World Cup open thread 2

As an American, of course I’m for as much technology as possible, but even if one does not want games stopped mid-stream for review, I don’t understand not reviewing calls after the game is over. If Kaka is sent off after an obvious dive, why can’t FIFA rescind the next-game ban after the match (and indeed, why can’t then impose the next-game ban on the actor responsible for such chicanery)? The actual play of the games would not change, players would be less willing to attempt the trick the refs, and just results would hold ex-post. I’m all for tradition, but stubbornness and injustice are not really what Burke was talking about…

(Of course, tradition is also fully maintained if we just add a 5th ref behind the goal (or a computer chip) to check whether the ball went in. I think FIFA feels like the IOC is beating them in the race to see whose elderly, dictatorial ruler can make the most decisions that utterly puzzle Americans every four years.)

ha! If cameras were actually allowed in this sport, Italy would have been down to 8 men against Slovakia in the last 10 minutes. One down in the first half for kicking the goalkeeper out of play while the ref wasn’t looking (unpunished); and another two for attacking the same keeper inside the goal, kicking and punching him, for which they were rewarded when the keeper received a yellow card. The whole thing happened in full view of the goal-corner camera, but strangely the ref and the assistant ref didn’t see it. In rugby that would be a several-match-long ban, regardless of what the ref didn’t see at the time.

Good riddance to these crappy teams. NZ should have been through in place of Italy, and some other England team (not composed of has-beens) should have been through in place of England.

True Chris, but I would expect that cameras would be concerned with brutality in a non-contact sport, and I would also expect that they be used to adjudicate diving, particularly for PKs.

Better still would be for the assistant referees to be a little more active in bringing these matters to the referee’s attention. How the assistant missed the kick at the keeper when it happened straight after an offside decision, I cannot guess. The referee and the assistant managed to see the keeper punch an Italian player in the face from his position buried under 2 of them – I don’t see how the assistant managed to miss the initial attack.

It’s almost as if the big teams are given favourable treatment…

I did not know rugby union was already ‘americanized’ but be that as it may: it is anti-egalitarian to introduce elements to the sport that the poorer leagues for sure cannot muster (& hence can’t prepare for).

One sees such football being played and what can one say but – England?

Actually, I was quite surprised at the uncharacteristic tameness of this England team. Compare Mexico’s desperate efforts when down 3-1 against Argentina. By contrast, England seemed completely resigned. Certainly no Paul Gascoigne types there. And where was Rooney? Where?

Well I liked the german performance, although they were a bit shaky in the period of the two english goals and needed some time to come back. So they can get in trouble as soon as they face adversity. On the other hand they should have gained more self-confidene now; perhaps enough for Argentine.

It’s true about Carragher; his judgment and positioning are exceptional. They’re what allow a man of roughly the size and speed of a fit Frankenstein to make a living in the Premier League.

Yes, looking at it again it’s as bad as the fourth (not the third, as I erroneously wrote above). I wonder if there was confusion about whose ball it was to head?

Personally, I’m backing Ghana until they go out (and having warm feelings about Japan too). Realistically though, Argentina

Spain is very much in the running too, and Uruguay have done very well. Funny, btw, how no one – none of the pundits I have been watching anyway – mentions Brazil. It’s almost as if they’re an outsider this time around. I do think they will be very hard to beat, and while they haven’t achieved the charming flow and ease of touch that you want and expect from them, they seem very very focused.

Well, NFL-style challenges followed by commercial breaks would certainly suck, but decisions that need not be given in real time (goals awarded, names taken) could certainly be helped by a fourth official with a monitor.

Ollie

Earnest O’nest gave an argument at 10. It strikes me as being quite a good one. What do you think is wrong with it?

“(ii) that Jamie Carragher would never have been caught out (as Terry and Upson were) for that first German goal”

Absolutely right. He’s far too slow to have got that far from his own penalty area.

#29: I don’t really disagree, but I just think it’s a bit of a fringe argument: it was all over barring a miracle, and the fact that they could have fought harder for that miracle doesn’t change that. I think the only thing that possibly bugs me about it is that it took the heat out of a game which had been fantastic to watch for more than a hour.

