I am a complete luddite with respect to reviewing referee decisions. Unless corrupt, we know every referee intends to make correct calls. Players make mistakes all the time in games; perhaps we should let players re-take penalties that aren't on frame, because surely they intended to at least put their shot on goal. The fallibility of humans is where drama is born. It is too bad so many of us fans don't consider referees human. I am not such a luddite that I think allowing communication to occur via headset is wrong, but I absolutely think it is wrong to replace on the field, human judgement with technology. Hmmmm...I must be achieving the curmudgeonly state I always dreamed of in my youth.
Note that BigSoccer doesn't always show pics at their max resolution; to see better, right click the image and choose "show image in new window". It should display the image in a larger view. The ball doesn't really look out of round but the merge of sock, foot and ball doesn't make the distinction of the ball any easier. That said, I think the call is just as easily made by the AAR IF he is in the right position when compared to a camera. The problem lies in the fact that it is much easier to ensure the correct positioning of a camera than an AAR.
You know what? There's an easy way to see the problem. Place a straight edge on the picture from the AAR's head to the back edge of the ball and look where it hits the post. The post is going to coincide with his vision about 5 net blocks up (6ft:2ft = 2:1). The AAR called what he saw.
not to go all csi on everyone, but the reason the AAR does not see that the ball has crossed the line is because to him, it hasn't! i have always wondered why the AAR stands so stupidly close to the goal. as we all know, being too close to something often does not let you see what you need to see, especially when things are moving fast. the AAR looks to be 3 yds outside the the goal box. his head is centered on the FRONT of the goal line. his eyes are about two inches apart. the lines and post are 5 inches across. the ball is near the center of the goal, or 4 yards from the post. so, his vision with his right eye is not parallel to the back of the goal line. the angle off parallel is defined by a right triangle with a base of 9 yards and a vertical component of 4 inches. Given that the ball is 13 yards away from him, he is doomed to not see space between the post and the ball unless it is 13*4/9 - 4, or about 1.8 inches. that looks like the space between the ball and the line in this case! so the failure is one of concept. the vision of the AAR is still quite good. btw- if the goal had been scored on the far post, he would have missed a ball that was 3.6 inches past the post!!!
I'm not sure this is true. Any time you have a human making the call you're going to have the issue that he can only see one thing at a time. Be it a human on the field or in the booth in real-time he can only look at one angle. If that angle is blocked for some reason (like by a player as we saw in this week's Chicago-NY MLS game) then he'll have to switch to another angle, rewind, and re-watch it. A sensor "sees" in all directions at once and can immediately make a decision one way or the other. In may cases the difference between the two might just be 5-10 seconds, but there will be a point that it does take significantly longer than a sensor will.
You must be a fan of the sad state of umpiring in Major League Baseball, particularly the umpires ~35% correctness of balls and strikes calls. Certainly adds an element of drama.
here is the solution. AAAR (ref standing on the other side of the goal) AR1A and AR2A ( assistant referees running the lines opposite of AR1 and AR2. That way we have more human error ... wait that came out wrong ... That way we can get the calls right .. that is better.
He was poorly positioned. I want him in a better position to make a call on whether the ball crossed the line. For that I would advocate dealing with that conduct in a post-game setting (one headline today said the NBA is considering this). The tools to handle diving and professional fouling in game don't exist. The tools to handle this goal-line call does, but we choose not to use it for the wrong reasons.
Then at first you don't include the situations that would require extra time under this ref's jurisdiction. If the problem is "it takes more time" eliminate the incidents that take time and say "ok if you can't make the call then as you would on the field, don't make it" and work on the program to develop better camera angles and reduce the number of incidents they can't call. Thinking about the problem situations and avoiding the change because of them is thinking backwards. The correct way is to implement a small change, be aware of the potential problems and develops ways to address those in time.
But why are we working on implementing a system that we know won't cover all eventualities when we seem relatively close to developing a different system that will?
Exactly, they're not thinking about this in a problem solving way they're just mad at the current results. This is what the internet has done to us! We have too many opinions...we're Mad! MAD I tell you!!
