of games. Something needs to be done. However I maintain the increase in simulation is due in part to officials consistently ignoring the dark art of defending. The attacking players initially used simulation to cheat but now increasingly do it as a means to force the referee into making the correct call.
     
  22. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004

    The dark art of defending? Are you living in the way past? The attackers are bigger,stronger, faster now than ever. Go to You tube and watch Maradona's run thru 5 English defenders. It's in slow motion. He wouldn't get past 10 yards in now.
     
  23. lemma

    lemma Member

    Jul 19, 2011
    Those in favour only seem want to talk about is the impact of review on game flow.

    Please address the other possibly more important issues as well.
     
  24. lemma

    lemma Member

    Jul 19, 2011
    Not enough stuff happens in a game at any one moment to warrant having 3 CR.

    Unless you want 3 CR all looking at the same thing, which would mainly have the effect of tripling the error/controversy rate, increasing the number of fouls whistled, and reducing the number of advantages.
     
  25. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    I'm still seeing debates about Italy's penalty against Australia in 2006.
    And people still believe that Torres took a dive against Chile in 2010.
     
    guignol and sjquakes08 repped this.

Share This Page