Pace. I think lack of pace may be death for a defender at international level more than it is for a midfielder or forward. (I think of Matt Elliott, for instance, who had everything a top-class central defender needs except for that.) You can get caught for pace up front, and there’s still most of your team between your goal and the ball: get caught for pace at the back against top-class opposition, and you’re dead.

link

praisegod barebones,

In much of Africa, the game is largely played at youth level without things such as boots, shin pads, corner flags, goal nets etc. If we were holding FIFA to their logic we’d be trying to get rid of shin pads and football boots since people in large parts of Africa, South Asia and Latin America can’t afford them.

I have been a referee. At most of the games I’ve officiated at lower levels, I often didn’t even have linesmen talkless of the fancy radio equipment with which the officials at the World Cup and higher levels of football communicate.

We all know that the game in poorer climes suffers a lack of resources compared to the richer leagues. That’s why a soccer-mad country like Nigeria with 150 million people struggles to make their mark at the World Cup.

You might say that given the gap that already exists, we should look to not further widen the gap. But we can’t ignore the fact that football in Guatemala is not televised whereas football in Holland is televised, and it would be a barely noticeable incremental step, to have the referee confer with a 5th official sitting in the TV broadcast room.

@34- so let’s take the FA Cup. From which stage onwards to we have technology? What with the final if it is between a Premier League team and a team that has no experience with technology?

I can agree Sepp Blatter is a moron but soccer is not an American-style franchise where you will need multi-million capital to even have the possibility of even having a chance to compete – and the fact that out of the last 8 at least half would be from ‘poorer’ countries would suggest that we have in soccer something of a more equitable arrangement in the sport.

(by the way: you can also put an additional referee as done in the Europa League)

None of this changes the fact that Germany was better.

@36
Video refereeing would apply only to televised games. Games in England are televised all the way down to FA Vase and Blue Square level. Don’t quote me on this but I believe all FA Cup games are televised i.e. filmed.

Every other sport now uses video technology. It’s been an overwhelming success in Cricket and Rugby. Tennis has been enriched by it. Athletics was one of the first sports to benefit from it, several decades ago now.

If FIFA snuck in a video referee, sitting away from view in the TV broadcast room, I wager the public won’t even notice anything has changed about the game.

(Re-iterating my wrong-dog caveat)

Micro-decision technology — which makes more sense in tennis or cricket — is a maybe bit of a red herring here. The problem isn’t very close calls that only close-up and multiple forensic replay can unravel, it’s massive blunders obvious to half the ground. Seems to me an off-pitch ref who’s watching via screens can
(i) provide instant decision-changing judging for the kinds of errors in Eng-Ger and Arg-Mex yesterday
(ii) instantly decide “too close to call w/o damaging delays”: technology will improve no one’s temper and is not an advance on a referee’s judgment in too-close-to-call*
(iii) “ok bad decision but play on” is better for the game* — the “play on” feature being one of the real strengths of football culture

*obviously “better for the game” is a huge wide open maw of a thing, but that’s also a strength

I would explicitly require this off-pitch judge to be allowed to rule (reliably quickly) “will take damagingly long to investigate HENCE too close to call HENCE on-pitch call stands”

off-sides would (usually) be quicker to decide

I doubt if you could decide any close offside without several runs through slo-mo.

@38: Cricket and Rugby, real world sports that are. What happens when somebody is overruled or a challenge called? Do you really think that interrupts will not impact concentration? I don’t. And I don’t think a ‘secret’ judge that has access to a shitty television feed would make things so much better.

And as far as tennis being enriched by it? It’s becoming an element of the sport to say ‘challenge’ at times it will most interrupt the adversary’s concentration.

(but I admit: I’m just being the contrarian here)

Of course there would be times when the referee would stop play for “more than a few seconds” to make a decision. But such times occur frequently enough in football already.

Not when the ball remains in play, they don’t.

A review won’t have to be signalled.

Uh-huh. So the ball bounces down off the bar, the keeper collects, he throws he ball downfield, the winger picks it up and gets a cross in, the forward gets his head to it and goal! But hang on, he was suspiciously clear there, was he offside?

