http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/01/jose-mourinho-holland-arjen-robben-penalties-chelsea Jose Mourinho said referees should have the use of video technology after Holland's controversial World Cup win over Mexico. “I think it’s important for the players to help the referees and to help the referees is to be honest on the pitch and to help the referee is to be pure and try to win the right way. But the reality is that not every player behaves that way and referees have a difficult job. If you have technology you can have a chance to have a fourth official watching on the video or screen situation. “So I think the referee should also be happy to have the chance in case of doubt, the chance to clear every doubt and the chance to make the right decision because when one country feels that one bad decision influences its future in the competition I think it’s hard and I think it’s important for coaches, for players but also referees. I think technology is something the referees would welcome.”
I doubt MLS will go first: - FIFA has to approve it BEFORE any league uses it - If FIFA approves it, it will trial in a more visible league
I believe MLS was one of the first leagues to use the vanishing spray. So there is at least a little precedence for MLS testing FIFA directives.
There's a huge difference between the two. the LOTG would have to be changed before video replay can be used. As of now the referee team is prevented from receiving input from video, that would have to change. There's nothing in the LOTG that prevent the vanishing spray. It had also been used for several years I believe in Mexico and South America.
MLS would be a great league for testing video review because North Americans are accustomed to it in all its major sports. But people are dreaming if they think video review will be used to re-referee judgment calls in near real time. Look at it this way: reviewing judgment calls would put soccer orders of magnitude beyond what any other sport does. That's not an argument in and of itself, but just to give an idea of how extreme the 'simple' ideas being tossed around by Mourinho and some on this thread. None of the questions I have posed in this thread have been seriously addressed. Video review in any way it would actually be implemented in the real world would have had little impact on these finals. No penalty would have been reversed. Suarez would not have been sent off (at least not without Chiellini going with him).
My two cents is that while instant replay could be very useful on offside decisions, I would not want to see it used on PK's. Consider, for example, that even after seeing the replay in super slo-mo umpteen times, people on these boards could not agree whether or not Marquez' contact with Robben was severe enough to warrant a PK. Why? Because at it's heart, the decision to award/not award a PK is a judgement call, and no amount of technology is going to change that. It might give a referee more information about whether or not there was contact between the attacker and the defender, but it wouldn't change the fact that determining whether that contact constituted a foul is still a judgment call. The other issue in my head is referee safety, which is already a big issue in many parts of the world. Can you imagine what would happen in many parts of the world if replay was used to make a call against the home team (either overturning an awarded PK or awarding a missed PK). You'd have riots... People just need to accept that human error is a part of the game, for both referees AND players....
Lemma, Your answers are in this thread if you take the time to read and understand everyone's answers. Also, the Fred dive in the very first game would certainly not be given a penalty shot if replay was used. And a couple red cards (like the Marchisio card) have a great chance of being yellow if video reviewed. So lets not pretend the refs got every single call right. Also, its possible Robben gets a penalty shot for being fouled twice on that play where Hector Moreno broke his leg. Why do I say this? Because in an environment with video review, a referee may call that penalty in order to review it. Without video review, some referees let plays like that go, because they dont wanna get the call wrong...especially with regards to players like Robben who have diving reputations. MFW13, Absolutely not, will video review ever be used on offsides. Offsides calls cant be reviewed because you cannot make an assumption of a goal likely being scored like you can with a Penalty situation. Because as soon as the whistle goes for offside, players alter their reaction, and the play is altered completely. Also for example, you cant blow for offside at 5 yards past the halfway line, and review that under the assumption that the attacking team may have scored. Offside calls are much like balls and strikes in baseball. Those are calls under which too many assumptions can be made of what would happen if a ball or strike was called. Same way too many assumptions would be made if an offside is called or not at a particular area of the field. The reason Outs, Homeruns, Red Cards, and Penalty kicks are fine candidates for instant replay, is because we can say with some certainty, what would be a likely outcome would be if a correct call is made. For example...in baseball, no one can assume with great certainty that a batter would get a hit or not if a particular pitch is called ball or strike. With outs and homeruns however, the players have already completed a play and made their reactions....its now just time to review and make sure the call was arrived at correctly. Similarly in soccer, offside calls result in stopping a play in its tracks and there's too many variables and assumptions to be made on the outcome of that play. With red cards and PKs though, some type of definitive action has occurred usually, be it a foul, or embellishment by the attacking team. There are much less assumptions to be made with red cards and PKs. They either are given or they arent. Red cards and PKs make an almost certain assumption that a large unsportsmanlike