Instant Replay , We have the Technology so why not ?

Mike Pereira: "NFL referees can defy laws of time"
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...td-more-than-minute-uphold-matt-spaeth-112512

 

I think non-USA folks (and maybe some from the US too) need to understand that even in sports with instant replay, it is ONLY used for calls that are binary: yes/no, in/out, off/on.
@GreatGonzo alluded to that.

In soccer, there are very few of these kinds of calls: ball in or out, offside position (although involvement is still a judgement call). The rest are pretty much all judgement calls, and wouldn't be reviewable even in other sports either.

 

You think this is about what the average observer. I am pretty sure not every average observer even knows the offside rule. This is about CR making sure they haven't been duped.
The CR is already being helped by the AR. Here is the reality this is how is going to be:

No our plan is saying football players want this and others like you saying I am no doctor but you should listen to me not the guy that is one
I think your plan is better. VIDEO REPLAY IS GOING TO DETROY FOOTBALL. How it will work? Is it magic? Magnets?.

Don't let that thing into your house.

And I don't get this gotcha scenarios that are frankly pointless. Those scenarios already happen. In those scenarios CR have been changing their mind due to the AR. CR makes a decision the players protest he goes to the AR and reverses that decision. Or this never happened in football, it's just my imagination?
CR changes his mind due to the AR saying so.... normal. CR changing his mind due to a AR that is watching the monitors.... HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK!
I think it was magnets

 

I didn't say average. I said neutral. If you'd like, add "knowledgeable" that. I included "neutral" mainly to exclude the possibility that we could ever make the supporters of both sides very happy in most cases.

What on earth are you talking about? What do you mean by magnets and dogs?

You do realize that I am trying to have a rational discussion with you here? I am inviting you to convince me how and where video review could be used on judgement calls. And you come back with magnets and dogs.

It seems you want a video referee to be available to have discussions with the referee.

What gotcha scenarios are you talking about? I asked you to give examples of how it would work. Simple as that.

Here's an example for you.

"Nishimura thought he saw Fred being fouled by the Croatia player, so he called a penalty. Then he was in doubt about his decision, so he consulted with the video referee. The video referee spent 30 seconds looking at some replays and told the referee that he didn't think it was a penalty and it looked like Fred simulated, so Fred is cautioned and Croatia get an indirect free kick."

Was that so hard?

From that description we can then discuss the pros and cons of the procedure, such as:

1. Where is the video referee located?
2. How much time does he have to look at video to decide?
3. How can the technology be enabled to help him. Remember - the current technology involves a team of technical producers who quickly look at some of the replays available to them and then they pick the one that at first glance looks the most entertaining or revealing to the audience, and it get's aired. They might look for other angles too. But it might not be the view that is most helpful for the referee. This is an important question. The first replays we see on TV do not always definitively confirm or refute what the referee might have seen. Will there have to be a technical team independent of the television coverage who are impartial and trained to find the most helpful review for the referee?
4. What is the standard used to make decisions? Does the video referee simply re-referee the play? Or does he look for clear evidence that the referee was factually incorrect?
5. Can the video referee initiate the discussion? What if the referee sees no reason to consult the video referee?
6. Can the video referee actually signal the referee to stop play? Suppose there really was a foul but Nishimura thought otherwise so play continued. What now?

These are all serious questions that have to be addressed. There may be others too.

By "serious" I mean stop with the magnets and the dogs and actually engage in a real discussion.

 

The "gotcha" scenarios aren't pointless because they need to have an answer. If you can't answer how certain scenarios should be handled, you don't have a proper framework for this system. Again, let's go back to my example (new sentences underlined):

Team A attacking, Team B defending. Team A plays in a through ball to a player in a close offside position, AR doesn't flag it because he knows he has review to help him, and Video AR has to wait to make a determination. Team A player then loses the ball to a Team B defender. Video AR determines it was offside, but since Team B now has the ball, he doesn't buzz the CR to keep the flow of the game going. Team B knocks the ball around a bit, turns it over to Team A, who then scores a legit goal. Ball never goes out of play during this sequence, and just for sake of argument, let's say 90 seconds pass between the uncalled offside and the goal. Team B wants the play reviewed and goal disallowed because Team A was originally offside, and had that been called correctly, Team B would have been able to relieve the pressure and not given up the goal. Team A says that the offside was so long ago, and Team B had possession of the ball and lost it, so it didn't have an impact on the goal. How do you deal with this situation?

