Agreed. The FIFA LOTG don't even require nets. Goalposts and crossbar are compulsory. I don't like the idea of a video review of live events, but it could be worthwhile in a few specific situations.
It may have been a foul. But can you by any stretch say that it met the standard for a pk worthy foul in this WC based on the ones that have been called, and the contact that has been allowed? Or should it have been acknowleged as a foul and judged trivial? I lean to the latter. Frankly, I think that the lack of support by Septic Blather and the flack that refs simply trying to implement FIFA's directives are getting puts guys like this ref on the spot, and has them more "puckered" than they already would be.
I guess that is to be expected from a screaming eagle....he turned to look at the ball!!!! to say that it was an active, deliberate move is just wrong!
I think maybe you misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not saying FIFA is trying to guide the results to certian teams with it's interference (conspiracy theory as you call it). I am saying that these "suits" within FIFA are interjecting themselves into areas where clearly based upon the results we have sen so far, 302 yellow cards and 24 red cards both record numbers for one tournament, they do not belong. So the Materazzi sending off fits right into it, although I have not reviewed the video of that call more than the one time I saw it while watching the tape for the first time and thought that in the past it most likely would have resulted in no more than a yellow. As to the topic at hand I don't think you can use video replay IMHO for more than goal or no goal. Anthing more will change the flow of play too much.
This is why it will never be time for video replay. The ref was in the right spot and made a call. Some think it was right (like me), some wrong (like many fans I've talked to in the last 24 hours). Refs on this board can't agree. So what is the value in a replay? More people and more technology just means more delays, not necessarily better decisions. Especially in situations like this, where there is no agreement on what the right decision would have been. Let the refs do their job the best they can, and leave it at that.
Even granting that the call in the Italy match was correct, how about these situations from the Cup: --French headed goal by Viera against Tunisia, replays suggest it went in, no goal allowed, France ties, doesn't win; --Argentina-Mexico, wrongly called offside overturns what would have been the winning goal in the 90th minute (if Mexico had won in OT, this would have been huge); --Schevchenko PK when he seemed to have fallen down on his own, Ukraine wins 1-0; --Ghanan PK against Oneywu; --missed fouls--studs into Robben's chest during Holland-Portugal, cleats into Figo's face in an early Portugal match, neither one called. Regrettably, there are a lot of missed calls taking place, that are getting replayed over and over on TV, calling the game into question. I don't think we can just keep with saying "well, the ref may have missed a few." Even if the replays or some other procedure (mandatory and visible consultation with ARs, etc.) doesn't change many calls, there has to be something that assures spectators that there's some integrity here. This is going to be remembered, unless things change, as the World Cup about refereeing. And that's a terrible outcome.
If a ref missed a foul, why would he stop play to go watch the video? That's the problem with replay in soccer. There aren't enough natural stoppages to look at the tape even if they wanted to. Video could catch false positives - the foul that was just called wasn't a foul*. But it can't catch the false negatives, because if you don't see something you aren't going to go back and check to see if you don't see it again. * - and even that has problems, witness Esse. He knows he saw a shirt pull, will any number of video angles that don't see it convince him otherwise?
I think the final decision would still rest with the CR, and the standard would be clear and convincing evidence that the call was wrong; otherwise, it stands. So in Esse's case, the video evidence didn't have to positively confirm his call, it would have had to positively show the call was wrong. Didn't do that, so he sticks with the call. Very tough to do, you bet, but no tougher than what he had to go through in any case. Even if the ref doesn't use video evidence, the TV and millions of viewers are, so the controversy will still be there.
Please just add another ref. Adding another ref will help. Adding Video replay will only create 7 minutes of stoppage time.
Adding another ref will not help. Adding more assistant refs, maybe that will help. And video review would add 10 - 15 minutes of stoppage time each half, on a bad day.
Who says replay has to be done by the referee? Do what hockey does, have people in the booth review the play while the game continues to see whether or not a goal will stand or be allowed on those kind of situations. (PK calls would of course had to be stopped unless you awarded one retro-actively.) Either way you can manage it to make no stoppages in play.
Are you familiar with the very recent failure of the experiment with 2 referees that FIFA sanctioned? Around the year 2000 an experiment to 2 referee's on the field was held. Tests were run in Europe, Brazil, and the USA. The feedback from teams, spectators, and referee's was that it was a failure. The primary reason was that instead of increasing consistency, it reduced consistency. The two referee's had a different standard as to what they would decide was a foul, this caused the players frustration. In addition, it did not decrease referee errors. Referee's complained that they were not able to get into the middle of the field as much given the positioning tactics of the system -- this reduced their ability to communicate with the players and it also limited their presence in the midfield where it was needed the most. Apparently it was good for hockey, but when soccer tried it out most people seemed to dislike it.