offense was committed, or that goal scoring opportunity was impeded illegally. Offsides is a completely different realm and the rule does not make those assumptions on its own. Which is exactly why you can make replay available for cards and penalties...and not for offside. Replay wont make the game perfect, but it will lessen terrible calls. As it stands now, its a shame that when people look forward to big soccer tournaments, they also expect bad tournament calls that change game outcomes. I dont get that feeling watching any other sport's large tournament. And when watching regular season games, I definitely feel I see the better team lose due to bad calls in soccer more than I see it in other sports. And thats in large part because theres so few referees for that many players (please use additional goal-line refs more) and also because of the games low scoring nature. The low scoring nature of the means 1 terrible call ruins a game. And why do I use the baseball comparison? Because that sport had the exact same arguments made against it using replay...and now many of its opponents seem to enjoy the system. Like I said before....if Jose Mourinho and Sepp Blatter have recently been talking about replay and challenges...its not as far away as some people think. I for one know that in soccer of all sports, 1 call can change an entire game. And in a World Cup, it can change an entire teams destiny if a couple bad calls are made. That Brazil Croatia game completely changed how Croatia approached their last two matches. And everyone in the sporting world could see how poor Nishimura was...from the Fred penalty, to the uncalled foul on the dispossession that led to Brazil's 3rd goal. Its obvious why hes only been a 4th official through the rest of the tournament...so people cant sit and pretend that game was not a huge blunder and huge blow to Croatia.
I think you've got it backwards. Offside (or at least offside position) IS something that is black-and-white and could be determined by replay or some other objective technology. But Red cards and penalties (and other fouls) are judgement calls. As mfw13 states, if we can't come to a consensus over whether something is or isn't a foul after watching 10 slo-mo angles, what makes you think a single video official's judgement is any better than that of the ref on the field? Plus, your argument about altering the flow of play due to a whistle applies just as much to fouls/penalties as it does to offside. There is simply no fair way in soccer to restart after a false negative. If the whistle blows and then it's discovered that it was a mistake, you can't reset the game back to its previous state. Makes no different whether it is because of offside or a foul.
You misunderstand what Im saying. Offside IS black and white, but the assumed outcome IS NOT black and white. A clear goal scoring opportunity can NOT be assumed with regards to many offside calls. A lot of things can happen in the play. Penalty shots are given because as the rules states, they ARE awarded because a clear goal scoring opportunity DOES exist and was illegally impeded. What usually happens is an offensive player is deemed to be illegally dispossessed of the ball. In this case, either the replay shows the ref is right and the PK stands, or hes wrong and the defense keeps the ball and gets a free kick. Because whenever a PK is called, its because the offense was wrongly robbed of a chance to And with red cards, a clear high degree infraction occurred in the referees mind. Replay shows the player is right to be sent off, or maybe deserves a yellow instead, or maybe no card at all. (when dealing with divers trying to get someone sent off) Then now the diver gets a yellow instead. Understand what I was getting at now? Offside calls leave a lot of room open for assumptions to be made about what the outcome of the play would have been. With offside, if the replay says there was no offside, then what? Offside would never work with instant replay because theres no way to properly award the attacking team if the call was originally incorrect. What would you award a team that was incorrectly called offside on a play that hadnt yet developed a goal scoring chance on a midfield break? A free kick? Thats all I can think of, and a free kick only hurts them because now the defense is completely back in the play. Penalty kicks are given because as the rules states, a clear goal scoring opportunity was illegal impeded...thus the only assumption that can be made is there was a chance for a goal. Such is not the case with offside calls are the rules only speaks of player positioning. With penalties, replay can determine if the attacking team deserves to be rewarded, or if the defense gets the ball back. Likewise with red cards, it can be determined if a player deserves a red or possibly a yellow. Reds and PKs can reach more likely outcomes with replay. Offsides cannot, because one cannot make any assumption about the resulting outcome of the play. The main problem with any review of offside is that as soon as the flag goes up and the whistle sounds, half the players alter their behavior. People need to understand that instant replay isnt perfect, and doesnt make officiating perfect. It helps make officiating better and minimize errors. But some errors will still exist. The NFL is basically the poster boy for a league with instant replay. They use it A TON, yet there are still controversies at times. But you would NEVER hear a fan say they dislike having instant replay. Anyways, hopefully you understand the points I laid out. When it comes to any sport, replay is simple. Does the rule/call have the likely outcome that I would have scored? Then it can use replay (basketball shooting fouls and tennis line challenges for example). Does the rule/call not have a likely assumption that I may have scored? If not, then it cant use instant replay. And with regard to fouls, those are reviewed in a few sports, because of their impact on the game. If the NBA can review flagrant fouls, theres no reason soccer cant review red cards which have a LOT MORE enormous impact on the game.