You're focused on how to deal with some of the obvious, immediate issues - violent conduct that's missed, or red cards, or PKs given, or offside not given that results in a goal - and yes, it would be nice to deal with those. But as I noted in my first post, soccer is mostly continuous. You have to consider how far back in time you're willing to review. To the last stoppage in play? That could be several minutes. If you say that the last stoppage of play is the limit, you could turn over a goal due to a missed foul that happened minutes earlier. Is that fair to the players? If you limit it to 30 seconds, you risk the possibility of something happening at 31 or 32 seconds that had a significant impact that you can't do anything about. Is that fair to the players? You have to consider what you're willing to overturn play for - all fouls? missed yellow / red card worthy fouls? just missed red cards? missed offside that didn't have an immediate impact, but kept play in that part of the field?

I'm not opposed to using video technology to assist referees. I just don't know what the rules for it should be. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered, and @lemma has some excellent questions that are just scratching the surface.

 

So you are a fan over only reviewing offside decisions when the goal is scored? What about when offside is called? As we review regularly on there, calls and non-calls are debated, which makes it tricky. I think as a matter of fairness you would need to find a way to monitor both situations. Not easy.

Facts? So offside decisions are never debated?

I think we're still stuck at the point where it's only fact when the evidence is clear and the camera angle is perfect.

 

No, in that kind of situation, it's fine. But what about those middle of the road situations, where maybe the referee has doubt but it's not clear on video? I also thing this fundamentally changes the dynamics of authority. As of right now, there is one person who -- although taking input from team members -- has the final say on situations. When you introduce a video official, you now have a second party who has the authority to decide if the referee was right/wrong and change the original decision. Can't underestimate how that changes things.

 

Jesus christ. Whats so wrong about instant replay on the biggest decisions like red cards or penalties? Thats what I want...along with goal-line refs to watch for fouls and other things like we see in the Champions League. I just wanna see the right team win and not get screwed because of "human error".

It can simply go like this;

If the head referee does not feel absolutely 100% certain of his ruling in a red card or penalty...he should raise his hand to indicate that the fourth referee will look at a nearby monitor and make a decision in under 60 seconds. This really should add no more than 1 minute to stoppage time. There shouldnt be any long wait to get the footage either.

There should always be a monitor with the live television feed on it. And as soon as the head refs hand goes up, the 4th ref should be walking towards that monitor. And he should take no longer than 30 seconds to make a decision. If hes unsure, the call on the field stands. A replay should only affect the call on the field if the evidence is CERTAIN the call should be altered. And I say 30 seconds because honestly...people watching tv know from watching a couple replays if the right call was made or not...so it shouldnt take all day if the 4th official has a monitor nearby at all times.

Itll happen one day people. Folks were certain baseball would never get instant replay...and now we have it. And managers even have challenges now too. I can see that happening in soccer one day...but only on the biggest game changing calls like red cards and penalties.

Offsides calls and common fouls dont require replay. This is because one cannot assume the end result of an offside play will always be a goal or not. The same way one cannot always assume to know the outcome after a common foul. Redcards are different because they are generally fouls the referee deems the most serious and play is completely stopped. There is nothing to be assumed about continued play following a red card foul.

Same with a penalty. Penalties are usually called after the referee feels a clear goal scoring opportunity was clearly stopped with a foul that kills the play off. Theres no assumption to be made of what follows the play. Red card plays and penalties are just of bigger weight than other whistled plays in soccer.

Lastly, world football needs to follow the MLS and start coming down on divers. Simulation shouldnt be tolerated. There needs to be review after games, with fines and bans given. The game NEEDS TO BE FAIR AND JUST. Part of the reason I love MLS so much is because they are trying to stamp out simulation...especially because Americans wont take soccer seriously if its filled with too much flopping.

Nevermind the fact that simulation ruins the integrity of the game. One thing I am really proud of is how MLS handles all that...and also how you rarely, if ever, see an American footballer dive on the international stage, male or female. I just never see it. I cant imagine how much rolling on the ground an Italian or Brazilian would have done if they got kicked in the nose the way Dempsey did last week against Ghana.

Its a shame MLS isnt more high profile on the world stage of soccer though. Because if MLS were the EPL...the example theyve set with video reviewing dives after games, would help make other leagues consider doing the same. Im certain MLS will be the first league to implement instant replay for red cards and penalties.

Something needs to be done though. Sometimes I just hate soccer, despite my love for the game, because Im left thinking that the better team lost because of a crappy call. And it happens the MOST in soccer than in any other sport. And this is because goals mean so much in soccer that one bad call can ruin a game. In "low" scoring games like hockey, soccer, and baseball, I feel instant replay is an absolute must. If baseball could get with the modern times, so can soccer.

There was a time not too long ago in the past when red and yellow cards were brought into soccer and helped fan understanding of the game, and also made the referees job easier in handling the game. I dont see why replay cannot do the same thing.