It’s going to be chaos, isn’t it?

Wrongly adjudicated but close offside decisions are not the target. Those are hardly ever controversial

What? What are you talking about?

Wrongly adjudicated but close offside decisions are not the target. Those are hardly ever controversial. The problem is judging the clear issues which the officials miss.

And tell me, how are you going to distinguish between close decision on which no ruling is required, and clear errors which need to be corrected?

You mean like they did in their previous major tournament?

… and most of the Champion Leagues of the past decade(s). I guess what England misses most of all is a lot of Spanish ‘whimpy’ soccer players.

how are you going to distinguish between close decision on which no ruling is required, and clear errors which need to be corrected?

By judging in advance how long it will take to make a techology-assisted “correct” ruling. If more than [x] seconds, where [x] marks the balance point between routine (non-interruptive) stoppage and flow-damaging stoppage. (Tennis and cricket both have “secret” judges, don’t they? That is, off-pitch arbiters who can be called on in certain circumstances.)

There isn’t a method by which judgment or rulings are going to be removed.

Showing replays on giant screens when there ISN’T going to technology-assisted reffing is by some distance the worst of both worlds: I don’t feel Mexico’s (justified) mass protests yesterday actually did their concentration much good…

Rugby League replay decisions are often quite subjective; what is “downward pressure and control” other than “I know it when I see it”? How do you decide between “he deliberately got in the non-ball carrier’s way – obstruction, and possibly a penalty try” and “he didn’t get out of the non-ball carrier’s way, but then again he doesn’t have to according to the book, so play on”?

“Did the ball cross the line?” is a lot easier to implement in software.

A system where the England coach gets to release three lions per game would increase the current entertainment value of England games, if not their match-win chances. (As players from other lands would be taught, you don’t need to faster than the lion, you only need to be faster than Terry, Hesketh, etc…)

a system of post-match bookings based on protests made on video footage, limited to fouls behind play, diving, and assaults, would serve to significantly reduce the single biggest blights on the game.

The issue of goals being misread (and of some fouls behind play) could be solved by chucking an extra assistant ref at each end whose soul job is to adjudicate goals and corners. Given that refs cost 1/50th of a decent player, they can afford a few more.

ejh,

You asked how we’d know if a decision was glaring? Well I’m hoping they’d be em, glaring?

Think of the video ref as the ref’s invisible friend who tells him secrets. His job would be to say; “so-and-so player just kicked the opposition keeper in the nuts”.

It’s all about giving referees more information. No more, no less.

Great comments, more like.

On mature reflection I think a fifth “Voice of the People” official should be in place to overrule calls as needed. I’m thinking someone like Gazza.

I say let’s not worry about the cameras until they can all be wirelessly networked straight into the neural network of the A.I. robotic official. Then the ref really will see everything, and from multiple angles at once.

One argument about video replay that I haven’t seen made very often, but I think is a decent point, is that it would be biased in one direction. (This argument doesn’t include goal-line technology, for which I can’t see decent arguments against implementation at the highest level, nor to post-game review of cautions and suspensions).

For decisions that benefit the defense (offside calls, offensive fouls and handballs, etc.) it is impossible to use video review to reverse a decision that is made, because play has already been stopped. You can’t very well say “oh, well, it turns out Heskey wasn’t twenty yards offside; give him the ball back in front of the goal mouth”. Play has already been blown dead.

On the other hand, such calls can readily be inserted by video review – goals can be called back upon review. But they can’t be awarded retroactively.

Football is a sport in which the overwhelming percentage of referee decisions (I’d guess at least 98%) are judged correctly.

….a referee writes.

I’m a fan, which is why I know that close offside decisions are not remotely non-controversial, and also why I reckon that the comment above is manifest nonsense.

Football is full of incorrect decisions. It’s also a game of flow. It’s also, partly because of the latter and despite – or because of – the former quality, the most popular (and quite likely the best) game in the world. It has no challenger whatsoever in this respect. It has not only survived but prospered for 138 years since the first international was played. It is not in some sort of crisis requiring video replays, or post-match sanctions against divers and cheats, or systems of challenges, or points for goals, or any of the rest of it.