I don't think any of this is correct at all. In no other sport are judgment calls ever reviewed and reversed, and I don't see FIFA being trailblazers in this kind of change to the sport. On the Fred dive, there WAS contact. I don't think the penalty call was a huge travesty. I don't see how it would ever be reversed by replay. For the Marchisio red card, most of the refs in this forum defended that call. Replay would not reverse that call.
Er, yet again, no. A penalty kick is given because a foul, punishable by a direct free kick, was committed by a defender within the penalty area. Some PK's are "clear goal scoring opportunities" but many are not. You make some really broad generalizations here and your entire argument hinges on them. You really had some salient points earlier in this thread but this is starting to hit the edge of sanity. Okay -- goal scoring opportunities only? What about no calls? Can we review a potential PK that wasn't whistled on the pitch if the attackers put their hands up?
@jaycrewz, you're misunderstanding how replay for offside would work, at least in my mind. ARs would be instructed to not call offside unless they think it's clearly obvious (the offending player multiple yards behind the opponent) and allow play to continue. If the play is determined to be offside, then it would get called back. If the AR were to flag the play offside and it wasn't actually offside, then the penalized team would have no recourse. This is pretty much exactly the same thing that NFL referees are supposed to do with fumbles - let the play finish and have it be reviewed, unless they're sure that the player was already down before the ball came out. If the NFL referee calls the play dead and it turns out the referee was wrong? Too bad - play was called dead. The problem with this in soccer is that the play does not end almost immediately after the non-call as it does in the NFL. Again, no one has addressed my scenario, which is that offside is not called by the AR, the play that follows immediately after does not result in a goal for the offending team, the ball is knocked around a bit, always remaining in play, then the offending team scores. How do you deal with this? If you want to call it a goal for the offending team because the original offense no longer impacted the play, how do you make that (subjective) determination? The defense could easily argue that had offside been called properly, they would have been able to relieve pressure more easily and the goal would never had happened. If you want to call it back because there was no stoppage between the original offense and the goal, are you okay with calling back a goal due to something that happened 30 seconds ago? 60 seconds ago? 2 minutes ago? 5 minutes ago? (Admittedly, technology might make this call easier over the long term that would allow us to instantaneously know whether or not a player is offside (though considering the cost and effort it took to make that determination on a static line for goals, I'd imagine that doing the same on a shifting line for offside would be really challenging), but in the meantime, you'd probably fall back to video replay.) Really, my main concern with implementing replay is not the cases where the referee made a call and then review shows it was incorrect, though there are certainly issues with that as well. It really has to do with cases where offenses are missed and play continues. Who initiates the replay decision? If it's a 5th official who then buzzes the referee, does the referee immediately stop play or does he let play continue? What happens if another replay-worthy incident happens after the initial replay-worthy incident? What happens if a goal is scored by the team that committed a missed offense, but a significant amount of time passes between the goal and the offense? I know these were described as "gotcha" scenarios, but the whole point of "gotcha" scenarios is to figure out how the rules work. You can't just dismiss them as irrelevant. They will happen, and you will need to have some way to deal with them. The "You Are The Ref" series that The Guardian runs has tons of ridiculous scenarios, but they can actually be handled within the LOTG. You would need to do the same with replay. First, if a penalty kick is awarded and then the replay determines that it shouldn't have been, why would the defense get the ball? Wouldn't you go with a drop ball from the point where the foul was called? You're assuming that the PK was given because the offensive player dove. What if it's just a shoulder-to-shoulder challenge that the referee thought was shoulder-to-back? Second, you do realize that red / yellow cards are subjective decisions and that implementing replay will not make everyone happy with the decisions? You're also misunderstanding why there isn't review for balls / strikes. It has nothing to do with any sort of assumption of the play being any different if something was called a ball instead of a strike. It has to do with the fact that reviewing balls / strikes after the fact could make the game last forever. What baseball fans have been clamoring for is using technology to call balls / strikes, which is supposed to be an objective decision (IF ball_in_strike_zone THEN strike ELSE ball END IF) and not a subjective one depending on the umpire. Again, as I and others have stated, the replay decisions in other sports have been entirely objective decisions. Was the player down by contact before the ball came loose? Did the player step out of bounds? Did the player catch the ball? They have never been along the lines of "Was that reckless or excessive force?" or "Was that a foul?" or "Was that a dive?". FIFA would be going into uncharted territory if they wanted to review those kinds of decisions during the match. To be clear - I am not at all opposed to using video review. I want to see the calls made correctly and if they can figure out a way to implement the process that doesn't cause further problems, I'd be happy to see it. I just see a lot of potential for disaster if it's not implemented properly.