If replay cant be implemented, then I believe in "no blood, no foul" on penalties and red cards. Basically, if the foul is not SUPER OBVIOUS, dont call it. I watch a lot of world soccer, and I have to say that Japanese and Americans are among the best when it comes to properly calling penalties and red cards. This is not to say that refs in the J-League and MLS dont make mistakes, but I dont see as many soft penalties, soft reds, and simulation in this leagues as much as you see in leagues like Spain, Italy and to a lesser extent England.

Anyways, Im done rambling.

 

PS - For as much deliberate time wasting and injury faking we see in soccer...people shouldnt whine about instant replay adding a minute or two to stoppage time. If it means getting the call right, and making sure the true best team wins, then deal with possible extra stoppage time.

 

True...non-binary calls are generally not reviewable.

I think people should look at hockey for example of a good replay system. There is NO replay on offsides. You simply have to respect the refs call...even if you were about to break into the offensive zone with a 3 on 1. Goals cant be assumed...so you deal with the refs judgement.

Review pretty much only comes with unsure goals. And theres no need for replay on penalty shots, because in hockey penalty shots are very very obvious. You really dont see soft penalty shots given in hockey the way you seem them in soccer. Soccer has all these ticky tack penalties and soft calls because of all the extra simulation and also because the sport is less of a contact sport overall when compared to hockey.

Which is kinda why I say, if theres no replay system, dont call the penalty unless its absolutely egregious. I really feel like offensive players get WAY too much favoritism from refs in soccer. You'd think many referees in soccer are novices who havent studied tape the way they get fooled so much by crappy dives.

 

Thank you for putting together these concrete ideas for how review might actually work.

There are two general aspects of your ideas that are the most problematic. One simply could not work at all, while the other would cause major issues that would have to be address somehow.

Your scheme seems to work something like this:

1. video review can be initiated only by the referee for a limited class of "major decisions" (you said red cards and penalties as examples and specifically excluded offside)
2. the referee would signal for the fourth official to review the video
3. the fourth official would look at the live television feed
4. the fourth official would do this from within or near the technical area
5. the fourth official has a time limit (you suggested 30 seconds)
6. the fourth official tells the referee if there is clear evidence the referee is wrong as a matter of fact

Let's first look at the part of your scheme that is the second-most problematic - and that is the combination of items 2. and 4.

The fourth official is actually quite busy as it is right now. And the busiest time for him is exactly during periods of controversy. Should the ability to review video also be placed upon him, this will result in sheer pandemonium at the benches and in the technical area. That is the current culture of the game. I can't immediately think of a solution for this. It isn't something that can just be wished away. You would have to enact such severe repercussions for bad behaviour in the technical area that it would be a transformation of the culture. You'd have to go as far as an immediate dismissal from the game AND and a removal of the ability to review the video for that play in the even of any sort of shenanigans from anyone on the bench, enforced 100% of the time. But I suppose it might be possible to make this part work. The other obvious fix would be to give the video job to some 5th person the benches cannot bother.

The completely unworkable part of your solution is actually item 3. Currently the television feed just happens to be what the producers and directors present in order to be the most entertaining. There is no requirement on any of them to be fair, impartial, or prompt. As soon as their actions could have an effect on official decision-making, then it all changes. There is no way the television crews can be trusted to provide prompt information of value to the game officials. Video review technology must give control over what is seen to the officials themselves, or to some other accountable and neutral person.

Item 6 I find interesting. I think the number of occasions in which there is clear evidence that the referee is factually incorrect is quite limited. I do not believe that this standard would have been met for any of the disputed penalty or red card decisions so far. It could have been met for the disputed offside decisions (against Bosnia and the ones off corners that went off defender's and not attacker's heads to the goal-scorers) but you want to exclude offside decisions. But, the details of what can and cannot review is an open question so I won't quibble.

 

If the 4th referee cant do it, then let a 5th referee or booth officials send signals down to the refs watch, like they do with goal line technology. Its a lot simpler than people are making it. The MLB fans and pundits had the same concerns, especially since arguing calls is a part of the culture. And people would ask "well where does questioning the umpire end now that we have replay". Simple solution, you cant argue all game...you get your challenge, and if you fail, thats it for video review the rest of the game.

And honestly who gives a damn about pandemonium on the sidelines? Thats another problem with world soccer....the outright disrespect shown to refs. You could NEVER get in the refs face or dare bump a referee in the NBA or NFL. Youd get penalized, giving away points and yards to the other teammate, and likely ejected and suspended on top of that.

Rugby is a LOT more physical than soccer, with big hulking men, and those refs dont allow it. Especially Nigel Owens.


^THAT is how soccer officials should handle a match. People are lucky I dont ref big games, because I would card anyone who dissented or got in my face. If you bump a referee it should be a red card too. Its not allowed in other sports, it shouldnt happen in world soccer.

