So what do you think of FIFA's experiment with goal-line officials? Additional ARs will be placed behind the goal lines for 2003 international competitions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27602-2002Oct1.html). It will be interesting to see what the duties will be. Clearly one will be to judge whether the ball has passed over the goal line. But what of other duties? Assisting in sorting out the melee that goes on in front of the goal on corners? What else? And what equipment? Flags? A high chair (a la tennis) or high platform (a la volley ball) located at the corner opposite that half's AR/linesman with a view of the whole goal line? Interesting.
My understanding was that this role was to look for incidents in and around the penalty-area not seen by the referee or his assistants, most likely at corner-kicks and free-kicks near goal. I DO NOT think that it has anything to do with judging whether the ball is over the goal-line or not - remember this person is to be seated directly BEHIND and above the goal, in no position to judge goal-line issues. I also believe that it is ONLY for things not seen by the game officials. So, in the situation referred to in the US-Germany game, they would play no role. It was clearly seen by the referee, who decided there was no call to make - as said here numerous times, a decision that FIFA (and USSF) wholly endorsed.
I saw this in the paper today too and wondered what exactly the person by the goal is supposed to do. Does FIFA have any explanation of this available anywhere?
Re: Re: FIFA's new goal-line official--your opinion? Additional ARs....let's not go down that road again. As has been said time and time again, the 2 CR experiment is dead. If I remember correctly, we had our own discussion of a 1CR/4AR/1Reserve system a few months ago, and most agreed that it had a better chance of working than the 2 CR system. Well, looks like FIFA's giving it a go (UEFA had already said they were going to try it), so let's see how this experiment works. If the results are better than the last one, maybe there's merit.
I'd prefer an automatic light if the ball fully goes over the line. Might be possible with a chip inside the ball. If you have an additional ref behind the goal I don't know whether he really has a top view in questions whether the ball really was entirely over the line. Especially if he's having another task - as watching the incidents in the box - he won't be able to have a permanent check of the goal line. Even if you call it dead, but two head referees (one for each half of the pitch) is still my favourite solution next to more technical help.
Two things. First, as was pointed out, this additional AR is supposed to monitor activity within the penalty area--not whether the ball crossed the line. That job still falls to the traditional AR. Secondly, the idea of an automatic light doesn't fly now because FIFA has said that it doesn't want technology at certain levels of the game (in other words, it doesn't want specific changes only for the pro/int'l game). That, unfortunately, is one of the reasons why the AR/red light mechanism being tried in England and Norway may not be sanctioned.
Sorry, didn't read your previous post. This additional AR is superfluous IMO. The box is no special area the ref can't have under control. He rather should be helped in easier situations in order to enable him to focus on the main tasks of controlling the game. The automatic light would be a great idea as it doesn't even require another person to control it. Heck, NHL introduced the goal light in 1943 - and sixty years later something that's extremely successful in hockey is still too modern for soccer. Good that idiots control the game...
As we said before, this extra official is NOT for deciding if a ball has crossed the line. But, I'm interested in the response from olafgb. Why are you so bothered that we dont use the same technology as used in Hockey? First of all (and I am no techie), I would think its far more difficult to do that in soccer. remember the WHOLE ball has to cross over the WHOLE line. How - technically - does the "automatic light" know when that has happened? We also are MUCH more likely to have "bodies" on the line that may be obstacles (I dont know how it works). And besides - in 40+ years of watching soccer, I think I can honestly say that I can recall only a handful of incidents where there has been a controversy regarding a ball over the goaline or not, whereas it happens frequently in Hockey. so where is the justification for doing this in the first place?
Well, but as noted above, they want a system that applies to all levels of play. You're not going to see goal lights popping up any time soon. And anyway, how many "goals" over the course a year are missed? It seems like in situations where there's a close play the AR is usually in the right spot to make the decision. That's why I'm still wondering exactly what their reasoning is for this. What is this extra official supposed to be looking for? And if he sees something happen in the penalty area, what is he going to do? What are the mechanics? Does he have a whistle? A flag? A megaphone? Are we going to have the extra officials standing around to call PKs? What problem is FIFA trying to solve?
I still question exactly what the responsibilities of these additional AR's will be. In the Washington Post article, it states "FIFA will start a pilot program next year to place extra assistant referees behind the goal line." There's nothing posted on FIFA's site yet for an Oct 2nd press release. Soccernet.com had more details here http://www.soccernet.com/global/news/2002/1002/20021002fifatv.html but that article is more about the fact that FIFA is refusing to embrace television replay. There is one paragraph stating "But FIFA decided this week to experiment with extra officials behind the goals in a bid to solve soccer's problems." In each of these statements how literally should we interpret the word BEHIND? How do these releases, with practically NO details, compare to the one released last week by UEFA http://www.soccernet.com/europe/news/2002/0925/20020925uefarefs.html. This one is more a release stating that the coaches want this rather than FIFA or UEFA stating they're going to do it. However, this one does give more details about the "proposal" and some of the quoted info below comes from Andy Roxburgh, UEFA's technical director. This is very different from some of the interpretations or suggestions about the goalline referee being BEHIND the goal.