video (or other automatic aids) could obviously bring real benefit. but right now the technology is a loooooong way from where it needs to be to be workable. we just now are seeing goal-line technology. but how long have they been working on that? 10-15 years? and how many different systems were imagined, worked on, and proved unreliable? the next step could be offside detection. but that is incredibly more complicated than G/NG. the "revelators" we see on TV are just toys for the peanut gallery. usually they're not even correct, and often rofl cockeyed. if it took 10 years to get GLT it will take at least 10 more to have a reliable electronic offside tool and that's taking into account the acceleration of progress. beyond that? any technology that would be both feasible and superior to what we have now would be as difficult to imagine as the internet was to alexander graham bell. take almost any of the case litigious cases used to argue we need video officiating; in fact they usually prove the opposite: 10 people poring over the video for 10 minutes = 100 opinions! not quite, but the fact is that a clear consensus doesn't come out of those replays nearly as often as some like to think. so we would gain much less than the proponents (some of which are knowledgeable and have put a lot of thought into the matter, but the overwhelming majority definitely have not) claim. and what would we lose? does anyone really want to see play stopped 50 times a match for a minute or two to review calls and non-calls? look at similar sports that do use video, american football and rugby: they really do take that long to make decisions that are generally simpler than what a soccer ref needs to make. and even once you start stopping play for a, b or c, the hubbub will be why it wasn't done for d, e, f, g, h, i, j... why not try five REAL LIVE referees like they do in a lot of domestic cups and the europa league. it's not perfect but a whole lot more workable than video, and probably better than any video system that's really technologically possible now or in the near future.
Although I wouldn't have guessed I would be defending his position, in fairness the NBA does review a limited number of subjective calls. Specifically they review all flagrant fouls. That then gives them the ability to upgrade or downgrade the offense, as needed, as well as punish other players. The downsides and challenges presented are still there. First, in the case of the NBA I believe it's still the officials on the court who make the decision. Same as NFL. So, it doesn't usurp the authority of the referees on the court/field/pitch. Second, this again is in a sport that has a ridiculous number of stoppages. But hey -- if we were going to try this, only reviewing PKs would be an interesting place to start. It would, in my mind, encourage referees to call them because they could review it and "undo" if they are wrong. I wonder if the NBA saw an increase in flagrant fouls called after review was implemented. Your overall point stands, that the majority of the decisions reviewed in sports relate to indisputable facts, not re-hashing a foul/no foul call.
Thanks, I didn't know that. Edit: Question - do they only review it if the foul is initially called as flagrant? Or can they upgrade a regular foul to flagrant?
US has tested things. But I think the video replay would be seen as "too American" due to the use in other team sports in the US to use a US test. (But I also think the broad problem of non) I'm pretty in the NBA the refs can go to film any time a foul had been they want to determine if a flagrant should be called or which level of flagrant [the difference between "flagrant 1" and "flagrant 2" being something similar to the difference between red and yellow cards]. The only other example I can think of is NCAA football, which allows the review of "targetting" ejections. (Last year, they could only review the ejection; next year, they can pick up the flag entirely. -- I believe this NCAA review only takes place if a flag is thrown.)
No problem! From my limited understanding, I think they only get to review the foul if it's called a flagrant foul on the court. Then they can upgrade or downgrade from there. I'm reading between the lines on the NBA website -- but the way they phrase it makes me think they can't review a normal foul and upgrade it. There are exceptions, as they can review player altercations and other situations, so I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities to see a normal foul upgraded. http://www.nba.com/official/instant-replay-guidelines.html
It's also worth noting that replay in basketball is probably the most unpopular, because of how it has disrupted the flow of the game in the last 2 minutes (although that doesn't really have anything to do with the subjective calls, so sorry for that unneccesary interjection).