Henry scored with his hand. So what. Lampard’s goal was ruled out. So what. Tevez was offside. So what. That’s the game, and to my mind this sort of thing adds to that game as much as it detracts from it. So are we really to make changes that would genuinely damage the flow and fabric of the game because of it? No thanks. I’d rather the game kept going, and we can all shout at the referee.

“Henry scored with his hand. So what. ”
So he cheated. He’s a fraud. France’s place in the tournament was a fraud. Watching cheaters cheat each other – that’s the “sort of thing that adds to the game”? You think it’s a good thing that the game rewards cheating?

Watching cheaters cheat each other – that’s the “sort of thing that adds to the game”?

It depends whether you’re expecting a drama, or a lesson in ethics.

Goal review needn’t interrupt the course of play. In the National Hockey League disallowed goals are reviewed while play continues. If it turns out the goal should have been allowed, then at the next break in play the decision is communicated to the referee, the goal added to the score, and play begins again from the time of the original goal. That way if the call was correct play continues uninterrupted and if the goal should have been signaled play returns, as it should have. to that moment. No reason football couldn’t adopt similar rules for televised games.

If there’s another goal scored it doesn’t count. The rule is that if the original goal was good, play should have stopped at that point, so nothing that follows counts and the clock is reset.

But if the original call of no goal was correct, then the following goal in the run of play isn’t prevented, as it would be if play were stopped artificially for a review.

No reason football couldn’t adopt similar rules for televised games.

Well, there’s lots of reasons of course, because ice hockey isn’t association football. The number of goals habitually scored is rather different and the number of disallowed goals, similarly. I very much doubt whether there’s any interest, among people who actually watch and play the game regularly, in having goals suddenly added to the score because somebody in a TV studio has decide they should have been given, or goals that have been legitimately scored suddenly chalked off because some earlier goal wasn’t given and should have been.

I really wish that before people say “well, it works in such-and-such a sport” they would reflect a bit more on whether and how much such-and-such a sport might be different, not just in the way it works but in its culture and traditions.

And it’s a serious question, appropriate for CT commenters, whether “goals that have been legitimately scored suddenly chalked off because some earlier goal wasn’t given and should have been” are, in fact, LEGITIMATE goals. To at least some degree any goal is a product of the dynamic of the match at the point it is scored, as anyone who plays the game knows. A goal scored after a legitimate goal is disallowed is to some degree implicated in the illegitimate ruling on the initial goal. I’d rather risk the vanishingly rare possibility that a goal will follow prior to a stoppage and be disallowed, a possibility that I’m not convinced is even a problem if it does tale place given the illegitimacy of the course of play following such a mistake, in order to get the legitimate goal posted.

ejh: Are you serious? I know lots of obsessive football fans, and they are almost unanimously in favor of something like the NHL system. And these are people who could give a shit about hockey (and didn’t know that the NHL had such a system until I told them.) 50% of all World Cup conversations I’ve heard have been bitching about the refs screwing up goal/non-goal calls. But of course only you understand the true essence of association football.

Kieran Healy 06.28.10 at 4:09 pm
On mature reflection I think a fifth “Voice of the People” official should be in place to overrule calls as needed. I’m thinking someone like Gazza.

I can’t even begin to express how much I would support this.

I think “suddenly added” is a bit much—the entire audience, both TV and live, saw the previous goal scored before it was disallowed in the first place. Ruling it legitimate wouldn’t exactly be a bolt from the blue.

Christ.

No, they didn’t. In most instances, the truth isn’t at all clear to people who are actually at the game. It’s not even clear to people watching on telly until you’ve had a few replays, and even then a unanimity of opinion is rare. Was it a penalty to Brazil at 0-0 tonight? The commentators on my Spanish channel said yes, “clarisimo”: in England they were apparently praising Howard Webb. That’s normal. You think every disallowed goal is as clear as Frank Lampard’s?

