It's time for video replay (Italy-Aust R)--never thought I'd say this

Discussion in 'Referee' started by macheath, Jun 26, 2006.

  1. macheath

    macheath New Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    DC
    After the Italy-Australia match, with the wrongly called penalty in the 93rd minute, I fear it's time for video replay, and mandatory consultation by the ref with the AR and someone who is watching the video. The faking and cheating are overwhelming the refs. I think I'd probably use video for PKs, red cards, and goals where there's any dispute. Maybe disallowed goals as well, like the wrongly disallowed goal in the 90th minute in Argentina-Mexico, wrongly called offside. That could have given the game to Mexico, as the wrongly called PK gave it to Italy.

    The integrity of the game is at stake. If these refs, the best in the world, can't keep up, then other measures are called for.
     
  2. USSF REF

    USSF REF Member

    Red Bull NY
    United States
    Nov 6, 2005
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I knew this was coming... If we accept this premise, then how do we apply the video review? We need to do it without hurting the flow of the match and we need to make it a system that is something which can be utilized in all of the professional leagues in the world. Here is my idea:

    Reviews can only be initiated on the following situations.

    1. Penalties
    2. Any Goal or NO Goal decision
    3. Cautions
    4. Send Offs
    5. Any incident which the on field crew misses or situations in large crowds that are too large to deal with on the field, where review will help the referees.

    To overturn decision, there must be indisputable visual evidence that the decision was incorrect or that the referee missed/failed to deal with a serious misconduct. The review could also allow the referee to review major misconduct issues right away before they can't be reversed. If the TV ref failed to buzz the match referee before play was subsequently stopped and restarted then the play must stand as is and no more review is eligable. So if the TV ref needed more time he should buzz the ref to halt the game to allow the extra review to occur.

    Reviews must be initiated by a video official who will use a Digital Video recorder and before play has been stopped and restarted the TV ref must buzz the match referee who will halt the game. If the TV ref decides that there is enough evidence to change a decision he will signal for the match referee to review the call. Once reviewed the referee would have 4 choices.

    1. Decide there was insufficient visual evidence to change anything
    2. Decide that he was correct and not change anything.
    3. Decide that there was no infringement and erase all cards and/or give a dropped ball.
    4. Decide that the other team is guilty, reverse any cards on the fouled team and issue miscondct to the other side. Also change the restart accordingly. (EX. A player dives and is awarded a penalty, the defender is sent off for DOGSO. The TV ref thinks it's a dive so he reverses the call and calls the ref to review. Upon review the referee decides it was a dive, he recinds the red card and gives the diving attacker a yellow. He also changes the penalty to an IFK going out.)

    All decisions must be made within 1 min. ALL time lost to review MUST be added to the end of the half.

    That was my idea, any others?
     
  3. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Personally, I think the video replay in this case (ITA-AUS) supports the call.
     
  4. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed. What's the Italian supposed to do break and jump over the sprawled Aussie player? A clear penalty.
     
  5. USSF REF

    USSF REF Member

    Red Bull NY
    United States
    Nov 6, 2005
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's a debateable foul. Thats why video replay doesn't really help much here.

    What I saw was not a penalty as the attacker touched the ball upfield and instead of following the open path to the ball, he took the path over top of the Aussie who had been laying on the ground already for a full second without making contact with the attacker. The attacker tripped over the opponent, the opponent didn't trip the attacker, in my opinion.

    That said, I can uderstand the call and I don't think it was a bad call. It was just a borderline call. I don't agree, but still not a bad call.
     
  6. shawn12011

    shawn12011 Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Reisterstown, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    What exactly did Neill do to commit a foul there?

    Lying on the turf?

    Neil was lying stationary when Grosso pushed the ball past with his right foot. Then to ensure he "sold the call" drags his left foot across Neill's body.

    A clear blown call as offcials have been guided to by FIFA.

    Facts are Italy, through FIFA's continued inerference with the obvious instructions they must be giving the officials, recieved this win before having to play overtime. Just look at the number of soft fouls and cards that have been given out during this tournament.
     
  7. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, Neill was not lying stationary. He went in for the tackle feet-first, parallel to the end line. Once he was beaten, he deliberately pivoted to his left and perpendicular to the end line, such that his shoulders blocked the Italian player. It was an active, deliberate move, and the Italian player had nowhere to go.
     
  8. usatowin

    usatowin New Member

    May 30, 2006
    USA
    I think this is something that needs to be added, the game has just grown too fast. Missed calls are happening due to the speed of play. We're seeing very, very few due to ref not keeping up or being out of position, so more refs aren't the answer.

