alternatives to technology

What's wrong with the Europa experiment with 2 ARs on the end line?

 

I think this is looking like a reasonable alternative to video replay. AARs would be less likely to interfere with the flow of the game, in my opinion at least, versus stopping play for a replay.

If you were to do replay, I think an approach a la Rugby Union where the official calls up to a Television Match Official at a stoppage of play would be one that could work. Of course, rugby has more stoppages than football/soccer.

And I don't buy the argument FIFA advances that whatever approach they use needs to be applicable to all competitions and locations. We have codified a 4O yet I have yet to utilize one in my youth leagues. What's wrong with extra officials for tournaments of larger importance?

But, who said FIFA would take a reasonable approach??

 

I think if we see any changes, it will likely be along the lines of the additional AR, since in theory that could be used at all levels of the game and retains the human element in decision-making that FIFA wants to keep.
There's a fairly interesting report on the AAR experiment from the League Managers Association at http://fsarena.co.uk/?p=1050. A key finding: "In theory the AAR experiment should have been a success but in practice the results were mixed. The AAR appears reluctant to get involved and seems to be dominated by the referee and at times by the assistant referee, even when the AAR has the best view."
(If, as the report suggests, we're going to accelerate the accreditation of former players into the ranks of referees, I'd nominate Chris Kamara as one likely to succeed, he'd be a brilliant AAR based on this: http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/oddballs/820476-chris-kamara-red-card-gaff-becomes-youtube-hit)

 

I am all for tying/fastening an extra official to the inside of the right (goalkeeper's) goalpost. This way he/she can maintain eye contact with the AR if necessary!

But in all seriousness, I am not opposed to goal-line technology.

As a referee, I would want it as long as it does not disrupt the flow of the game. I am not sure how I could go about this though (If we use the next stoppage idea, what happens if a team in the world cup goes on to score on a counter-attack. By law, the goal would not be allowed to stand but the game would go to the dumpster if that happened).

As a player, I would want it as long as the ball is not affected in any way. As far as I know, Ball-makers have their hands full already (see world cup ball's flight pattern, to name one) and I do not see a proper match ball being developed any time soon.

If someone can find a way to fix these problems, I don't see why we can not try it out.

 

This sounds like nothing more than normal resistance to change by human beings. But if you give them a little time, they adapt. And then you give them more time and they wonder why it to so long to change things in the first place.

 

give each team 2 reviews per half or 3. If there is conclusive evidence to change the decision then ,change it if it is arguable then the original decision stands.

If the ball is in play and they review and get it wrong the other team is given possesion.

 

You are quite correct in that it will take some time to adjust the mechanics to what really is quite a big shift in the way matches are controlled. The role of the AR has gradually been enlarged, but suddenly throwing an additional type of official into the mix is quite a culture shift.
An issue I can see is that the AAR will spend long periods of time really not doing anything. The situations that the AAR is supposed to resolve are not pervasive and the majority of matches won't require him to do anything. How many Henry handling or Lampard goals happen? The fact that we generally remember specific incidents points to the fact that there really aren't that many. They cause a lot of noise when they happen, but most matches are controlled perfectly well with the existing system.
I suppose the officials who will be AARs are professional enough for it not to matter, but it is still a human factor to consider. It would be interesting to hear what the AARs thought of the job.

 

It's pretty boring for 4th officials too when subs aren't taking place, except they wouldn't get berated by the bench personnel. There's usually two or three plays, at a minimum, where it's very hard to judge if a ball went over the endline off attacker vs defender that they'd be in a better decision to judge. I think that number of corners aren't given due to that, so all the better to improve that too.

But I think your 2nd point is really the right one. Some highly trained jobs are fairly boring for long stretches, and yet you can never let your guard down, and then really demanding for short stretches--anesthesiologist for example. it takes a certain temperment to handle it. But if they feel they're too highly trained to have a role that's kinda boring much of the time, even if it is a service to the game, then you'd have to cross-train. It might be a job that ARs do. And some games you're an AR and some games you're an AAR, just like CRs are 4ths for some games. And the other thing too is how people are paid...as long as your paid commensurate with your training and not on a per call basis, should be fine.