But people who go to a lot of games understand this, and that’s why this:

That question already has a definitive and unambiguous answer, which is No. The ref giveth and the ref taketh away. That’s how the game is.

is true, and understood. No bastard wants “oh by the way, you thought it was 2-1 to Leyton Orient but actually it’s 2-1 to Barnet because we’ve just disallowed one goal and allowed an earlier one”. Because nobody who loves the game thinks it’s shit enough to be messed about with in that way.

ejh, why are you being such an ass about this? Why do you think I’m referring to people who’ve just watched a few games on TV? I’m talking about people who live and breathe football, and have since they were small children.

Colour me imaginative but I can think of many many ways to implement video assistance to refs without affecting flow or process of the game.

Referees should be required to wear a device that completely covers their heads, much like the Ettinauer 226XL . Video can be supplied by helmet-mounted lenses or external cameras. Audio will come from parabolic microphones following a radar emitting ball and from mildly censored feeds from each bench and the other referees. Referees will be mounted on Segways for faster transit up and down the field. Yellow cards will be administered through a small low-powered taser lead, red cards via a pole-mounted noose attached to the referee’s vehicle. Also there is ESP involved somehow.

I am curious that no one explores any other possibilities than video replay for improving the officiating, especially in World Cup play. For instance, the NHL switched from one referee to two some 20 years ago. (There are also two linesmen, similar to ARs in soccer.) Also American college and high school soccer use two referees (normally without ARs.) Why not, in higher level games, two on-field referees and two ARs? (The mirror of how, in really low-level games, there is only one referee, with club linesmen who call only out-of-bounds, not offsides.) As another analogy, MLB uses six umpires for the post-season, instead of the usual four: they are stationed down the foul lines. So why not add two more referees in World Cup competition, who remain relatively stationary near the goals, but on the opposite side of the goal mouth from the referee(s)?

“0% of people have expressed the opinion that goals given should be later disallowed, or goals disallowed should be later given.”

What about the “chips implanted in the ball” technology to signal to the refs a score when it crosses the magnetic boundary? IOW, if the decision could be made instantaneously?

I agree that an instant replay with review would be problematic (with the most difficult application of replay to review penalties/flops which lead to kicks). But what if the fix was instant and limited to goal line judgments?

The comparison with hockey is actually very good. Both games are games that are relatively low scoring and games where flow is important because there aren’t many scoring chances.

If the video review were adopted in a manner similar to the NHL, I think it would work well. In the NHL, most of the time the question is whether the net was off its moorings before the puck crossed the line, and that can be a difficult decision sometimes because the timing is crucial. In soccer, the only question is whether the ball crossed the line, or maybe whether someone was off-sides if we want to go there and that’s surely the kind of thing that can be reviewed whilst the players are running around with their arms out like airplane wings and getting dogpiled by their teammates or chewing out the ref.

There’s already a tradition of adding extra time onto the clock. It’s not like the clock would have to be stopped any more than it has to be stopped to treat injuries.

But say that technological solutions are impossible, and reviews are out. Why not add a goal linesman? (The NHL used this before video replays.) He can signal with a flag that the ball crossed the line, and the head ref can decide whether that instance of the ball crossing the line was a legitimate goal. No appeal, no stoppage, just someone whose job it is to have an eye on the line.

A system where coaches get three decision challenges per game, and where they lose a substitution if a challenge is decided against them, seems reasonable to me.

Dear god. So, goal mouth scramble, it’s horribly messy, the ball stotters around the line, defender gets a foot on it and hoofs it up to the lone striker who turns and brings it down in the middle of the opposition half in acres of space, with keeper looking shaky — and then the opposition asks if we could see if that was a goal please, mr. replay man? In most sports with replays, the question is not `shall we stop play?’ it is `having -already- stopped play, was that a goal?’. There has to be some way of determining if play should be stopped very very quickly.

The idea of awarding goals after play has gone is so laughably against the spirit of football it’s just painful. In football, like Iranian poetry, once something has happened, it’s happened, and not all thy piety nor wit can do anything, and tears aren’t much cop either. Advantage isn’t even pulled back.

