I still find that amazing that they have dropped this. The winners from the game using ABBA were almost exactly 50% first team kicking and 50% second team kicking... as opposed to the 60+% to 40% we have otherwise.
I mean, if the goal is to just make any tiebreak a statistical coin flip... why not just, you know, have a coin flip?
I did my first ABBA KFTM the other night. Only took us about ten minutes to explain it to the teams ...
Was there a reason given for why it was deemed a failure? Did it ever get tried in FA Cup? (I thought that was highest profile test competition). Is it surprising then that it was used at Algarve just a few weeks ago? I think it's an excellent idea. In the current system, the coin flip gives too much of an advantage, which statisticians have shown.
I know you meant well but that's both bad reasoning and great sophistry (I know you were sincere though). The team that's better at taking PKs and has a better goalkeeper should win most of the time. The point is on a coin flip, you expect them to win the coin flip half the time and lose them half the time.
It did get used and it had appeared to be successful there. IFAB's reasoning was that football was a simple game, so kicks from the mark needed to be simple. Or something.
"Too complicated" was the phrase used, I believe. I wasn't being all that sincere. The argument put forth in this thread in favor of ABBA was that it made the result closer to 50/50 than ABAB did. So it seemed like the virtue of "fairness" was manifesting itself in pure statistical probability. I didn't see anyone comment on which team (Team A or Team B) had the better goalkeepers or kickers on a given day until you just raised the point. To the extent statisticians have proven ABBA is fairer, I do wonder how well they've been able to account for who was just better at penalties. After all, the sample size for ABBA penalties in top-level competitions is limited (and bordering on non-existent in truly top-level competitions) so I think it's difficult to say 50/50 is the preferred or correct outcome. Also, part of me doubts that statisticians have been able to account for other potential factors or indicators (e.g., in non 0-0 matches, how often does the team that tied the score win in KFTM versus the team who last led?).
I don't want to harp on this too much, but what does the phrase "appeared to be successful" mean? Was there a huge problem with ABAB penalties that ABBA rectified? Was there a sample size large enough to show it had a meaningful difference in a process that most people in the game already refer to as "a lottery?" Football is filled with fans, players and referees who are not of the highest intellect. ABAB already got screwed up once in awhile. Going to ABBA and risking bigger or more frequent screw ups simply because statisticians said it was fairer doesn't seem the best course to me. I'm glad IFAB dropped this. Now if they only showed the same sort of wisdom in some other areas...
I explained that. Winning a coin flip is a 50/50 probability. So if there are teams better at PKs (excuse me, KFTM!) the team better at them would win the coin flip 50% of the time and lose it 50% of the time (and all teams in major competitions who've won the coin flip have opted to go first, except Spain. Once - they chose to go second... and lost) Same with teams who scored last to tie the match (momentum!). They'd have 50-50 chance of winning the coin flip. As always thanks for replies, but in this case it just strengthens my resolve to support the new way. Never thought I'd say I was an ABBA fan though!
Tennis tiebreaker - it must've seemed odd the first year but it's been around now, what, 20 years? 30 years? Are you saying soccer players and fans are that much more stupid than tennis fans? Here's one of the first articles I saw on this: https://www.soccermetrics.net/paper...ick-shootout-paper-apesteguia-palacios-huerta
Understood and appreciate this reply. Though I still have doubts over sample size at the top-level, I understand what you're getting at here. Yes, probably. But whether that's true or not, the process is more complicated on the soccer side of things because it involves multiple players from each side and varying math to determine when the tiebreaker is complete. Tennis is quite simple because it's the first player to score 7 points, with the caveat you win by two. So the ABBA serve order is easy enough to execute. You follow ABBA until you get to 7 in tennis. In soccer, you have to calculate how many kicks a team has left because the tiebreak can end well before either team has taken its allotted 5 kicks. I've been on matches where players or even fellow officials weren't sure when the kicks were mathematically over. Making it ABBA instead of ABAB adds an extra layer of complication. To be perfectly clear, I get ABBA. I am fully capable of executing ABBA. But I've seen some really stupid stuff on the field over the years and screwing up or nearly screwing up KFTM is one of them that happens far too often. The risk outweighs the statistical benefit in my opinion. If the IFAB and FIFA are truly concerned about fairness in tiebreakers, I think it's better to spend more brain power developing and trying alternative tiebreakers, rather than trying to tweak KFTM to reach statistical parity.