 

1 hour and 30 mins of boredom? Pfft whatever and no matter what happens the ball is going to be in one half or the other, I don't know anything that gets my heart racing and my eyes focussed other than soccer. They could assist on the mic, give feedback, help record who got what card so that the ref can focus on the game.

There's things for them to do other than goal checking as long as CRs embrace this tool and use it.

 

So let them and stop the clock as soon as they review.

It just builds up unneccessary pressure for them and if the ball is in play a wrong review gives other team a free kick and possesion.

 

No because they're not just trying to waste time they're trying to break up the flow of the game. This is why referees should be deciding this and not fans who don't know what they're talking about.

 

You're spot on there, that's the essence of all the late game interruptions. Time can always be restored, but disruptions to flow can't be made right.

 

It can conversely sometimes allow the attacking team to regain composure too ,when they are pointlessly lobbing ball forwards or running down blind alleys in hurriedness.Just look at stoppages in field hockey.

Besides letting the referee decide will lead to more disruptions and lengthy one at that with unhappy players chasing down the referee to make reviews and the referee running around first to his assistants and then after wasting time in discussion going for a review.Just look at field hockey the deliberation between two umpires ,players and umpires about going in for the review takes more time than the actual review itself .
Late in the game it could cause controversy too.

I also doubt players at this level would use the tactic of using reviews on clear and obvious calls and get embarrased and retrospectively punished for it. And it also disrupts the flow of the defenders as much as the attackers depending on the situation at the time.
The review for a obvious call would in any case hardly take 10 to 15 seconds.

 

3 whistle system!

 

Players at this level will do ANYTHING to aide the team. If slowing down 10-15 seconds gives the defense time to get back in position or form a wall, they'll do it, regardless of how obvious the call is.

as for taking time cause players chase the ref down to demand/request a review. Fine, go ahead, but since the ref is in control of the restart, while they are chasing down the ref, the other team can restart!

 

For those of us who watched a lot of the Europa League this year, it is very simple to understand that the problem stems from the CR having total control of the decisions in the match. Unless unsighted (a guess by the AR) or OS (the AR's main repsonsibility). Everything else is in the hands of the imperial wizard with the whistle. I saw several opportunities for the goal line officials to weigh in on deflections for corners or handling or fouls in the area, and every single time they deferred to the CR's call. So, unless there is a monumental shift in policy and thought, you could add 10 referees but if only one has the authority, then we will be stuck with the same system for years to come. I probably watched 10 Europa Leage matches this past year, and I cannot ever remember one of those extra referees making a call.

 

I remember one where a player did something (bad memory on what) and the endline AR caught it and called it and then they were both laughing about his getting caught. Wish I could remember the details but all I remember is the laughing.

 

Sepp is a cheeky boy! He knows that, even if the discussion is about something that most people think is a weakness in the game, as long as they are talking about it (and the game of soccer in general), that's a good thing for the game.

If the call hadn't gone against Dempsey in the Algeria game, would we still be talking about it? How about the Tevez goal if he hadn't been offside? Not to mention the denied England goal if it had actually hit the line.

Just a side note: If the Dempsey Algeria goal had been awarded, that would have taken away the impact of Donovan's dramatic finish in the 92nd that everyone in the United States will talk about until next World Cup.

Goal line technology is something that would have very little impact on game flow. If there can be a camera in the back of the net looking out at the field, with the technology we have today, it seems that a small camera with at wide angle lens could be built into the goal post looking across the front of the goal and it would not interfere with anything.

Anything that is a subjective decision by the referee, or that is in the run of play, like offside, should be left alone unless, like the Tevez goal, it directly results in a goal/no goal (such as the Dempsey no goal). i.e. one touch.

