As I stated over in the thread on the IFAB meetings for law changes, I have changed my mind on the use of video evidence during games. I think we've just had too many situations where a goal was correctly or incorrectly allowed in high level matches where the result can mean millions of dollars to the affected clubs. First of all, let me state that I am not talking about video review of "on the field" decisions such as whether a player was or was not offside or whether a keeper touched the ball on a challenge during which he brought down an attacker. I am ONLY talking about using video evidence to judge the ball across the line between the goal post. Period. Nowhere else on the field. I think that have a goal line camera on each goal line would be a good thing -- possible even 3 -- one above and one from each side. An off field official would be responsible for viewing anything related to the ball crossing or not crossing the line. Play would continue as normal. If the off field official decides that the ball completely crossed the goal line resulting in a goal that was not awarded on the field, he can communicate it to the 4th official via radio and beep the CR using the same mechanism as the beeper flags. Likewise, if a goal is awarded, but video evidence indicates that the ball didn't completely cross the line, that information can be communicated as well. At a minimum, this would be implemented at all WC games and continental championships. Beyond that it would be up to individual leagues to decide if they want to implement it -- i.e., does the level of the league support the added cost. I would think that the Champions League and EPL could certainly afford to do this. Stopping play that has continued when a goal should have been awarded but wasn't is easy. The opposite type of review is probably more difficult. The CR has stopped play and awarded the goal. So if the video official decides it's not a goal, what's the restart? One might think it should be a goal kick -- kind of like putting it in the net off an IFK. But what if play was continuing -- a scrum was continuing in front of the net when the CR or AR signals that a goal has been scored. Now the video evidence overturns this. How do you award some sort of equity to the attacking team that was still challenging for a goal. Probably what would have to happen is the onfield officials would be instructed NOT to stop play unless the ball is clearly IN the net -- as in "bulging the old onion bag". That way you'd never have the inadvertent stoppages. You'd be relying on the goal official to make the call in these cases. One other note, you'd have to have TIVO type digital technology for these replays because you can't have the video evidence miss a second potential crossing of the line while the video official is reviewing an initial potential crossing. I think that it is perhaps time to have this level of video review. Beyond this single application, I am not for it. Flame away!
You mention using it only in major competitions, such as WC and Continental Championships. The problem is that it must be equal for all. Thus, the WC would have to have video set-up for Barbados vs. Cayman Islands as well as Germany vs. Poland. The WC and continental championships are actually year to 2 year tournaments, we just see the final part of it. Would it be fair to have a team eliminated by a "reviewable" call in the qualifying phase, where no video was available, and then the same situation advance a team to the quarterfinals where video was available because it was a more developed country? Id rather live with the controversy that sometimes makes certain games live on in bar room arguments and start great rivalries on the pitch. Unless, of course, we could call on the "hand of God" to help us.
OK, so it would have to be provided for all the qualifying up to the big events. It still seems eminently doable. It just seems to me that unlike MOST of the critical decisions made on the pitch by the referee crew, this one is not generally about judgement. It's about positioning and obstruction of view. It is nearly impossible for the CR to be in a good position to make this call and still be in position to call penalty area infractions well and be ready to move upfield on a counter. In addition, it is a tough call for an AR to make on two levels. The first is the shot from outside that deflects and is potentially spinning or rolling along (or over) the goal line and back out. The AR simply can't get there quick enough to have a view at the proper angle which is straight down the goal line. The second is when there are a lot of bodies in the area and the goal mouth like the recent FA Cup match where the AR's view is blocked. As I said, almost all other critical calls are are about judgement, experience, etc. Whether the ball is over the goal line is the one critical call that is black and white. There are other black and white calls like ball in or out on the touch line, but these are rarely critical in terms of the outcome of the game. All the other calls that are critical to the outcome of the game involved the judgement of the referees and I don't want to take that away.
i'm in favor of it, and add the following. kev's last comment highlighted an important point: critical calls. in thinking about this issue, i really think one needs to take into account the fact that most games are, at least relative to other American sports, low scoring. this fact emphasizes the importance of each goal. it seems to me that this can be done without a lot of intrusion, and that we do whatever we can to get it right. one more point. it would be nice if we could get it right all the time, and i would certainly advocate it's use as broadly as possible. but there is no reason not to use it in the germany v poland game just because it is not done in barbados game. the fact that one team might get screwed over in one game by a bad call is not a reason to not take steps to limit bad calls in other games.