(So. Goal not awarded, and one side is one nil down with fifteen minutes to go and needs a draw to stay up. Manager pulls off a defender and puts young striker on. Then the goals awarded a minute later. Does the defender stay off? etc etc.)

hence my suggestion that video refs only be used when a goal has been scored, i.e. the ball is in the net, to check for handballs/offsides, where necessary. Also, I would suggest they should be mandatory when a referee awards a penalty, with the video ref particularly required to look for diving, and any player who dives to earn a pk then being given a yellow card, and post-match disciplining.

The thing that ruins soccer is not the very rare occasion when a ball goes in and comes out and isn’t awarded as a goal, but the very very common occasion where the Italians certain teams win games by pulling PKs, and/or by handballing in the strike area. Cleaning up that area of the game wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the England-Germany match but it would certainly have changed the outcome of Italy’s group, sending NZ through in place of Slovakia (or forcing a goal-difference decision), and would have allowed some other European team into the competition in place of France.

But that alters the balance of play considerably, and would be quite a change to the game. The thing is, the rules of football work quite well at the moment, and it would be very easy to muck them up — see `golden goal’ for example.

How does it alter the balance of play? (I’ll grant you the snipers do, but in a good way).

It means that after a goal is scored, there’s a 30 second break instead of a 10 second break, and a goal kick instead of a kickoff, if the goal is disallowed. It won’t take more than 10 seconds to review the majority of dubious goals for offside and handball, particularly if you use the “favour the attacking side” rule when in doubt. It’s not like rugby where your video replay has to untangle a mass of bodies and has to check for control of the ball AND grounding. I’ve never seen a soccer replay where the facts of the matter weren’t easily visible – offside, for example, if it can be ruled on in a split-second by an assistant ref, can be ruled on in a matter of seconds by a video ref.

With PKs, there’s always a long faff before the thing happens, so why not make that faff productive, by checking for diving? Diving is the single – I would say the only – significant problem with soccer, and it will never be stamped out until players are shown that their actions won’t win them the game, and will lose them playing time. The Italian penalty against NZ was a shocking piece of showmanship, and a 3 second video replay would have had that player yellow carded and up for a disciplinary act of the most heinous kind (one hopes; if he survived the sniper, which one could only hope he wouldn’t).

You’re arguing against improved methods of catching diving using TV, while arguing that using TV would not punish defenders who commit professional fouls.

Then you say

This is the problem with video refs. They can be quick and get the easy things right, or they can be slow and get the hard things right

but this is the problem with actual refs, who only do the former. If you introduce video refs for key decisions, you will get the easy and the hard things right when it matters.

Your comments about the Italy penalty make the case exactly. It’s dubious to claim that the NZ player was doing any more than pulling on an Italian shirt, which everyone in the area does all the time; the referee didn’t see it until the Italian player went skidding off the ground, squealing and wailing and holding his (tiny) balls. A dive is a dive is a dive, if you weren’t pulled over you don’t get to dive; diving – even in the area, even if you were touched by a scary Kiwi – is still diving.

SG: I think you might be at risk of falling into the same trap I sometimes fall into – that is, of saying “if soccer were more like rugby, it’d be better”.

Yes, I think it’s crazy that in a context where one man pulls on another’s shirt, and the second man throws himself melodramatically to the floor as if pole-axed, the first man is the one who’s penalised. But the rules of soccer say that pulling on someone’s shirt in the penalty area is a foul, and that a foul in the penalty area gives the attacking team a penalty.

If soccer were to bring its concept of a foul closer to rugby’s concept, that would be a very different change from merely introducing video refs to enforce the existing rules. It’d be creating a different game. And while you or I might think it’d be a better game, the fact that soccer with its current rules is by far the world’s most popular sport suggests that our opinion might be in a minority…

It’s dubious to claim that the NZ player was doing any more than pulling on an Italian shirt, which everyone in the area does all the time; the referee didn’t see it until the Italian player went skidding off the ground, squealing and wailing and holding his (tiny) balls.

Pulling shirts is a foul. It doesn’t get penalised because the ref exercises discretion, & it doesn’t matter if the ref didn’t see it until the Italian fell over. If you get fouled and make sure the ref knows, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Also, Bloix, we’ve filmed football since the turn of the century. We’ve had video replay for fifty odd years. Football is still doing quite well for itself thank you very much no matter.

well sorry, ejh, not “ruined,” then, but “spoiled.” The thing that spoils soccer is the diving, and I think it’s silly to hold your hands in the air and say “we can’t fix that.” Just as soccer fans look the other way from soccer players’ filthy disrespect for the referee, that could so easily be dealt with by a few red cards at the beginning of a world cup.

