I'm not sure if this concept has come up for discussion here on the boards, but I'm sure it's been thought of before. It was mentioned in relation to another thread and I decided that the discussion of having 4 ARs belonged in its own thread, so here goes... There's been alot of discussion about having 2 center referees -- some passionately for it, others passionately against it. However, rather than having 2 CRs on the field, what about having 4 ARs. However, the additional ARs would not have ALL the same responsibilities as the current ARs. What if... The system would be fairly similar to the diagonal system of control. First, terminology-wise... For the two ARs that are in the current position of the ARs, let's call them Senior ARs -- SARs. For the two new / additional ARs, let's call them Junior ARs -- JARs. In this situation, Senior and Junior mean nothing about experience or capabilities, it's just to be able to distinguish between the for discussion purposes. Under the 4 AR system, the SARs continue to do everything they've always done EXCEPT call offside. There is no need to stay with the second last defender, they just need to stay in the best position to do their other jobs -- they call the ball out of touch, over the goal line, assist on fouls in their "area of control", etc. The JARs do NOTHING but call offside. They don't need to worry about anything else. Their sole purpose for being is to stay with the second last defender and make the offside call. Some might protest that this is worse than having 2 CRs because now you have 3 people calling fouls, etc., but I don't think so. There is still only 1 referee in charge. He would have the right to waive down the AR under this system just as he current can. He can delegate whatever level of authority he'd like -- primarly by defining the "area of control" for the SARs. You have no overlapping of responsibility between the ARs on same side or on the same end. Also, the CR could more easily let play become further away from him when in the SAR's area of control -- he doesn't need to worry about the SAR missing a foul because he is looking for offside -- which happens. OK, what do you guys think?
not a good idea because then the clubs have to hire more ar which would cost them a bunch of money each year
Not bad for a start but I still think the blind corners on the far side from the SAR is not addressed or covered. Still think we need the second center and Ill support your additional ARs.....
What if the far AR who is away from the action make the calls for the ball going into touch. The near AR could indicate the direction or default to the far AR to do so with the Ref still able to make the call for the restart. This would allow the near AR to concentrate on Offside and on fouls that the Ref could not see. One problem would be if the AR on the north side of the field disagreed with the AR on the south side of the field on 1) whether the ball crossed the goal line 2) whether it is a goal or not 3) whether it is a GK or CK. We could have the AR who is nearer to the action make the call on the restart, subject to review of the Ref. Ultimately, such considerations come back to the application of video tape. Personally, I think there should be no video tape review of the game, but allow league officials to order a replay if a significant error was found on the review of the video. Just my opinion.
Re: Re: 4 AR's (Alternative to 2 CR's) Since the SAR is no longer responsible for offside, I suppose he wouldn't need to be restricted to only half the touchline, would he? If the SAR's are now free to roam the entire touchline, the CR would flatten his diagonal considerably. That might help solve the coffin-corner problem. I guess you'd have to work out a contingency for breakaway situations whereby the JAR would also act as goal judge on quick transitions? Just thinking out loud.
This would only need to be done at the higher level games where the speed of play, etc. makes it much harder for the current AR's to get all the calls correct. For example, in our area, the U10 and U11 games use club linesmen with a single paid referee. Then U12 and above they use 3 paid referees. You could change it so that U12 thru U16 you use 3 referees and U17 and above you go to the 5 referees. The CR would cover the corners furthest from the SAR just like the current DSC. However, since the SAR isn't watching / worrying about offside, there is less need for the CR to be "close to play" when it is in the SAR's area of control. He can stay more out in the center so that he is well positioned for the corner away from the SAR when play is switched quickly. These kinds of problems are exactly the reason I separated the responsibilities -- one calls offside, the other calls everything else. Since the one calling offside is not going to be making these calls, we have NO opportunities for the type of confusion you point out. I'd just as soon stay as far away from any kind of video review/replay system as possible. I just don't think it'll work in soccer.
Re: Re: Re: 4 AR's (Alternative to 2 CR's) True, he wouldn't. However, the point of having the extra ARs is twofold -- to get more accurate calling of offside and to get better coverage of the field (IMO, the first is more important). If you allow the SAR to roam from end to end, then you create the problem mentioned of having 3 officials watching play and none of them are in position when a fast counter occurs. Also, you wind up having two AR's in close proximity to one another and that would be confusing to everyone involved (including the CR) as to which one is calling which infractions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4 AR's (Alternative to 2 CR's) Solve all of the aforementioned problems by giving the JARs the ability to call fouls not in the view of the other referees.