    What to review:
    1. Offside. If in ANY doubt keep it down. Wrongful flags severely punished. Every call will be reviewed until the defending team gains possession or the call is determined correct. Ball out and attacker possession, play must wait.

    2. Goals. At least one look taken before restart, probably doesn't delay the game. If a foul, hand of God, etc is suspected, further review.

    3. Dives. If any member of the crew suspects a dive, they buzz and it's reviewed. It must be a clear dive and not just a marginal call to be overturned, with a caution to the diver.

    4. Misconduct situations where the ref isn't sure of a player's identity or mass situations where the refs can't see it all.

    5. Challenges. Each team may challenge any call before play is restarted and any non-call at the next stoppage. If they are right they can challenge again. If they are wrong, they can not. Time will be added on for a correct challenge. The other team will have the option of if it should be added or not if the challenge is incorrect.

    The 5th official will be the replay judge and will watch the game on a monitor at field level. He has full responsibility for offside reviews and initiating further review after a goal. The ref makes the final review of goals and other decisions. For dives, any crew member, including 4th/5th can call for a review.
     
  9. shawn12011

    shawn12011 Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Reisterstown, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Or maybe he rolled that way in order to get up, then same way anyone else would have.

    If he had no where to go then how did he get the ball past without lifting over Neill??

    Even if he was blocking the path you are not required to get out of the way of an attacker. Also if you are saying it was blocking is that not obstruction? Please don't get em started on that pet peeve.

    I am tired of seeing the teams that "simulate" being rewarded. Grosso simulated. Italy leaders among them.
     
  10. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The ball was already past Neill.

    If the end result of the defender throwing his body in front of the attacker is a trip, then it's a trip.

    I don't doubt the Italian embellished a bit, but it was a foul. Believe me, I hate the Italian diving team as much as anyone else, and I was prepared to join the chorus on this one until I saw the video. It was gut-check time for the ref, and he made the right call.
     
  11. shawn12011

    shawn12011 Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Reisterstown, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry gotta agree to disagree. Neill made a clean slide ot block a cross. Grosso pushed the ball past him and dragged his left leg in order to simulate a foul. Notice how Grosso drags his left leg. He made no attempt to try and get over Neill. To me you are simply rewarding simulation. I have replayed the tape multiple time and see the same thing every time. So I will agree to disagree.
     
  12. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    i agree it was a foul. i understand what the dissenters are saying, but having watched it live and then watched it a few times sense (at regular speed and in slo-mo) i don't see how a tripping call could be overruled by video in this case.

    while i agree that it was a foul, it's obvious from the discussion and the differing points of view that it was a call that might not have been made. i would assume to overrule a call by video it would have to be indisputable or some other magical word. i can't see how any such standard could be met here. but it does raise a slightly different question -- given how close the call was, how many who agree that it was a foul would have taken into account that it was for a pk in the 93rd minute and said that they need to see more before deciding a game this way>>?????
     
  13. HoldenMan

    HoldenMan New Member

    Jun 18, 2004
    NSW, Australia
    Watch the video again. Gross started to go around the Australian - and could've, easily - but he then moved towards Neill, deliberately falling over him.

    The giveaway? Watch his hands - they were outstretched even before contact was made. Blatant dive.

    However, even if we had video replay I don't think the officials would be able to find it conclusive.

    I still cannot support video replay for anything other than black-and-white decisions (offside, ball in/out, that sort of thing), and perhaps handling (but only if it's to see if the ball actually did hit has hand - intent not to be judged upon video).

    Now, the question - would I have awarded a foul? Who knows. It may have been one of those ones where I had a gut feeling that something was wrong and not called it either way. I'd like to think so ;-)
     
  14. -GoalUSA10-

    -GoalUSA10- New Member

    Apr 27, 2004
    USA
    A penalty kick doesn't only need to be awarded for a hard foul. It just has to be a foul in the penalty area. I've also watched multiple video replays, and I have to say it was a foul and therefor a penalty kick. In my opinion, what the referee saw was Lucas Neill's left arm hiting Fabio Grosso's left leg, which triped and fouled him inside the penalty area. Watch the play again and focus on the defender's left arm and the attacker's left leg, and you will see what I'm talking about. Grosso felt the contact from the arm and fell. He might have exaggerated a little, but the foul did exist. Originally, I also thought this was a dive but after watching the play several times, I noticed that there definitely was contact. Also, the referee was in good position and very close to the play, so I think he saw this and awarded the penalty kick. And about video replay, well... I have no comment on that subject.
     
  15. cibbo

    cibbo New Member

    Jun 10, 2005
    Massachusetts
    (longtime lurker here - 1st post - be nice!)