In hockey each review seems to take at least 1 minute. In soccer, barring an injury of highly unusual circumstance the longest the ball is out of play for is 45 seconds, with the average time being about 20 seconds. Clearly video reviews WOULD slow the game down. If you don't allow the on field referee to have input then it would violate Law 5, in addition all video replays may not focus on or see what the referee saw in determining the call. That information needs to be taken into account when the review is done.
I'm for new technology. Robot linesmen. Goal sensors that light up a red light when the ball passes between bars. Anything that eliminates a couple essential issues. Biggest Issues that could be solved through technology: 1. Ball crossing the goal line. 2. Offsides. So many are actually not offsides. Aside from this, Referees simply need better training and FIFA has to demonstrate the rules if they want to change them. Video replay will not solve anything without stopping the game. I truly believe that referees should not pull out cards rashly. They should wait till the situation fizzles, even talk to their linesman to see if he can tell him anything (if it seems really serious), because they are likely to be influenced by other factors right after the event. Just that would help out so much and so many refs lack the capacity to think over the situation after blowing the whistle.
The reason sensors were not used for this WC are that they aren't ready yet - there are actually some significant technical challenges to mounting a sensor in the ball, then detecting when the whole of the ball enters the goal. Though I would speculate that the rf tags that are being used in some consumer products might be the solution, if they can live through being kicked around. Basically, the entire ball has to be "lit up", so you don't have the situation where the part of the ball containing the chip crosses the line but the rest doesn't and a goal scored by the electronic referee. Offside could maybe be done in a similar fashion, but you would have to mount sensors all over the players, have the technology to determine their positions precisely and quickly, while at the same time knowing where the ball is and who, in fact, last played it (remember, deflections by the defense don't reset the play...). I think the likely solutions to the tech challenges to either of these situations are still inferior to a human referee. Plus, the other functions performed by the AR are still needed, and cannot be replaced, at least not yet. The human part of the game is the human part of the game. By supporting rather than condemning refs (at all levels), shunning cheaters (divers), and similar steps, I think we can improve the game more than replay would. Think about it - if the AUS-ITA pk was dodgy, how would technology have calmed the masses? We have a bunch of ref folk here that have seen the play on tv, in slomo, and cannot agree.
Technology detection of goals will come way before offside detection, the latter being 100-1000 times more difficult. A camera would have to be running on a track to stay even with the last defender all the time, or there would have to be several stationary cameras doing triangulation on the last defender. Plus the ball, plus the attackers that might be involved in the offside situation, plus the body (except arms) of the player playing the ball as it influences the likelihood of an offside call, etc. This would all have to be done by real time video reconstruction and analysis, and this assumes that there are enough cameras with adequate views of the ball and all potentially involved players (don't forget the keeper who is often 50 yds away from the action). Isn't the human brain and visual system an absolutely marvelous thing?! It gets these situations right so often its amazing.
Everything you name is a short term problem. And as to the referees' inconsistency...well, that's the core problem, isn't it? If forced to work in teams, you'll have less Lone Rangers. I remember back about 10 years ago, baseball was getting to be a joke because each umpire had "his" strike zone. Dude, it's not your strike zone, it's baseball's strike zone. I understand why, but it still boggles my mind that you referees are so resistant to any attempts to add consistency to the implementation of the rules. So often you guys write you referee for the love of the game. Prove it.
Why can't they put the emitter in the middle of the ball, and the sensor half the ball's diameter behind the line? You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
It is actually quite a complex problem, you're making it sound simpler than it is. From what I've read, the trials they held with the ball revealed a number of significant problems. Response time was one, as was the number of false alerts (e.g., ball lands on top of the net, or hits the side netting). Probably will get worked out eventually but not ready for prime time. Nor should we assume it will solve all the problems. Wait for the groundscrew to shift the goals and forget to recalibrate the system.... And this is a simple problem compared with judging offside.