 

My suggestions here are related to what Rufusabc posted. If any of us had been in the Ref's position at the moment of the England goal, we too would have had a hard time knowing if the ball went in. But upon seeing a replay from a good angle, anyone can see it clearly went in. So, my basic proposal is that, like in American Football where every play is under review, in soccer, every goal is under review.

The ref is allowed to refer to a replay official in order to red card players, correct? (i.e. Zidane's red card in the 2006 final). So why not give a review official the power to override the ref's decisions? And just because he has the power to override calls does not mean he has to be more qualified, like I said, his job would be easier. Here's what he should be allowed to override.

Disallowed goals due to Offsides on set pieces only. While the following free kick is being set up (or possibly even during the first minute of play afterwards) the replay official has the power to stop play and allow the goal. This may seem like it can cause controversy, but a replay provides an easy opportunity to make a judgment. Evidence must be indisputable. I think this should only be allowed on set pieces where the ball going in the net and the flag going up are pretty much simultaneous. (I think if this applied to normal play, players would be inclined to keep playing after the ref's whistle, and they cannot be given the incentive to undermine a ref's authority. But even in this situation it might be considerable, and hand out yellow cards to players who don't adhere to the whistle, but...)

Goals that were allowed but were clearly offside... I mean, I didn't read up on the full story, but after Tevez scored from an offside position, the officials seemed to be aware or it--considering their conversation on the sideline afterwards, but nothing was changed. It looks bad for a ref to go back on his own decision. But if someone watching replays had the authority to reverse the call while a kickoff is being set up, then it wouldn't be any more controversial than the system they're using now. (i.e: goal is allowed because it happened so fast, the ref saw no offsides. Replay official takes one look at it, and changes the call.)

As for England's situation, easy. Any shot that is well on target and gets close to the line, the replay official has about 30 seconds to stop play and allow the goal. What would be wrong with this? It takes one look. Indisputable evidence only.

Also, I would like to see FIFA stepping up and retracting bad yellow cards. For instance, the hand ball card to the German player in the game against Argentina. FIFA should regularly review controversial calls and retract yellow cards that clearly weren't necessary so that the players will not miss matches due to bad decisions. This policy would only diminish the amount of controversy that already bubbles up. (would it not?)

Most of the people posting on this forum clearly know more about the rules than I do, so I'd really like to know how these ideas wouldn't fit into the game. True, this would only be possible in the more important matches with more cameras and replay crew present, but as one poster already said, more officiating effort should take place in the more important matches.

 

I'm with you...in my mind, I think there are only two possible uses of replay in soccer that would not interfere with the flow of the game. Both instances would benefit by the use of a replay official who could immediately review the play rather than having the CR come off of the pitch.

1) When the ball hits the back of the net - the play could be reviewed to determine whether or not the goal should/should not be allowed.

2) In cases of injury...if a player is down on the pitch and the referee stops play/the ball is played out of bounds, a replay official could review the challenge. Players could get carded for a challenge that was not booked or for embellishment of a foul when there was no contact.

As for this use of technology, I don't see how this could be used except for major tournaments and World Cup Qualifying where adequate TV coverage exists. As the OP suggested, it would not be available for use on most levels of soccer.

In searching for alternatives to technology, I just can't come up with a scenario where having multiple ARs on the sidelines wouldn't cause problems...possibly moreso than those which already exist. I don't envision any upcoming changes being made that might trickle down past professional levels of play.

 

I posted before reading your post...some of what I said is similar to what you said. I also agree that I wish FIFA would step up on correcting cards...although that might not be popular amongst referees.

 

No. There is no "replay official." The fourth official on the field alerted Elizondo to the violent conduct. Whether or not the 4O saw it in the replay on the big screen is a different matter entirely since referees are not allowed to use replay technology in making decisions.

In the end, there should only be one person making the final decision: the referee. He/She can/should solicit input from other members of the referee team, but ultimately the call rests with them.