    I think the one thing that is not being talked about here is the implications around the world of an instant replay system. FIFA needs to have Laws of the Game that can be used both in the world cup, and on rec league games in small towns across the globe every day. By mandating that there be some sort of review instituted, the basic equipment to play soccer would be increased dramatically and would be cost prohibative for most of the world.

    And you cannot just chose to implement a system like that at the World Cup only, the players, coaches and refs need to be used to it.

    And as a ref myself, I never work a league where the administrators would overturn my call - the second guessing of TV replay would keep many people from reffing the game in the first place. The system has worked the past century and more, and we have seen worse atrocities than this WC. This is the game, and we should leave it that way.
     
  16. HoldenMan

    HoldenMan New Member

    Jun 18, 2004
    NSW, Australia
    This was the only part of your post that made me want to respond. Contact doesn't mean there was a foul. Grosso deliberately chose to initiate the contact instead of moving around him - which he was about to do. And when you look at the fact that his arms were outstretched BEFORE he touched the player. I'm not saying there wasn't contact - there definitely was. But it was deliberately initiated by Grosso to milk a penalty. And he didn't just milk the contact - it was entirely his fault and he prepared to fall even before there was contact. Contact doesn't mean there was a foul or that there wasn't a dive.
     
  17. HoldenMan

    HoldenMan New Member

    Jun 18, 2004
    NSW, Australia
    I can't stand this argument. Rugby league, rugby union and cricket have such a system in place (don't know about american sports). Naturally it's only utilised in the professional matches. There's no problem with having it in those games and not in the lower level games. Why should the elite be held back due to funding restrictions of the U/10F grade team?

    I'm not arguing for video replay, but this is one argument that just irritates me and I think is grasping at straws.
     
  18. colins1993

    colins1993 Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well players jump over sliding tackles all the time don't they?

    I generally agree with you on most of your posts Alberto but on this one I have the polar opposite view.

    For me to give a penalty on that play I would be looking for the sprawled Aussie def , who basically had his back turned to the ITA fwd - to have either raised an arm or lifted his torso into the legs of the attacker. He did neither and actually looked like he was trying to duck LOWER in order to avoid getting kicked in the head.

    The ITA fwd embellished it by dragging his trailing leg into the back of the def and dropped like a sack of potatoes.

    Senor Cantalejo was well-postioned and this makes his call even more pathetic IMO.

    We've seen the last of him I'll bet, and not just because his home country may advance today IMO.
     
  19. lmorin

    lmorin Member+

    Mar 29, 2000
    New Hampshire
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One thing is constantly left out of the picture when deciding whether or not something was a dive. That is the athleticism and professional level of the player. Remember Mamadou Diallo in MLS? Remember his atrocious, vicious attack on a (I think) MetroStars goalkeeper? There was no foul called and MLS declined to prosecute after the fact. However, what the video showed was a beast (Diallo) running in hot pursuit of a ball played into the PA and arriving shortly after the keeper claimed it with both hands while on the ground, lying across Diallo's path. Video showed two things very clearly. One, Diallo arrived sufficiently late such that he could have leapt over the keeper. Two, he kept his left knee lower than a normally running/kicking position, allowing it to collide with the keeper who sustained broken ribs and a concussion, missing most of the schedule as a result. It was criminal. I say it was criminal because Diallo was a fine athlete, as all the high level players are. They know, within microseconds, when contact is going to occur. They also know how to avoid it, if it is in their best interest. If you make the assumption that a lot of what is going on is play acting at the "right moment," then you must acknowledge that they know the right moment. Thus, by the same token, they could have elected to take action to avoid being hit. Now, this is a generalization, I admit. There are some players with styles of play that lend themselves to being fouled from behind (the old version of Damarcus Beasley), while others are seldom fouled at all (Landon Donovan). In this case, the Italian could easily, easily, easily have avoided the Aussie on the turf. Contact by the Aussie was completely passive, perhaps the better word for referees is "trivial."
     
  20. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So where does Materazzi being sent off fit in with your conspiracy theory?
     
  21. stangspritzring

    stangspritzring Member+

    Apr 3, 2006
    NorMD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've never liked the idea of video replay in soccer matches, even in games where I've found the referee's decisions detrimental for the team I support, for a couple of reasons...

    Firstly, I would think it would make the ARs and CR hesitate to make those potentially borderline calls. ARs would be potentially worst off with the offside call, which, physiologically speaking, is impossible to judge in close calls, simply based on how long it takes the brain to process visual stimuli and refocus on a new point, such as where and when the ball was played and then seeing where the attacking player is. A half-step advantage to an offside player, I think, is acceptable risk...two yards is not. Leave the AR free to make that call, but I still think the advantage when it's that close (i.e., physical overlap of some degree) should go to the attacker, not the defender. Calls like that against McBride in the US/ITA match, of course, are easy enough to determine without the aid of video replay...