Glenn, ur reply got me wondering (as an aspirint int'l, i worry about these kinds of things) what badge will he wear? (some know that i'm for the creation of another badge, what qualifies someone to truly be a 4th; they continue getting experience in both positions in their home pro league, but what's this guy going to have on?)
Anyone know how the system they're trying currently works? It seems like a tough proposition to me unless there are chips all around the ball and/or some type of "sleeve" around the ball's bladder that's being detected. Since the entirety of the ball has to cross the line, and it's unlikely that a chip planted on the side will be on the side that enters first, it seems like a fairly high degree of uncertainty. Not to mention the possibilities for malfunction on either the ball or frame. Certainly not much better than the field ref making the call. Anyway, I'm just curious if there are references to what's being tried in England/Norway. -- jeff
Kev, I think I might clear up some of your doubts - though probably give you some as well, as I certainly have! I think this was first reported by the BBC during the World Cup: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldcup2002/hi/sports_talk/newsid_2064000/2064845.stm A further clarification was reported by them today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/2292041.stm As you will see, both articles clearly state that the additional AR will be BEHIND the goal. The idea being to allow the "real" ARs to concentrate on offside only. I really dont like the sound of this, but I guess Herr Blatter wants to make his mark on the game. In any event, I think this clears up any doubt about where these guys are going to be positioned.
I don't think we should use the hockey technology, but take over some ideas. In hockey they just have someone sitting behind the goal pressing a button when he sees the puck inside. And in a game with no net playing time as soccer you also can't use the video proof. Of course the whole ball has to cross over the whole line, not different in any other sports. I got no clue about technics either, but there should be a possibility to integrate a chip inside the ball that's linked with signals inside the posts and calculates whether it's fully over the line. Some possibilities are tried, but I don't know about the current development. I know that FIFA tries to create rules that are valid independent of league, age, sex, etc. - but in fact we have differences already today and there's a difference between amateur and pro sports. As pro soccer is a multimilllion dollar business, the officiating mistakes should be minimized. Hockey is much quicker and more difficult to officiate. Without technical help it would hardly be possible to control the games on high level. But you really hardly know any incidents with a controversy? Wembley goal or the Helmer phantom goal surely belong to the most famous ones, but I think we have at least a handful of critical incidents each season. Just this weekend in a German D2 game an assistant counted a goal where the defender clearly rescued inches before the ball crossed over the line - anyone in the stadium saw it, anyone on TV saw it, just referee and assistant didn't. With technical help the goal wouldn't have counted - and in this game it was the deciding 3-1 short before the end.
Olaf, Of course it happens, and obviously Geoff Hurst 1966 is the one that springs to mind. But, in the grand scheme of things, the number of times it happens definetly does not justify the expense that would be incurred. In any event, getting back on track, that is NOT what the purpose of these extra officials is, as detailed above.
My initial reaction is that I don't like this too much. This doesn't relieve the AR of the tasks that are toughest to keep track of while taking care of offside. One of the prime times when an AR can most easily lose track of the offside "situation" is when the ball is coming right up the touch line right at him. He had to constantly keep looking back and forth between 90 degress of view. A goalline official isn't going to help him call the ball out of touch to allow him to concentrate on offside. Another is when there's tight play between two players just up the field from the AR on his side of the field but the CR is away from play -- assume the ball has just been cleared from the far corner of the field to the near side up toward the half line. So the CR is say 40 yards away for a few moments. The AR is 10 yards away -- further away from the half line than the two battling for the ball. The AR has to watch that play for fouls and keep an eye on the offside situation and these two may also be nearly 90 degrees of view apart. Again, the goalline official is not going to help with that situation. I still think the arrangement that we discussed a couple months ago here provides better coverage -- with the extra two officials being placed opposite the current ARs. One set of AR's is responsible ONLY for offside and the other set is responsible for calling the ball in and out of touch and assisting the CR on fouls, etc. This seems to be more what the UEFA coaches would like to see as well.
The AR / red light mechanism doesn't cover balls across the goal line or anything like that and doesn't involve any chips in the ball or anything. Mass was referring to a different solution that will help ALIGN the AR correctly with the second last defender so that he/she may make the correct call more often. It is a visual aid solely for the use of the AR to help them determine the line that is EXACTLY perpendicular to them going across the field.
I don't think the expenses would be too big. If you only install it in pro soccer the costs would be kept in relatively small limits. Of course it's not the most important thing, but why shouldn't you improve minor things if possible? It's the sum of tasks that makes officiating difficult.
Ref retirement... Maybe it's a retirement plan for us refs whose wheels are starting to give out. Just plunk us down at a stationary spot on the line and hope our eyes still work
I really hope they do this. I'm selfish, I hope they allow MLS to this all season next year, as a pilot. Heaven knows USSF refs need the help.
Well, the two additional ARs would be USSF refs as well. In fact, they'd be USSF refs who, right now, USSF doesn't feel is ready for the MLS pool. So, even though we don't know exactly what their duties would be, I'm not sure how, in the eyes of people who think MLS refs suck, this would be an improvement. Remember, the USSF was picked for the 2-Referee experiment, and it was a disaster, as the two teams in the USOC Final implored USSF to abandon the experiment and go back to 1 Ref. As a side note, pilots and experiments like this almost never happen in a domestic first division. They are usually carried out in second divisions or in cup play.