Tuesday night, I took in the US Open Cup semi-final match between the Fire and the Galaxy at Cardinal stadium in Naperville. I was sitting down low, right at 18 yard line, on the side opposite the linesman. In the second half, with the Fire clinging to a 3-2 lead, Razov had the ball just outside the 18. Players were pretty much bunched up at or around the 18. Ante finds some daylight, and lets off a wicked rope of a shot, which Hartman desperately parries. Then, in what seemed an instant, as though he materialized out of a Star Trek transporter, DaMarcus Beasley seems to pop up out of nowhere, alone in front the line of players, six yards from ANY other player on the field, and one times the Hartman parry, which had fallen near the penalty spot, and lasers it into goal. The linesman, if I recall, did not raise his flag. The LA players have their arms up high. The Fire is celebrating, The fans are screaming (what few there were there). The ref goes over to his linesman; the talk for what seems nearly a minute, nullifies the goal. I was in a perfect position to judge whether he was offside. I was lined up perfectly. Yet the action happened so fast, and DMB was just so fast, it was impossible to determine exactly what happened. In my view, this is a perfect situation where instant replay can be very useful. I know, I know, the traditionalists will balk. But think about it. --it's to determine whether a goal is scored or not, and thus does not interrupt the run of play. --it was at a critical point in the game. A one-time per team use at the discretion of the ref seems not too excessive, no? --it was obvioius that the officials really weren't sure exactly what happened. --the discussion lasted a while -- a quick walkie talkie conversation to an official in the replay booth on the other hand, might have resolved it quickly. --replay inconclusive? Make your call, and keep on playing. Beleive me, I am not advocating an NFL style replay song-and-dance. Just a quick, one-time only reliance on a better pespective when it could REALLY count.
I actually think this might be the best argument for IR in soccer. How about a little spin on it. The 4th official has a computer/tv screen on the sidelines, on which he can immediatly review a crucial play and rule on it. I would say that this could only be used on a game changing play (i.e. a goal, save, maybe PK situation). However, the logistics and technical network involved would be quite significant. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of technology used in the next 10-15 years. The purist in my thinks it is a bad idea, but part of me thinks that after the 'Hand of God' save last summer that something like this might be a goood thing. Pretty sure they did, and it showed DMB onside by a foot or two.
Re: Re: Instant Replay--A situation where maybe, just maybe, it can work They sure did! Beasley was clearly onside.
They sure as hell did. DMB was on. Should have been a goal. I like the idea - but I am afraid of any NFL like delays.
I would not be carte blanche opposed to limited use of instant replay in certain, crucial situations such as this one. Doesn't the NHL use replay in limited situations to review goals? I think a similar situation could work with soccer. The trouble would be with drawing the line on what is reviewable and what isn't. I'd hate to see the run and flow of play stopped specifically to review calls. For instance, say a defender heads a ball off the goal line, which could result in a counter-attack. I'd hate to see play stopped so an official could review whether the ball crossed the line. The "flow" of soccer makes it different than the NFL or NHL -- it's an integral part of the game. I'd hate for it to be frustrated by instant replay reviews. In the Beasley situation, the play was already stopped, so a stronger case could be made that review is appropriate. But if you routinly reviewed in such situations, you'd create a different set of problems. Say a player runs onto a through ball, and it's questionable whether he's offsides. The linesman raises the flag, whistle blows, the keeper stops playing, and the attacker chips the ball into the net. This could happen in a second or two (it happens all the time). The play is reviewed and the attacker is found to be onside. Should the goal count? The keeper stopped at the whistle. It seems unfair on some level, either way you cut it.
Yeah, DMB was onside. Chicago still won the game. Who cares? Players make mistakes Coaches make mistakes Refs make mistakes. It's part of the game.
Re: Re: Instant Replay--A situation where maybe, just maybe, it can work if instant replay is ever utilized, i think this idea is a very good one-->other than posting amount of stoppage time and substitutions, does the 4th official have any other duties?? didn't fifa plan on experimenting with 2 field referees?
They should be able to determine if the ball goes out of bound or crosses the plane electronically, especially in the goal line. Technology should replace referee's duty as much as possible in the future.
This is exactly how I feel, people are going to make mistakes we aren't perfect, no human is. This is also a very good point, I'm waiting for the time when there are sensors or something in the touch lines and goal lines to help tell if a ball goes out, or into the goal. I just feel like instant replay will bring down the flow of the game. That's why I love soccer so much, there are no stoppages of play except halftime. It's not like football or baseball, it's constant action going on, constant movement.