    Second, the risk to the flow of the game...No matter how well or thought out the video replay implementation, there will always be problems...The example of the "goal" by france that wasn't, this tournament is perfect...There, the camera angle people have been showing was ill-suited to make the determination, given a 2 dimensional planar display of a 3-dimensional area at an oblique angle...Since the whole of the ball has to cross the goal line in order to be awarded a goal, the angle displayed in that example made it impossible to make that determination. Sure, an "on the line" camera could show a ball going all the way in, and that works great for shots in a certain area of the camera's field of view, but the closer to the camera, the more questionable the result, simply due to perspective, not to mention the potential of a particular angle to be screened by players.

    Field plays reviewed would be equally difficult. In US/GHA, when Reyna was stripped of the ball, from the live play camera, it looked perfectly acceptable, but from the reverse angle, it appeared to be a hard physical challenge worthy of caution (Draman's knee directly impacting the side of Reyna's left knee). After seeing the second angle, you can go back to the first angle and seethe result of the impact bow Reyna's knee outward. But that brings us to reason three, there's still a man behind the video display making the judgement call, just like the CR, and it's up to teir determination. Having played before, AND having recently suffered a knee injury, I know exactly the effect of Draman's challenge on Reyna, and I know why Draman challenged the way he did. That move is specifically intended to collapse the leg of the opposing player to delay or prevent pursuit...but most people still think it was a clean challenge, even after the replay. To them, I say stand up with a ball at your feet, and I'll show you how it was a foul, and not a clean challenge.

    If it ends up being a decision by another official, I'm fine with leaving it the responsibility of the CR, rather than getting another official....too many chefs, and all that. I would, however, support more stringent post-game reviews to appropriately fine and card the more eggregious displays of USB, such as Figo's headbutt, simulation and other negligent physical challenges like Draman's, as well as referee performance, like the Ghanaian PK in USA/GHA.
     
  22. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    This is something people seem to miss. A foul is a foul, whether the game is three seconds old or whether there are three seconds remaining in stoppage time. People who think, "you should only call blatant, flagrent fouls for penalties" don't realize that calling only the most flagrant fouls will lead to more players acting and embellishing to make small fouls look flagrent.



    I really don't like the Italian team, and I seriously hope they lose in an embarrassing manner in the next round, but that was a legitimate penalty call. Alas.
     
  23. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    It was all part of the plot! Why can't you see it! FIFA thinks of everything when they go about rigging the World Cup!
     
  24. Doug the Ref

    Doug the Ref Member

    Dec 6, 2005
    St. Louis
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cibbo, welcome to your first post. It was a good one. (Nice enough?)

    I think this is a good 50-50 call. Half agree foul, half agree no call. I was happy to see the referee right there in great position for a cricital call at the 90th minute.
     
  25. macheath

    macheath New Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    DC
    This thread is not intended to be an endless rehash of one play (the PK in the Italy-Australia match), but a discussion of the pros and cons of using video. So thanks to stang, and here's some discussion...

    stangspritzring:I've never liked the idea of video replay in soccer matches, even in games where I've found the referee's decisions detrimental for the team I support, for a couple of reasons...

    Firstly, I would think it would make the ARs and CR hesitate to make those potentially borderline calls...(snip) should go to the attacker, not the defender. Calls like that against McBride in the US/ITA match, of course, are easy enough to determine without the aid of video replay...


    As you know, the AR is already supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. But it still doesn't seem to have gotten through. Maybe at some point it will

    Second, the risk to the flow of the game...No matter how well or thought out the video replay implementation, there will always be problems...The example of the "goal" by france that wasn't, this tournament is perfect...There, the camera angle people have been showing was ill-suited to make the determination(snip)

    I am very concerned about the flow of play issue, not sure how to solve it, except to make the review initiated quickly, only by the officials and their team (not by coaches, like US football), and decided fast. On the camera angle, why not a set of cameras on the goal line, inside the goal?

    Field plays reviewed would be equally difficult. In US/GHA, when Reyna was stripped of the ball, from the live play camera, it looked perfectly acceptable, but from the reverse angle, it appeared to be a hard physical challenge worthy of caution (Draman's knee directly impacting the side of Reyna's left knee) (snip)...
    I would, however, support more stringent post-game reviews to appropriately fine and card the more eggregious displays of USB, such as Figo's headbutt, simulation and other negligent physical challenges like Draman's, as well as referee performance, like the Ghanaian PK in USA/GHA.


    I hope everyone agrees on more aggressive postmatch review, with appropriate punishments. That seems to me the least that can be done. In the Reyna case, that might have been all that was possible.
     

Share This Page