PS - Yes there were a few occasions of definite wrong calls in this world cup. Ill highlight the most obvious...The Fred dive in the first game would have been a fine and suspension in the MLS. In the game it should have been a yellow for Fred and Croatia get the ball.

This.

 

I don't think that your #3 has to be unworkable, at least in some futbol competitions. For an example from a different sport, look at the NFL. I don't know exactly how it is accomplished, but the network that is broadcasting the game works with the replay official to make several camera angles available during the review. I assume that this is part of the their contract with the league. The networks are supposed to be impartial, and the home team has no control over what is shown to the official (or to the television audience either). If the competition is important enough that there are many cameras in use, a competent technical crew could feed the relevant shots to the appropriate party in a reasonably short period of time. While the regular stops in action make replay work more easily in the NFL, I think it is unreasonable to claim that it is completely unworkable in all cases for soccer. Whether it can be done fast enough to not seriously disrupt the game is a matter for reasonable debate, depending upon what types of plays are considered reviewable and how efficient the process can be made.

 

@jaycrewz -- I find it amusing that you disparage the human errors that destroy this beautiful game and yet want to put everything in the hands of.... another human. I am by no means a broadcasting genius, but I would also guess that it takes at least a small amount of time to gather all the angles, so this isn't a simple 60-second process.

But that's okay, you are pursuing a noble goal so maybe in ten years you can come back and say you told us so!

Yes, yes they are.

Sorry -- couldn't resist.

 

Most of the anti video replay comments have two problems with them.

1. They seem to contend that the resultant review and restart are problematic. That is nonsense its no more problematic than all the other judgement calls that are made the entire game. You just define the guidance and be done with it. And it that guidance needs changing then big deal change it.
2. Yes there will still be plenty of controversy even with replays. Happens all the time in the other major sports. But guess what. They ALL get more calls correct than before and there is no disagreement about that.
3. If you want to limit the reviews then its pretty simple to minimize this. Do like baseball and give each manager one flag. Throws it out whenever he feels there has been a mistake (pre define what can or can't be challenged such as offsides, fouls in box, fouls leading to cards). If he the manager is correct he gets one more challenge. If wrong he has no more for the game.

The simple fact is as refs don't we want to get the calls right? Just like in any sport. If the video evidence is clear you change the call. If not then the leave the original judgment the way it was.

 

So if 35 minutes are wasted without the ball in play, do you really think that implementing instant replay will not increase that number? Can the ref get the replay procedures done without increasing the time that the ball is out of play? Or are we willing to further chop from the amount of time that the ball is in play?

 

So you're a ref then?

 

If they can take 3 minute water breaks, we can have instant replay. Just add to stoppage time and move on.

The thing with instant replay is that it allows for FAR LESS human error. And the call on the field stands if refs cant find conclusive evidence to alter a call. I do feel it will happen soon, but only after a few domestic leagues try it, will FIFA follow. I still believe MLS will be the first...because Americans like getting the right calls, removing chances of human error, and we want to eliminate diving.

Baseball was VERY against it...for the longest time. And people thought soccer would get replay way before baseball did....because replay was thought to undermine umpires who make so many more judgement calls than a soccer ref. But the MLB fans and teams got sick of the wrong calls, so the league compromised with us and we have the solution that exists today.

Hopefully FIFA gets there one day. And considering Blatter has mentioned managerial challenges not too long ago...I can see this becoming a reality. Being able to challenge a call in soccer would be revolutionary. Especially because of how big one call can be in this sport.

 

They're taking the water break due to health concerns, and they aren't a permanent thing - only happening twice in this World Cup so far due to the heat. Instant replay would be implemented in every club / international game. Not exactly comparing apples to apples.

Baseball might have been against it for a long time due to tradition, but it's still an easier implementation than in soccer due to the fact that it's a series of discrete plays instead of continuous play.

And still no one advocating for replay has addressed the scenario I proposed.

 

Is there some philosophical reason you are opposed to video review?
Or, do you just feel it will be difficult to implement?

 

@jaycrewz -- I still think you ignore the impact it would have on dynamic play. Everything is fine and dandy when there is a stoppage. I still see no way to continue play for 60 seconds (what happens when we "undo" this time because replay decides its a PK) or just randomly stop play for the refs to review. It would make things interesting as you might actually see some dropped balls at the high levels of play...

All that aside, I can appreciate your zeal for reducing errors. I still think the human error -- let's remember players, managers, make them too -- is what makes a sport sporting. It's what makes us scream, yell, cry and everything else. Kind of how I feel about the post doping days of cycling (even though I was too young to really appreciate them).

Too bad we can just test this out and settle it once and for all! (I'm sure that day will come...)

 

If you actually read my previous posts, you'd know the answer to your question.

 

I do think it should have. Might give refs a more clear view on some plays.

To my concern diving is the thing that should be punished much more