I don’t think arguing that the game is the most popular in the world is the same as arguing that it’s perfect; that people love these games despite their flaws doesn’t mean we can’t try and fix the flaws, particularly when they are so blatant.

I really don’t think my suggestion is going to lead to many stoppages, either. In the Germany-England game it would have led to precisely 0; in the Slovakia-Italy game, again, 0 (1 if you allow egregious assaults on goalkeepers to be video-reffed); in the Italy-NZ game, 1. This isn’t exactly a huge disruption to the pace of a game.

Also, judging by the commentary in the main British papers, it’s a bit rich to claim that anyone who understands the game rejects video refs, and that the people favouring them are johnny-come-lately blow-ins. Admittedly, I’m not an avid soccer-watcher, but until 2006 I was a regular viewer.

john b, while it’s true that I prefer rugby (and kickboxing) to watch, I do enjoy watching soccer. My view of it has changed since I lived in Europe and witnessed the culture that surrounds the game up close – before I went to Europe I used to watch the champions league (which is free-to-air in Australia), but now I only make an effort for the World Cup. I understand the difference in refereeing style of the two games, but the idea that soccer has nothing to learn from any other sport is not really one I’m impressed by, and that seems to be the refrain of people who think that it being the most popular sport also makes it the best.

Yeah, and the thing that’s driving that proposal is the dissatisfaction of diehard fans with the current state of refereeing, contrary to ejh’s assertion that there is nothing to see here.

The Lampard goal would have been easily fixed with a dedicated linesman, who blew the whistle on it immediately and stopped play. No video ref, split-second decision, goal awarded.

Even allowing the possibility of a dubious NZ score (what is this, rugby commentary?!), you’re talking about 2 stoppages in 3 games, both stoppages at the point of a goal having been scored or a penalty taken, so not interfering with the ball in play. Nobody has stopped everyone running around and said “sorry, we just need to gaze at our navels for 10 minutes,” and in both cases the decision would have been a few seconds work, like this: a) is it an obvious dive? Not sure? Decision in favour of the attacking side. Sure? No pk, goal kick. Or b) was it obviously offside? Not sure? Decision in favour of the attacking side. Sure? Goal disallowed, goal kick.

Considering the amount of interference players willingly exert on the match by diving – rolling around, getting the opposing team to kick the ball out, springing immediately to their feet and returning to the game, throwing the ball back in to the team that had possession – it hardly seems like a big deal.

that could so easily be dealt with

Bong! This one fails under the provisions of “people who claim that something could be solved easily neither stop to ask why it hasn’t been done already nor consider whether their simple solutuon might not have any consequences”.

Oh come on ejh, how about this:

look, it’s one of the byproducts of a World Cup that every four years, we have to be told how our game needs fixing.

You’re regularly making these niggling little assertions that the people who are calling for video refs are world cup blow-ins, and that the regulars (who understand the game) don’t see the need. Or that it’s about rugby, not soccer; or that people who claim a need for a video ref are misapplying theory from other games.

As for your claim that these things are hard to deal with – ever watched the scoring on a boxing match? Any dispute in soccer is quite literally trivial in comparison – any dispute. And in any sport, “easily” includes a fair degree of latitude on “willing to tolerate mistakes.” Even compared to rugby, soccer disputes are trivial. The disputes you claim have been “controversial for years after” are controversial not in terms of whether or not they happened. The Hand of God, the Hand of Thierry (same diff in his mind, I’m sure), Lampard’s goal… no-one disputes the facts of the matter, they dispute whether or not the decision should have been adjudicated by referee, or whether the entire outcome of the game would have been different if the goal had/hadn’t happened.

Compare this with a boxer whose bout is stopped early because the referee thought he was gonna get pasted. That’s a dispute about what actually happened, with the prime disputant usually being the brain-fucked guy in question. No-one except the boxer himself knows whether or not he was actually incapable of going on, but everyone knows that Lampard’s goal was a goal.