It was in the middle of the ball, suspended in foam. The consensus was that the foam did not change the feel or response of the ball compared to an air-filled ball. DerbyRam points out a couple of problems found in the trials that have to be fixed. Also, I've heard that multiple balls around the field throws the system off - the sensors don't know when the ballboy has substituted a new ball for the one that was just kicked over the goal. Another thing to consider is how rigorous of a test you want to do before implementing it in the game. The ball was tested in a youth tournamant last summer, as I recall - maybe the U17's? Undoubtably it was also tested elsewhere. However, how many instances of ball in/out of goal do we encounter in a tournament or a whole season? There's been what, 2 in this Cup? I'd want the system to work correctly at least 99 out of 100 times in live trials before it gets released - or 990+ of 1000 is even better. Either option could take years of testing, or implementation in a lot of different stadia. I imagine that if they can get the bugs out of the system, we'll see it in the next WC. But not if further testing doesn't improve the accuracy. Edit: by 99/100, I mean 100 close encounters, where the ball is stopped either just in or just out of the goal, and eye-witness or video unequivocally supports the call made by the system.
This is where I really think a video replay could be used quickly and efficiently to help the referee. MLS suggested mounting 6 "lipstick" cameras to the inside of the goal posts and crossbar. The could use the video from these cameras to review a close goal decision, almost instantly. As long as there is clear visual evidence and a frame rate of 125 frames/sec we could conclusively determine by video if a goal had been scored or not. If all 6 cameras failed to pick it up given their respective locations, then how could you blame human referees for missing it, so the call on the field would have to stand. If the cameras did pick it up, the referee in the replay booth could signal to the on field ref within seconds to stop the game and award a goal. This is a factual decision that video replay could really help out with -- and it would save the cost and difficulty of creating a "smart ball". Somehow I feel a smart ball would take away from the performance of a great match ball as well.
I'm opposed to any kind of replay. It slows the game down, and isn't foolproof. In the NFL, you get delays of a few minutes, and the resultant call isn't always right. The refs become less likely to make the calls immediately, expecting the replay to be the deciding factor. Also, it's harder to determine with absolute certainty whether a goal has been scored (for example) than some of you think. For instance, a classic case of not knowing for sure whether a goal is scored is when the ball bangs off the crossbar and bounces off the ground and out of the goal. Did the ball completely cross the line? Since the ball hit the crossbar, the bar will be vibrating, so cameras on the bar will be useless. Also, if the ball hits the ground with a decent amount of force, it will be temporarily deformed, so it would be shorter and wider than normal (an extreme example of this would be a solid core golf ball that flattens against a clubhead). And I can't count the number of times where the camera angles on close offside plays are inconclusive... Also, how do you administer the replay? Do you stop play, or let it continue (for minutes at at time)? If there's a close goal or offside play, you can't really stop play to look at the replay. What if it's determined in a stoppage that play should have been stopped 2 minutes earlier? Do you add those 2 minutes to the end of the game (along with the time to do the review), or do you effectively shorten the game by the amount of time that didn't count? What if there's a near offside, and after 2 minutes of continued attack, the other team scores off a counter? Do you call off that goal because the original attack was determined to be offside? Even if one team scores a close goal, and the other team scores before play stops for the review, you're going to have a lot of confused and unhappy people trying to figure out what just happened. You'd do less damage to the game if you brought back the shootout. Having said that, I think that it would be useful if they did something with sensors where the CR gets a signal of the ball crosses over the end line by more than a few inches, so he can blow his whistle for a goal or corner or goalkick. Anything beyond that will be bad for the game.
I don't believe we have only short-term problems. First, simply finding referees has been a long term problem, and will continue to be as long as the respect shown refs even to the U-biddies is so atrocious. Until reffing becomes more fun for more folks, the pool of crazies to take on the job is small. Here's the problem with being forced to work in teams - at almost every level, we barely have enough referees to do the job. Now you ask for four refs per match instead of three(please don't suggest doing duals like high school!! ). I agree that working in teams consistently would make things more consistent between the two "centers". I don't know the details of the reasons for failures, just the general citations we've read here, but I would venture that there wasn't much potential for success in the eyes of the evaluators, who would have been refs and non refs. And for each ump to have his own zone WAS wrong. But there is no advantage clause in calling balls and strikes. There is no judgment afforded to the ump for trivial versus consequential, and no allowance to decide infractions based upon the character of the game. The foot hits the bag before the ball and the runner is safe, after and he is out - the soccer ref has to judge just how the foot hit the bag in determination of foul/no-foul or fair/unfair. The soccer referee has to factor in the concept of fair play when making a judgment, the baseball ump has to simply implement rule 45.3.a-12.3 (numbers made up, but not too far off). None of us are resistant to adding consistency - finding the right avenue is the challenge. And there will always be a limit to the consistency we want - every game is different, it evolves thru the 90 minutes, sometimes not much, sometimes a lot, and the brief and very flexible Law book for the game is intended to be used to support the game and the players, not dictate the minutae of every move on the field (unlike baseball).