Law 6 Change, Among others, coming to a town near you

Easy - no need to panic - at least not yet.

That specific proposal (by the Irish FA) was to have a discussion to consider the increasing instances recently when decisions that were made by referees were subsequently overturned/changed once video evidence had been reviewed. A red card becoming a yellow, a yellow being rescinded etc.

It's the "after the fact" use of video review that is up for discussion here - NOT during the game itself.

 

Oh that's too bad. I was looking forward to the day I could announce to the world "AFTER FURTHER REVIEW...I WAS RIGHT AGAIN!"

Scott

 

I'd rather a team wait 2 minutes to see if the ball completely crossed the goal line than wait 4 years for another World Cup opportunity. In the biggest games, there are a few matters of fact which should be ruled correctly. Give the refs the help of replay in those situations.

 

My comments...

1) I think it's appropriate to have the duties of the 4th official spelled out in the laws the way the Referee and ARs are -- even though it has little or no impact for most of us because we'll rarely, if ever, work a game as or with a 4th official.

2) I will be interested to see what they wind up doing about the 10 yard experiment from England -- advancing the ball 10 yards for dissent after awarding a free kick. Personally, I'd like to see some form of that implemented more widespread, but I'd like to see some modifications. For example, the way it is now, you can advance it up to the penalty area but not past that point. Given the way guys can bend balls, that's not that good a spot to be taking a free kick -- it's better to be a little further out. I'd rather they made the advancement optional for the team taking the free kick or even better yet, allow the ball to be advanced into the PA if appropriate (but have it still be a DFK, not changing it to a PK).

If you have a direct free kick INSIDE the penalty area, it'd be next to impossible to completely block the goal area with a wall. Right now the one area that you still see a lot of dissent is for free kicks immediately outside the PA and for PK decisions. Allowing the ball to be advanced for a DFK into the PA would completely cut down on dissent on a free kick anywhere around the PA.

3) I can't wait to see the duties and responsibilities of the goal line officials. My opinion is that is going to make for some good discussions here.



As far as the comments about video evidence made above (not related to the rules changes), I think I'm going to change my stance on this one. I have been against using video evidence during games, but now I'm going to come out in favor of it (like what I say has any impact ).

However rather than take this thread about real law changes off on a tangent, I'll start another thread to discuss this -- if anyone else cares to.

 

And who would decicde when to call on the replay... and on what issues?

Why do you find it difficult to accept that the referee and his judgement, or lack thereof, are a part of the game? You add stoppages for video review, and you have a different game. Not a world game, but an anal retentive technology spectacle, where passion is replaced by pixelation and slow motion replays to elevate the status of the commentators and critics, while relegating the players to little more than playing pieces in a board game.

Years ago my daughter's team was unfairly deprived of a league championship when the ball went behind the post and under the net to end up in the back of the goal. The referee signalled a kick off. We knew it was not a goal, as did the opponent. The parents came up with the protest fee, but the the final score was upheld by the league, in spite of the agreement by both myself and the opposing coach that the call was in error.

It was a bitter pill, but one that we must accept because this is the essence of the game.

 

Sherm,

What do you think of limited use -- take this over to the other thread I've started on this subject.

 

Interesting that this article in SI quotes FIFA as possibly discussing a "sin bin" that would be for infractions greater than a yellow card but less harsh than a red card. However, the official IFAB release does not have this on its agenda.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2003/02/25/int_rdp/

 

Kev,

actually the official agenda does list this - it's under the "Items for Discussion", labelled "Temporary Expulsion".

Also, going back to your thoughts on advancing the Free-Kick 10 yards. At national camp this year George Cumming suggested that would probably be scrapped - the referees really dont like it, at least not as it is written as it REQUIRES the referee to also issue a caution. Incidentally, your suggestion that it be possible to move it forward INTO the PA was in fact the way it was worded in Year 1, but at the end of that year, the Refs and authorities had that modified to stop at the 18 as it was causing WAY too many problems moving it forward into the PA.

 

Thanks deep, I didn't catch that. Too bad about the 10 yard advancement. Maybe I'm wrong, but it SEEMS that the games I watch on TV in EPL have much less dissent than games in Germany, Argentina, Brazil and our MLS. Although Germany is less that the other 3. Perhaps it's just the difference between Europe and the Americas.

 

The game should be about the players not the refs. No one watches to see the refs. They certainly don't watch to see the ref screw up. If it is possible to use some technology to help them make the right call, use the technology.

What I'm advocating is looking at a couple of plays each World Cup to see if the ball crossed the goal line. If it can be done quickly and fairly, why not give the refs the help?

Ref errors will always be part of soccer because it is impossible to eliminate all of them, not because players and fans want those errors. If it's easy to eliminate crucial ones at the top level, I'm for it.

 

Neil: No one, except of course for other refs. But your point is well made. Paul

 

Agreed, it not about us, it's about the players and making sure we get the call right. The real issue is finding a way to get the calls right without stopping the flow of the game. To this end, I welcome the experimental provision for goal judges or rather assistants. It will be of great benefit to the game. I also agree and support the IFAB agenda. Clearly it shows the level of concern FIFA and the IFAB has for the problems of the game at an international level.

Sherman, I don't think at the professional level we should ever settle or be resigned to accept that mistakes or errors in judgement by the officiating team are part of the game. I don't want soccer to loose it's flow and introduce NFL like video replay stoppages, but we have seen a lot of games where there were incorrect and ultimately unfair decisions. Perhaps implementation of goal judges or assistants would be one way to help get the calls right. I don't believe that having two referees helps, but with the deliniation and confirmation of the duties of the fourth official and the greater authority given to assistant referees, the game is slowly evolving to make the officiating team more accountable for getting the call right, and isn't that's what our responsibility is to the game we love.

 

Good one Scott, I'll have to remember that one. And well said, neil. I think the review of goals is what is being considered for post-game video review, not cards? But that's OK too. Like Neil said, the game is not about the refs, but try to tell that to a ref who loose a little crumb of ITOOTR or has to deal with sleeves or share the whistle with someone else. The DSC inherently DOES make it about the single center referee. Another point for team, multi-whistle officiating. . but lets leave that subject for another time.

I agree with neil, there are some decisions that must be correct, and ITOOTR can't be a cop out. Goals are an obvious example, and if 40 seconds to review is required, then do it. We don't get many of these, and they tend to decide the outcome, so let's go the extra risk of humilation and get them right.

Cards normally wouldn't be an issue. . if they didn't impact the outcome of the game so much. Cards are supposed to be intended to modify the behavior of a player, not create an advantage for another team. But we know they do; including post game. So their imporance becomes universal, so why not use video replay; at least post game. We can all argue that a missed or blown call contributed to the outcome of the game, but how often does this happen, and what about the other 89 minutes? Those we can leave to ITOOTR and speculation, and spectator video replay. But the objective is to get it as correct as possible, in spite of the referee's ego.

 

I like the idea of video replay but only for one thing, goals. Soccer is a flowing game, and to have replay on everything the NFL does that you would see in a soccer match would be insane. Check every close out of bounds play? Check spots for fouls? No, the only thing you would use it for is whether a goal was scored or not. Which would be rendered almost unnecessary if goal officials were implemented (one quick note about them, would they be the final deciders of goals or would it still be the referee's decision. I'm thinking the ref would still decide, but why if you're paying people just to sit and watch for close goals?)

The thing I like least about video replay is that as soon as the NFL did it, there were people at the youth club and rec games I ref demanding that I look at their camcorders to reverse fouls and such. Now my argument of "That's only in the NFL." would be moot.