On the contrary. The idea is to solve all eventualities, but not to wait until you can solve every single one in order to make some improvement. Essentially it's what the extra refs SHOULD have been doing. (And the fact that they missed this call was foreseeable but still this joke of an idea went ahead). Even after goal-line technology is implemented and assuming it solves the goal-line problem, that's a tiny problem to deal with. Giving refs better resources to handle things is not a reactionary position, it's something I've advocated every time I've posted in a ref forum.
Espn did an Axis examination of this whole play including the offside at the start and Ballack questioned why the AAR was in the field and looking in front of the post instead of outside looking from behind the post. Just as you wrote above. It is much clearer on the Axis graphic that the official is completely out of position and had poor training. That is why this call was missed.
So you lied before when you said you didn't advocate instant replay. Because someone would have to be watching instant replay in order to get everything right. And this wouldn't get everything right anyways because if you've ever been to the referee forum you'd know that we have problems agreeing on tons of situations and calls. It simply won't work, accept that this is a game and that it's ok if there's mistakes.
Of course mistakes are ok. What's not ok is not taking advantage of easily available resources to improve things and instead implementing nonsensical solutions. I do not advocate replay in this situation because it is possible - even easy -to get it right without it. I think the approach should be based on past experiences (the many goal-line controversies that led to the introduction of the 5th official) but that the approach shouldn't overcomplicate things by saying "well then we need to introduce replay, or cover other situations, or...". One thing at a time is fine. As I said above, I think mistakes are fine - just cause some of these calls are easier from this external perspective does not mean every one would be and that's fine. What it does mean though is there is an available tool that is not being used and an avoidable problem is occurring and that's the kind of thing that irks me, particularly when possible solutions are overlooked in favor of overcomplicated ideas.
The England-Ukraine game, on 19 June 2012, has once again got everybody talking about goal line technology, but also revealed a far more important flaw in the current regulations – namely the offside rule. It appeared that the passage of play culminating in Ukraine’s ‘unawarded’ goal began with a very clear breach of the offside rule. While goal line incidents crop up only very occasionally (this was the first significant case in Euro 2012), offside rulings are made many times in every match at every level of the sport. I have no opinion on whether the offside rule makes the game better or worse, discourages or encourages attacking play, leads to more or fewer goals being scored and the like. My reason for wanting it abolished is much simpler than that. It should be abolished because it cannot be accurately enforced. If a referee’s assistant is looking along the line of the deepest defender to determine if an attacker is, potentially, in an offside position then he cannot be looking at a player 30, 40 or 50 metres away who is delivering a pass. Similarly, if he is watching for the precise instant at which a pass is delivered, then he cannot be looking along a line parallel to the goal line to see if an attacker is, potentially, in an offside position. Put simply, the assistant simply cannot be watching two areas of the pitch at the same time. If we assume, generously, that, having watched the pass being made, he takes just half a second to catch up with the last defender (who may have moved either further up the pitch or further back in that time) and refocus along the line to determine if a player is in a potentially offside position, then any decision made will be based on guesswork. During that half a second, either player could have moved anything up to 2 or 3 metres. Thus, it is no surprise at all that so many offside decisions are immediately proved incorrect by television images, as was the case in the incident referred to above. It is not that assistants are incompetent or dishonest. They have just been given a task which is impossible for any human being to accomplish. In fact, it is something of a surprise – and a testimony to the ability of assistants to predict passages of play and player movements - that so many correct decisions are made. I know of no other sport that persists in seeking to enforce a rule on which no accurate adjudication can be made. It must be better to have no rule at all than a rule which cannot be properly enforced.
Yep, looks to me like they need to be about a yard over the endline too, not right on it, to see daylight better.
Simple solution: Institute the American football "breaks the plane rule". 1 Easier to call. 2 Increases offense. 5,4,3,2,1.........
Pft, we already have that rule. Only it's the back of the ball has to break the plane at the back of the line. I know you're making a joke here, but it's worth pointing out all this does is move the problem a few inches.
Yes, it's a joke, but the front of the line is easier for the AR/AAR to see because it is not blocked by as much of the post nor obscured by the side netting.....
Agreed. So if a stationary AAR cannot properly align himself on these types of calls how can we expect a sprinting AR to do it during dynamic play? It is not possible to be perfectly level with the goalline or 2nd everytime. Time for electronic help IMO. 2LD i meant to type.