Gonzo youre still not understanding. On PKs, youre not assuming a dive has occurred unless you can actually see that it might have. Whats happening is youre reviewing the whole play to see if there were fouls, dives, or anything important happening on the ball. What usually happens on a PK foul? The offensive player is illegally fouled and dispossessed right? Or hes illegally impeded on his path to the ball yes? And in these cases the defense usually has the ball after the foul occurs yes? THATS why the defense would receive the ball back if a penalty is deemed undeserved. With regards to offside, because of the many possible outcomes, it shouldnt be reviewed. Other sports do this the same way. Dont compare fumbles to offside btw....because the NFL has certain calls that are not reviewable. ALL FLAGS are NOT reviewable. Offside is the same thing. Its a call, that much like in the NFL, blows a play dead much of the time, and one cannot assume the outcome of the play. Which is why all you get in the NFL is five yards, and all you get in soccer is a free kick. And with regards to your "scenario"...theres nothing to be said about it because OFFSIDE WILL NEVER BE REVIEWED. Same way many flags and offside in the NFL is never reviewed. Flags in NFL and offside in soccer can be both huge game changing call/non-calls...but because of the assumptions that can be made on various plays, you simply GO WITH THE RULE BOOK, and no review is made. Every sport has to deal with particular calls that cannot be reviewed. In the NBA, position violations like 3-in-the-key CAN NOT be reviewed...similar to offside not being reviewed. Thats how it is. Positioning calls are MUCH different from calls involving FOULS. Handing out penalties and rewards for positioning calls are generally minor because of the many outcomes that are possible. 3-in-the-key in the NBA is a free throw or loss of possession. Offside in NFL is 5 yards. Soccer is free kick or loss of possession. Now losing the ball in soccer isnt minor, but like I said...positioning calls lead to the assumption of too many possible outcomes in a play that usually hasnt developed yet. In contrast, Red card and PK calls are for FOULS that have ALREADY OCCURRED. Do you finally get what Im saying now? There is no good way to properly assume an outcome of a positional play, which is why most sports usually just give a minor infraction to the defense or award the other team possession if the offense breaks the rule. With fouls, we already know what offense has occurred, and generally see the end result of the play. Thus we can more accurately determine infractions and possession. Understand now? And you seem to be looking for a perfect solution. THERE IS NONE. ALL SPORT OFFICIATING HAS CONTROVERSY. The problem is soccer has the most egregious and terrible errors out of all top professional team sports. We have to minimize those. Hockey doesnt review offside, and its not like the refs are always perfect on those. There are times I feel refs have incorrectly made an offside call that ruined an offensive break...but I just deal with it, because I know theres no accurate way of assessing infractions or rewards when it comes to positional calls. PS - Reviewing balls and strikes isnt allowed because it severely undermines the refs, and also because there are too many assumptions to be made. Look back at the debates on the topic. If time was such a big deal in baseball, they wouldnt do rain delays, and 15 inning games.
Uh, if a pitch was called a ball or strike then that means the batter didn't swing. Therefore, we don't need to assume anything. The batter most definitely would not have hit the ball.
Youre not understanding. The count determines how a better reacts to each pitch. 1-2 is MUCH different than 2-1. Batters are more likely to take a pitch in a 2-1 count. However, we cannot assume the batter would get a hit or not just based on the count. This is part of why reviewing balls and strikes wouldnt happen. It would completely impact how batters behave, while also there being no way to properly reward the offense for an incorrect call. All the change in the count would do is change the likelihood of a swing...not the likelihood of a direct verifiable scoring chance.
All that is irrelevant. "If a particular pitch is called ball or strike" (your quote) then that means the batter didn't swing, regardless of the pitch count, correct?
I meant within an at-bat. Which is WHY I CLARIFIED and went into detail in my last post. I thought you would understand this when I went into detail about counts. I have no idea how someone wouldnt understand that when talking about reviewing balls and strikes, and their effect on a batter, the entire at-bat is under discussion. Context is hard for some people here it seems . Now if you go back and re-read my posts knowing that I was talking about an entire at-bat, things may piece together better now. And baseball aside, Ive already said why player positioning plays (3-in the key, offsides, etc) are not reviewable in sports and how this applies to the soccer replay conversations.
noo sorry, this is a huge point. the sports where replay officiating has been most successful are those which be their very nature stop and start and the normal rhythm of play is the least perturbed )for rugby they only use it to accept or refuse tries). on this criterion soccer is perhaps the sport that lends itself the least to replay officiating.
Thats another thing. If rugby does it, Ive always wondered why some people consider it impossible for soccer. Soccer does lend itself the least to it...but that doesnt mean it cant happen in my opinion. Like I said earlier...Blatter has already shown very mild support to the idea. 4 Years ago people thought goal-line technology would never be used, and guess what...Blatter was not always for it. As much as I hate the guy...I can still say this; once he shows support for something, you can be sure there will be some testing done and a possibility of it being implemented in the game. The dude has power.