You could make that argument, but you would never ref a World Cup game again . More seriously, judgment aspects of offside could not be reviewed. If the referee thought there had been a controlled play by the defender, he would just say so, and the review would be stopped dead in its tracks, unless there was some debate about whether the defender actually touched the ball, and obviously was not "interfering with an opponent". I would prefer reviews goal/no-goal and offside/no-offside decisions to be outside the control of the disadvantaged team.
The key here is that play must not be stopped for the offside flag. This must be an irreversible judgment call by the center referee. If the center referee believes the offside was likely close enough, and the attacking play dangerous enough, to warrant allowing play to briefly continue, he does so. He only allows play to continue for as long as there is a dangerous scoring opportunity (i.e. breakaway). Once the initial breakaway has been denied, and the attacking team no long has an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, offside is called. Again, this aspect of the call would be irreversible. The restart is an IFK for the defending team. No review. The original offside call stands. If a goal is scored, then the play is reviewed. If, upon review, there was no offside, the goal stands. There are no "extra" stoppages of the game in either case, although the review would presumably take some time in the case a goal was validly scored.
The way they do it in pointy-ball is when the referee blows his whistle for an incomplete pass or a stoppage of play, it cant be reviewed. If someone catches a pass off their shoe-tops, ref blows whistle because he thinks it hit the ground, then the guy turns and runs into the endzone, they can review the play and say he made the catch but the TD is no good. I agree with delaying flags for offside but you may get into situations of DOGSO/fouling where a player is hacked but he was in an illegal position so what is the ruling then? Most people with a ref's knowledge of the game simply want goalline tech to see if the ball went into the goal or not. Freeze-framing offside decisions opens a nasty can of worms.
You don't delay the flag, you only delay the whistle. I agree, if the defense sees the flag, it would be in their best interest to foul. I don't have an easy answer for that one. If there was no goal but a PK or DOGSO foul was committed, the original offside decision should be reviewed for these cases too. Tactical fouls committed after an offside offense occurs but before the whistle is blown should be cardable. But if they aren't DOGSO or PK fouls, I would simply award the offside call and not review it.
I agree with.... I disagree with.... Was the French goal debated? Ribery may have been off, Malouda was clearly on. The Uruguayan player who was fouled by Khune was clearly onside.
For me, if you want to do more than goal/no goal type situations, then I think you need a full time "video referee" who can make calls and talk to the referee in real time while watching the match from a TV. So it wouldn't be review (he might be able to super quickly replay something on a bad tackle or after a goal), but would merely be an added official. EDIT: This would also reduce complaints as this official would have the same view as the TV audience, so obvious things to viewers would be obvious to this official as well.
But how often have goal line errors been made in this World Cup? How many goals have been awarded because offside was not called? How many good goals have been prevented because an onside player was called offside? And this is a tournament where the ARs have been doing well!
For video review of offside, which video would you use? There have been many games this Cup with a close offside where someone posts video X and says "he was clearly offside" followed by someone else with video Y showing "so-and-so obviously kept him onside". Or "this video shows he clearly touched the ball" and "this one shows no change in trajectory, no touch whatsoever" (often this is followed by insults to other posters' objectivity, eyesight, mental capacity... but I digress) If we can't even agree on these after hours/days of arguments, how can we still be sure one person, with just a brief amount of time, can still get it right? PS, I won't even go into all the vidcaps with the "my line is better than your line" debate
It's not possible. If the referee wants to rescind a caution or ejection, or change the restart, nullify a goal or anything like that, it must be done before play is restarted. Once play restarts, the decision stands. To allow an ejected player to be re-instated, it would require FIFA to re-write the laws of the game, which is exactly what Blatter has said hundreds of times they're not going to do. I get that, and it sounds nice... My first point is, you shouldn't be able to review a judgement call like handling. But, like you said, let's say for whatever reason the referee was in a horrible position and called handling in the PA even though it hit the guy in the face. (i.e. Robbie Findley) Video review shows it hit the guy in the face... You now have an inadvertant whistle by the referee. The restart for this is a dropped ball. Inside the PA. Now instead of wrongly punishing the player for handling, you're punishing him because the CR screwed up. In order to change this, again, requires a re-write of LOTG. I understand it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I get the logic. The problem is, if you can't have a technology that helps both goals that shouldn't be, and goals that should be, I'm of the opinion you shouldn't have either. Just for equity's sake.
If a change in the on-field ruling can't be definitively overruled within a brief period of time by a video official, the call on the field stands. That's the way it works in both the NHL and NFL; seems to work. If the video evidence is that inconclusive, you don't change the call.
A video official would be limited by the camera angles they happen to have, and yet 3-D modeling seems to correct for it well and at the speed at which computers think. You choose the frame where the ball is played, then you click the forward-most goal scoring body part of the attacker and backward most body part of the last defender. Lines are drawn by the computer and you see what it tells you. You double check at full and half speed action that you haven't gotten any parts of that wrong, and you make the call. And if it's inconclusive, it's inconclusive. it's fast and better than what's presently happening even if not perfect. It's a much bigger change though for people to embrace than goal line officials. However offside calls that are blown also have a greater impact on the game than crossed the goal line decisions since they're so much more common.
Please know that before I posted I went through the video clips and did a close examination. I'm 100% sure of what I posted. I did not include the first goal by Mexico against France because it is too close to call. Even from the freeze frame some are going to state that this is offside while others will contend it is not. However, for these two, here are my responses. As you note the player on the right wing (#7 Ribery) is offside when the through-ball is played to him. This player is not the eventual goal-scorer. I agree with you about Malouda's position. That is not the problem. Go look at a highlight clip of the match and freeze it at 68:58. Although it is close, you will see that Ribery is offside. For this one a picture is worth 1000 words.
Right. When I went back to this play, in low res, I forget that the intervening player DID get a touch on the ball. Understandably missed offside. But this was the play where seven South African's raised their arm, as they all saw it.
The total now stands at EIGHT. The only goal scored in the two Round of 16 matches today was offside. Something must be done. Eight offside goals in the WC Finals is too many.
Can't ruin it any more than it's already being ruined by the lack of video replay. 8 fouled up goals already has reduced this world cup to WWE levels of credibility.
Did instituting video review of last second shots in the NCAA basketball games and the NBA ruin those contests? I don't think so. People want the goals to be valid, not illegal. The game is already stopped for 30 seconds or so while one team celebrates. Why not use this time to have the 4th Official quickly check a video monitor? It should take no more than one minute.
Then don't hold your breath for soccer to ever be more than an occasional curiosity in the United States. And as for video replay making soccer worse, it's hard to see how. There is nothing worse for a sport than the perception of fraud. And like it or not, goals like the one Argentina "scored" or that wasn't allowed for England are a type of fraud no worse or better than steroid laden players or fixed matches.
In my opinion sport is way to important in America than it should be. People spend countless hours obsessing over it, when they could be participating in something worthwhile.
Wait so you're saying that sportsmanship and sport aren't important? Says more about the rest of the world than it does us that it's not important to them.
I must post a correction. I have now seen a video clip with a different angle of the French goal versus South Africa, which I had not seen at the time that I wrote my previous posts. It shows that Ribery was behind the man marking him, but still onside due to a defender across the field. So cross the French goal off the list and we are back down to SEVEN. http://www.mysoccerplace.net/video/south-africa-vs-france-2-1-malouda
I think its pretty straight forward and reasonable to add some sort of help for goal or no goal. Other decisions have too much subjectivity for replay to make things less controversial. I think it would dramatically change the game, especially if you're talking about reviewing cards. I actually think that adds more potential controversy.