Getting a bit complicated now. I think before I'd go that far, I'd consider stationing the 2 new AR's at opposite corners from the traditional AR's. They would call balls out of play on their endline and touchline, including goals. I'd also have them watch for foul play in their corner. Offside would be the sole responsibility of the other 2 AR's.
I'm personally inclined to think that 2 CRs and 2ARs makes more sense (with arguably nominal increase in cost since there often is a 4th official at games in any event - why have him/her waiting for an injury, get him/her out there). I know it doesn't do anything directly to improve the offsides situation, but especially at the more competitive level there ought to be another official. As for 2 additional ARs, I would be inclined to give them the identical responsibilities. As is the case now, the CR makes the final call and can wave off the ARs if s/he chooses, but it would be the regular practice of the CR to wave off any offsides flag unless BOTH of the involved ARs have their flags up. If benefit of the doubt goes to the offense, put in a system that brings that goal about.
I'm not completely against the concept of 4 ARs (as I am against 2 CRs), and I'd be for experiments. However, there is no feasible way to allow all 4 ARs to call offsides. First, one of the big problems now is that people say ARs aren't calling offsides correctly. So, you'd want to double the corps of ARs at the top levels when your base argument is that the people already in these leagues are calling it incorrectly? If people think that the ARs already in a league (say, MLS) are incompetent, how will a problem be solved by adding twice as many ARs--ARs who the federation and MLS currently don't believe are ready for top-flight service? Speaking more logistically, think of the problems when one flag goes up and the other doesn't. First, the referee must visually check with both ARs. Meaning he has to take his eye of dynamic play for twice as long. That's not good to begin with. Worse yet, by the time he would wave the one AR down, that AR would be far behind play (at top speed in first divisions around the world, he'd be 20+ yards behind the ball). Also not good. More importantly, why would anyone be in favor of rule by committee? To have one guy making mistakes is bad, but at least he's doing it consistently throughout a match. What if one AR is consistently allowing play to continue on offside plays, solely because he is out of position? And his counterpart is correctly flagging offside infractions, but being waved down because both ARs have to concur. First, it will undoubtedly create animosity amongst officiating crews. Secondly, defenders will not be happy and will make sure that the CR and ARs know it. If a 6 man system with 4 ARs was instituted, I believe that pkCrouse's proposal is most viable, although I don't think one set of ARs should be limited solely to offside. Maintain the DSC. The two "senior" ARs would be responsible for offside, out of bounds plays, and assisting with fouls/misconduct that went unseen, as Greyhnd said. The two "junior" ARs would be responsible for out of bounds and fouls/misconduct only. (note that I switched the terms given by kevbrunton to the ARs. If both sets have the same responsibilities and one set is given offside on top of that, I feel that that set is the "SAR" set) With such a system, you could use people who are on CR lists as "junior" ARs (it's tantamount to having a CR work as a 4th official currently). "Senior" ARs would be people who are strictly on the AR tract (read: people who are constantly and consistently trained to call offside above all else). Sixth officials would be younger up and coming referees. In the US, for example, probably national candidates. One big problem, though, that was dismissed too easily, is money. I know everyone says "we're only talking about the top leagues here". But I think people have a skewed perspective of how much money is available to throw around in officiating. First, right now, there's no way MLS has enough money to pay 6 referees and their travel expenses (even 4 travel expenses if you concede that 2 referees could be local). Moreover, even if MLS could scrounge up the money, would it be good for MLS to be the first (and only) level in the US to use such a system? Of course not. If a system is to work at the MLS level, there needs to be training at the A-League, D3 and PDL levels. Seeing as how USL just eliminated fees for fourth officials in PDL and WLeague this past year (even though USSF has been emphasizing the increasing role of the 4th official), it is obvious that USL does not have the money to fund a 4 man system, nevermind a 5 or 6 man system. And, if you think this is a problem restricted solely to the US, then you are sorely mistaken. I can't name a country now that has the funds necessary to institute this in their first and second divisions.