How long does it take to explain offside the first time? Doesn't make it a bad rule. (Took me 10 minutes to remember what KFTM stood for!) Besides, a referee has two key points to resort to: 1) tennis tiebreakers 2) "Trust me. I know what I'm doing" Maybe one thing which could be done: a signal (using the AR flags perhaps) to show when it's a match point (Would need different signals for when you need to make a PK to win and when you need it to stay in)
I don't think many would consider 60-40 odds as being a lottery they'd like to take part in (and I've seen other studies that put the split as a little bigger even). But the IFAB is, as always, loathe to educate on why they make changes/tries stuff out so that point was never used as a selling point. And no the sample size wasn't really big enough to say that ABBA fixed the issue but that's likely due to the experiment being stopped, from the shoot-outs that did take place with ABBA it looked to be a more even split.
Haha, I would encourage you to go to a youth soccer game and go to a youth tennis match and tell me if you don’t notice a difference between the parents/crowd attending. Tennis is one of those sports like golf that caters towards a certain demographic. Not saying you won’t see other demographics in tennis. But the general soccer fan/supporter may not be the sharpest tool in the shed.
Refer to "tennis tiebreakers" in a loud enough voice and someone is guaranteed to protest: "No, no! You said 'like tennis', so that means they have to win by TWO goals!!!" Both of my daughters play(ed) both sports through HS+... in terms of being ignorant of a particular sport's rules, tactics, etc.? In my experience, Yes. edit: that's also understandable given the lower quantity of tennis rules one needs to comprehend for 98% of play.
Yes, I can see how it might be a little more confusing. But even the current method can be a little confusing if there are a few missed early PKs if you're not paying attention. It's a worthwhile concern - I'm not sure if it just takes getting used to or if there's some helpful trick to counting to make it easier. (In tennis after all you get used to counting service breaks instead of actual points)
It will be interesting to see if the gender perception leads to more OFR of things that we would generally not think would require OFR for a reversal to maintain the visual that the R is in charge and not a man in the booth.
I think we might see more reviews in general because the pool of women referees at the Women's World Cup, in general, is weaker and less experienced than the men referees at the World Cup. We have seen some truly horrible decisions over the years at the women's World Cup. Remember at the 2011 or 2007 Women's World Cup, there was a play where a defender literally caught the ball with the two hands on the goal line in the penalty area and nothing was given? I suspect we might see more reviews simply due to more "clear and obvious" errors.
I think another reason why IFAB/FIFA scrapped ABBA was simply that no one really cared. It wasn't some huge injustice on the game, compared to handling, offside that no one could come to consensus or agreement. The reality is that penalty shootouts only really matter once every four/two years at the Euros and World Cup. Fans, players and coaches didn't moan about having to go second instead of first as the reason for elimination after penalty shootouts. There were complaints about the concept of using penalties to decide winners and coming up with alternatives, but there were never complaints about the actual process of penalty kicks itself.
Maybe. But as fans, players, coaches become aware of it, it may bother them. A coin flip having that much effect on who wins a game after playing your hearts out for 120 minutes? It may take time. Where the impetus will come from, who knows? But some day we'll hear of it again. Without even thinking about it, players and coaches know that, like playing White in chess, it's an advantage to go first.
Makkelie and Irrati are going to have company... Congrats to Canadian referee Drew Fischer who has been selected, along with 15 other referees from around the world, to participate in the Video Assistant Referees Seminar for the FIFA Women’s World Cup France, 2019! pic.twitter.com/0GEKV73Kkt— Canada Soccer (@CanadaSoccerEN) March 25, 2019 Fischer's name was on the list of WC2022 VAR candidates that went to the UAE seminar in February. It would be pretty funny if FIFA treats the 2019 WWC as a test run for potential WC2022 VARs (like they will do with the U20s and U17s). Admittedly this is only one official out of 16 called in, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they are all going to be men.
Nice story, but it wasn't on the goal line, it was in the middle of the PA. And the field players and the keeper were wearing nearly identically colored jerseys, a choice made by FIFA, not the referee. And the referee was sent home after that match. We've had plenty of horror shows in the Men's WC as well, especially in pool play. The political process of having to have a certain number of referees from each region, regardless of quality, is not a gender issue.
Err... It's 2 yards off the goal line. That's not exactly in the "middle of the penalty area." And the goalkeeper had already dived to save the ball and was outside of the zone where the ball landed. Let's not defend the indefensible. We have never had a single "horror show" decision quite so bad at the men's World Cup. However, the referee was sent home and--speaking more broadly--one call isn't indicative of the overall quality of refereeing. That said, FIFA hasn't spent nearly as much time and resources ensuring quality control over its female referees as it has for its male counterparts (exhibit A: VAR training). While both have improved greatly over the past 15 years, they weren't at the same starting points. I don't think it demonstrates gender bias to say that the "lower-end" WWC referees are going to be shakier than the MWC equivalents.