Kev, The idea that any decision directly affecting the outcome of a game be made by any device or person other than the players on the field, and judged by the referee, would, in my opinion, set a dangerous precedent which would undermine the sport itself. It would be outside influence, albeit well meaning, but outside influence never-the-less. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and though I am sympathetic to the frustrations felt by spectators and players when faced with the fallibility of game officials, the alternative would be detrimental to the sport. The essence of the sport is that all participants strive for continuous improvement but will never achieve it. Whether you are a referee or player, every game, every decision, advances your skills and experinece, but noone acheives perfection. Imagine how boring it would be if we did. No goals would score (keepers would make every save). No calls would be missed, balls misplayed (the team with possession might never lose it).... imagine how boring it would be. The beauty of the game is that its outcome is determined by the combined effects of the players and officials on the field, in the 90 minutes of regulation plus the appropriate methods of determining a winner, should this be necessary. We must not allow technology to take this from us, because we would all suffer. This is not to say that video evidence might not have a place in other matters. For example, I feel it is reasonable for competition authorities to use it to evaluate the punishment of a player, after the fact, since this does not affect the outcome of a match. Futher, I feel there is nothing wrong with video being used as part of the training and assessment of officials. These are all collateral uses and do not constitute outside interference. Just my opinion, Sherman
Kev, I could (maybe) be sold on the idea for the limited purpose you describe, but only because at the professional level it seems to have become more of a business than a game for human enjoyment. My heart is squarely with Sherman's perspective, but my gut tells me that video review is probably coming in one form or another whether I like it or not. I would want to see a very short time limit during which the "video official" could render his judgment to the crew. In other words, he doesn't spend 45 or 60 or 90 seconds going over and over the same frame of tape, splitting hairs and milliseconds like we see in American football. If it isn't "obvious" on the first review, the call (or non-call) on the pitch stands. Otherwise, too much could happen in that intervening time which could be equally decisive to the game. The review would have to be automatic any time the video official believed the ball was on or near the goal line - no beepers or buzzers or red beanbag flags for the coaches. Paul
Sherm, Is it outside influence when the 4th official notifies the CR of misconduct off the ball that gets someone sent off? What is the difference between adding two goal judges -- humans -- sitting or standing somewhere along the goal line to be part of the officiating crew vs. having a single goal judge sitting just off the field looking at the view of 6 cameras? In either case, they are part of the officiating crew. I am not talking about some layman doing this -- it would be an official that is part of the crew just like the 4th official is and just like these proposed goal judges will be. FIFA is already looking at putting a goal judge down there but he can be just as easily blocked as the AR or just as easily have the wrong angle to clearly determine it as the CR. If you have multiple cameras -- in particular one or two looking DOWN which can't be blocked by players standing on the post during corners as an example -- then you eliminate all these issues. PK, I am not talking about a system where the game would stop to view the evidence or where the coach could request a review. Think about these goal mouth scrums -- first of all, they only happen once every handful of games. It's pretty rare to have more than 1 in a game. Generally, there is something that happens and then the ball is cleared. At that point, the play is upfield and the review official can take 10 or 20 seconds to check the replay. It's far simpler than the NBA, NFL and NHL replay situations. The issues in NFL always involved much harder things to determine. The NBA has to look at things like clock, position of feet, etc. In the NHL, most delays involved the fact that the puck is hard to see amongst all the bodies. We're not talking about any of those things -- the ball is much easier to see than a puck and we don't have to worry about feet, hands out of bounds, controll of the ball, grounding causing fumble, etc., etc. from the other sports -- we have to determine ONE thing -- did the ball cross the line.
Kev, Yep, I thought that's what you meant. I was just pointing out that for it to work it can't interrupt the flow, which means the answer can't come a minute or so later. For example, if the keeper makes a save right on the line but the AR and CR were possibly screened, the video official would immediately rewind the tape and double-check to see if the camera actually showed the ball completely crossing the line. One look is all it would/should take - if it takes more than that, it doesn't meet the standard and the video official takes no further action and doesn't communicate anything to the crew. If kept simple, it could work. Paul