It is now time to shut this board down as I actually agree with massreff on everything he has said....almost. I have to say that MLS is NOT the measure by which we should decide what is best for the game as a whole. The league has always and for the near future will continue to lose money so lets not use it as a decider about finances.......and I still hold out hope that we can find two referees that can work together as team of centers(maybe for the whole season?) and call a good game. I think the descusion has gotten considerably more productive however and i am very interested.
I'm glad we agree, however, I have to ask you, if MLS isn't the measuring standard, then what is? First, if you're suggesting we only discuss leagues outside the US, then I think you should take a look at the finances of leagues abroad. They are not as well off as you might believe. More importantly though, if this were going to be implemented in the US at all, it would be at the MLS level, no? How can you ignore MLS if we're talking about US soccer at all? Moreover, look at PDL and other USL leagues. It's a fact that they don't have the money for 4 officials, nevermind 6. I don't think any of us would suggest that this system should start at the MLS level. Referees need training in it well before then. I think if an experiment were to be instituted, after sanction by FIFA, in the USA, it would have to be on the USOC again (USSF is the only body that has the money to pay for this, although even this is questionable, as USSF typically likes to use local referees for USOC matches). If successful, though, serious thought would have to be put into the financial circumstances surrounding further implementation, because right now, there's no place in the world that would be able to finance this system past a first division level, and even first divisions are probably limited to 3-4 leagues.
So that's what that sudden bright light in the sky was last night -- the gods of agreement fainting in their fairy dust .
Agree -- as I said, IMO it would be a disaster to try to have two officials calling offside on the same end of the field. As I said, this is what I was proposing. My main problem with this is that I believe one of the primary ways for an AR to miss an offside call is that he/she is keeping an eye on something else. IMO, offside is important enough to have someone focused solely on enforcing it. My other problem is that you could still wind up having two AR's failing to agree on a call. The out of touch calls are one thing, but what if one AR gives the signal for a good goal and the other doesn't. It seems to me that you'd wind up in the situation that was present with the 2 CR experiment where the players are running to the other AR trying to get him to overrule the one that went against what they wanted. By separating the responsibilities, you totally avoid this. I agree that I may have dismissed it to quickly. However, is it more feasable to put 2 more officials on a game than to put some of the technology solutions in place that have been suggested. Keep in mind that with MOST of the technology based solutions proposed, there is an official manning the technology. Also, with the technology based suggestions, you'd pretty much be limiting them to the highest level of pro and international play. This system is one in which it could be implemented at any level. Here I am talking about some "important" youth level play such as state cup finals, regionals, nationals, higher level tournaments, etc.
To your first point, I would say that instructions could be to the SARs to only signal for obvious fouls/misconduct directly in their view and to not go out of their way to assist. As to your second point, I would say that the JARs would be the goal line judges. When dynamic play got close enough to goal (or on set plays), the JARs would take up position on the goal line to judge goals. Not sure about your area, but I know that mine (which otherwise has very high referee fees) can only afford to put fourth officials on our State Cup Final matches. Regionals and Nationals have them on semis and finals, but, then again, there are no referees' fees at those tournaments. If those "high" level tournaments can only afford 3 referees for the most part now (when every single game should have 4), where will the money come for 6? And even at regionals and nationals, although fees aren't paid, it would mean more referees overall, which means more hotel rooms, more meals, more per diems, etc., etc. The money probably isn't available at the pro levels. It definitely isn't available at the youth levels, no matter how "high level" of a tournament.
Ok, that works for me. I would say that my area is the same as yours. I wasn't saying that it was going to be affordable relative to the current situation. I was just saying that it didn't seem to be any less affordable than other proposed "fixes". If you're saying that we need to improve the refereeing of the games, but cannot change the budget for referees, then we're limited to improving refereeing strictly through education / experience.
