Soccer games average about 2.5 goals/game. A missed goal therefore affects 40% of the scoring of a game. That's pretty significant. Some areas of the game will always be subjective (fouls). Some areas are too complex to allow for technology (offside). Using technology to instantaneously determine whether a ball is over a goal line is something that is feasible or will be shortly. What's wrong with getting that call right?
Is there a technology we can develop that can give instantaneous calls for DOGSO and VC or SFP? How about law 11? I don't mind goal-line technology for International matches, but where do we draw the line? Surely, not everyone can afford this. All pro matches? Semi-pro? I also don't mind the changing of the rule to breaking the plane being a goal.
Kassai wont be the referee on any match on this EURO, because of his error on the match between England and Ukraine.
It would be good that they let Hawk Eye, like in tennis, that every national team has five calls at least, hard to expect more than five bad decisions. But "this could destroy football magic". Even that big screen wall above would be enough for accepting decision, one slow motion could present obviuos penalties, or goals that crossed the line, even those tiny offsides.
This incident is the exact reason why we SHOULDN'T have any form of video review in the game. If we had goal-line technology for this game and the Ukraine goal was awarded then English fans, players, and coaches would ask why wasn't technology used to overturn the offside in the buildup? It will just create more problems.
I agree, no video review. The system should be automatic and instantaneous (or nearly instantaneous). Something like the GLT system. It won't break up the flow of the game. It also gets rid of the "if you use it for this, why not that' argument - it only works for goals, not offside.
Sure, but without the blown off-side call, there is no debate on the goal-line technology. That for the most part has been "overlooked" by everyone debating this on this forum and the "sports media" on this side of the pond. Get the offside call correct, and there is absolutely nothing to debate here.
Article with quotes from Collina on the matter: http://sports.sympatico.ca/news/collina_ukraine_goal_should_have_been_allowed/9a445d6c "We made a mistake," Collina said. "I wish we hadn't made the mistake but we did. Referees are human beings and human beings make mistakes." "Kassai is one of the best referees in Europe," Collina said Hungarian referee Viktor Kassai and his team of assistants would play no further part in the tournament, but no blame was attributed to the referee.He said Kassai would have found himself under too much pressure if he had stayed. (there's more, just copied some of the main points)
That's a significant problem because offside changes the nature of the game entriely. You could argue (fairly easily I think) that a soccer game with poorly enforced offside rules is far better than one without. Having said that offside enforcemment, while not easy, does improve at times and can be improved further. Dropping the rule means turning the sport into a game of kickball between defenses with cherry-pickers trying to bring the ball down near the box to score. Even if offside were completely unenforceable it would be preferable to have it than not - as long as it were still a fator in how teams play anyways. This just means that we don't have the ideal tools for enforcing it, not that we will never have them. Come on, really? Someone quoted strike call accuracy earlier in this thread. I would be surprised if offside is significantly lower than that and in fact I'd expect it to be a little higher. (For the record I think baseball would improve immensely if balls and strikes were not called by umps since we now have accurate tools to call them automatically and I would alos advocate moving in that direction slowly like I would with off the field calls in soccer, again no need for replay. However I'm not sure what "slowly" would mean in that case since it seems a more all or nothing proposal).
Yes the paucity of goals and the continuous nature of the sport are two immense challenges to officiating it justly. PK called or not called, offside called or not called, DFK in the attacking third called or not called, CK or GK called are far more frequent and nearly as significant. There is nothing wrong with getting goal line calls right (modula lack of uniformity), but it's not that exciting. Yawn.
As with hockey only if the ball crosses the line will it be reviewed . Offsides, penalties , they are all judgement calls and will never be included. Imagine the delays in that case. Get used to it because it is only a mater of time before soccer comes out of the dark ages. Technology, we dont need no stinkin technology, ok Michel
Not always. Notice that in both of the USMNT's WCQ matches earlier this month, the referee crews had no radio systems.
Interesting that he didn't address the offside call in the buildup. I'm not 100% convinced the ball was over the line but I am persuaded that it's irrelevant because the shot should never have been taken.
I'm not advocating eliminating the offside rule, but I don't see why you seem to think this would be the case. Basketball has no offside rule, and cherry-picking is not an issue.
The position or lack thereof of the AAR is really at issue here. If you watch when the ball is crossing the goal line the center line of his head is not aligned with the goal line his head is slightly shifted to the field of play. The whole thing about position is that he is there to get this decision correct, yet the shot is quickly taken, deflects off the keeper and makes this a difficult decision to get right. He got it wrong, but luckily there was also a missed offside call. So while two wrongs don't make a right, the final outcome did not unfairly penalize either team. That said, this is yet another example of why the handwriting is on the wall with respect to the use of technology or replay.
I did not see the first half, but it's too bad for Viktor Kassai because I felt that his performance as a referee in the second half was absolutely perfect. He got all of the fouls right, the cautions were all correct. My only quibble is that he does not do a good job of signalling advantage. As to the AR on the bottom portion of our television screens, well he had a poor match and not just that one decision.
Because the offside rule was not always a part of soccer and that is what the game looked like then. Yes that was over 100 years ago but it's offside that introduced a different dimension to the game, removing it but keeping the competitive nature would result in a fundamental change back in that direction. Basketball is not concerned with cherry-picking for different reasons (size of the court vs size of the teams among others).
The England-Ukraine game, on 19 June 2012, 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 possibly be made. It must be better to have no rule at all than a rule which cannot be properly enforced
Go to any rec league field on the planet and watch a game where the game doesn't have offside. Then you will have an opinion. And you will change your mind about the need for offside. You are just being silly. basketball: fouls? block/charge? football: holding? pass-interference? Even in soccer, offside decisions are probably correct more frequently than foul/flop decisions. The top-level guys are incredibly good. Honestly, it sounds like you are either completely naive or just trying to start a fight.