Well, as you know, I don't like the other "fixes", namely 2 CRs, technological remedies, or video review. I do, however, genuinely like the idea of four assistants, though I do see some problems with eye contact and other communication. The more people there are on the field, the more likely there can be missed signals or miscommunication. In actual practice, any 6 man system would probably have to utilize beeper flags to work efficiently (which creates other small problems....namely the fact that one set of beeper flags can interfere with another, having four different sound frequencies and vibration rates, and how many receptor packs you can tie to one CR...but I'm sure those can be solved). Anyway, my underlying point is that, yes, right now, the only viable options for improvement seem to be education/training/experience. That's not to say I don't think a 6 man (1CR/4ARs/1Reserve) wouldn't work--I honestly think it might and is much more plausible than a 2CR system. However, you can't make money magically appear for leagues and clubs. As it stands right now, there's always a lot of public talk and banter by fans, administrators and media about refereeing and how it needs improvement, but when it comes right down to it, leagues and clubs--especially growing leagues like MLS--are going to use their money on player development, not refereeing. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. And the same goes for leagues abroad. Do you think a Serie A club wants to pitch in a few millions to fund 2 extra officials for every match, or use those millions on transfer fees of high-profile players? The answer is obvious. I still would, however, like to see FIFA do a 6-man experiment in the same way that they did the 5-man experiment. If it were successful, as opposed to the 5-man system, maybe the powers that be would take notice and pony up the money to make it a full-time reality worldwide. I think it certainly has a much better chance at success than the 5-man system.
So when do we get our zebra stripes and yellow flags? I mean what the hell, we've already covered hand signals and instant replay. Just my $.02: keep it simple.
I thought about this too. I was thinking that if the CR is still using a DSC, he should continue to have one set of referees in his vision -- preferably NOT the pair calling offside. That way, the pair calling offside are the only ones who would need the beeper flags. Possible.
i'm tempted to fully respond, but it looks like i'm in the minority. you're always going to have budget/cost issues. if those limit the options, then you have no choices. period. it's simple. although my experience is that there is always some flexibility in budgets, and these same arguments were used at one point to justify only sending out one certified ref to handle the center and just giving flags to parents to run the lines. my limited experience with 2 CRs has not been that negative. the current system seems to promote a hangup with there being one official in charge. it isn't necessary (as demonstrated by basketball). if the two CRs see it differently, they have to discuss what they saw and have a system for resolving it, just like they do in the NBA. but i can live with a short discussion between them if it helps to get more calls right. again, this primarily is just a shift in attitude. same with 4 ARs. i actually think this is probably slightly excessive, as a single AR ought to be able to cover most of his/her duties. unfortunately, what we saw from the last world cup is that, especially at the top levels, it isn't always so easy. there seems to be some concern about the 2 ARs not being in agreement. except, that was, in my opinion, the solution. if they're not in agreement, play on. sure, the defenders would be complaining that one AR put the flag up, but that would primarily be the goals that are currently being called back on bogus offsides calls. as for technology, if it's feasible at the top levels, even if only the world cup, i'd be in favor of using video/instantreplay/slowmotion to get the offsides calls correct. it doesn't take long, and would improve the game. and, heck, if i get into the little booth for free, they wouldn't even have to pay me.
I cant argue that MLS is the standard for AMERICAN implimentation of this new system but I am just pointing out it is not in the position that other leagues are in with respect to budget. When you look at the salaries paid to playes in europe and the liscencing revenues it is pretty clear that the foriegn leagues have a different ballance sheet then MLS. We cant even get a game on a non-football field here and I dont expect us to suddenly get the money to install a complicated electronic system. Adding 3 referees would not cost that much money per game.....I would expect an additional $1500 which is a drop in the bucket when you consider the overall cost of running a professional match. I have ZERO idea how much it would cost to add a camera or two to cover the offside issue. I suspect the money would materialize if FIFA dicated to MLS that they had to do it.
Greyhnd, I understand that MLS is operating on a different salary scale than some other leagues around the world, but when it comes right down to it, they're pretty much in the same situation financially. The better European leagues use so much of their money on player salaries that they are on the verge of having dozens of bankrupt clubs. Players make a lot more in Europe--that's true. But there's not much money left for anything else--in Europe or the MLS. As I said in an above post, the simple fact is that club presidents are much more ready to spend money on another midfielder than improving refereeing, no matter what they say in media soundbytes. Also, you are correct that adding 2 referees (you'd just be adding two, not three), in the MLS, would cost about $1500 (fees, airfare, hotel, per diem). However, in many leagues around the world, it would cost thousands of dollars per match. And, in the US, it would cost a few hundred dollars for USL teams. That doesn't sound like much, but I can tell you from experience that that is a few hundred dollars that the vast majority of USL teams don't have the ability to spend. They are refusing to pay for fourth officials and they are, in some unfortunate circumstances, short-changing referees on travel expenses. That is the unfortunate state of the financial situation in USL. There is just no money available for 2 more refs at any level below MLS in the States, and it's even questionable there.