And really, do you think that the standard pattern of a) dive, b) kick the ball out, c) get up sprightly as the day you were born d) throw ball in to the opposition is somehow a type of interruption of the game that is tolerable in comparison to post-match video review and punishment of diving?

The thing that spoils soccer is the diving, and I think it’s silly to hold your hands in the air and say “we can’t fix that.”

I’ve watched about four matches in the World Cup so far, and I’ve seen any number of players rolling around on the grass simulating the tortures of the damned… for about twenty seconds, after which they realise the ref hasn’t bought it and get up again. I’m not sure what needs fixing here.

whose quote is that, ejh? It’s pretty funny. But it’s just not cricket…

and you’re failing under the excessive use of the “Bong! I’m a prat” approach to arguing.

are there really people who seriously argue that the ball didn’t cross the line in the 1966 World Cup final

Do you mean “did”?

Oh, I see. ejh is a crazy person. My mistake.

goals that have been legitimately scored suddenly chalked off because some earlier goal wasn’t given and should have been.

….

Bong! This fails under “rebuttals of claims that nobody has made”.

ejh, under any reasonable video refereeing system, that would be no more controversial than it is now. If a simple camera angle on the line can’t identify whether the ball was in or out, benefit of doubt is given to the attacker, goal is scored. What’s the problem? Whole documentaries wouldn’t have been made, but still, who would care? The difference is that France wouldn’t have got to this world cup, and Maradona’s hand would be judged very very mortal.

And in response to your snide “Internet Implied” at 129, I give you this gem of supercilious know-it-allism from 91:

But they’re only the people that have spent their lives going to games. What do they know? I mean, compared to people who see a few games in the World Cup and decide that the whole game needs turning over?

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Lampard’s shot came 54 seconds after Upson’s goal. That’s not very long. In football, after a goal, the ball is back in play, and more goals can be scored, really quickly – perhaps surprisingly so. People who think that that in the short time it takes to retrieve the ball, line up and kick off again, there is time for video officials to carry out reviews, make decisions and communicate them to the referee are fantasising. They can do that if they want, but I don’t have to tell them otherwise.

That’s true ejh, but I think you’re exaggerating the importance of flow in the game, and the extent to which it is not interrupted now. Substitutions, injuries and diving cause significant disruptions, especially the type of diving which leads to extended wrangling, balls going out, and/or players having to be carried off only to run straight back on. Look at the shenanigans that go on when a team is one goal up and injury time has been declared, all sorts of back pains and cramps suddenly spring up.

Post-match adjudication of diving – which can be done as slowly as one likes, without disrupting the game – would end a lot of that kind of faffing, and more than make up for the occasional slowing down of the restart. It would also pretty much put a stop to this practice, which would be a plus for the game and would hugely improve its flow overall. Watching a team that regularly dives is really frustrating.

It would also pretty much put a stop to this practice

See, this is another of your assumptions that things can be done easily, just like that. No it can’t. You’re operating a video review, not a mindreading device. In the absence of the latter, working out whether somebody has dived is really hard, and as I’ve said relating to numerous other incidents in the thread, the fact that there are differing opinions as to whether or not players have dived is testament to this. Did the Uruguayan dive against South Africa? Did the Slovakian dive yesterday? You’ll see varying opinions, and that after the people concerned have seen as many replays as they wish.

What that’s likely to do is leave you saying well, we’ll only punish in the case of very obvious, unchallengeable evidence of diving. Which is fair enough, but that won’t wipe out the practice, because the whole poinjt for the expert diver is to do it well. To fall over somebody’s legs, not just to fall over. (Lee Nogan, playing for Oxford, used to have another technique entirely – he used to dive outside the box. God knows why.)

Football fans don’t like divers very much. But it’s worth asking yourself the question – before pronouncing that there’s an easy solution to a problem, did you ponder whether or not this might have been proposed before, and debated within the game? Did you imagine that the only reasons your simple solution hadn’t been implemented were lack of will, or never having thought of it? Did it occur to you that whether or not it’s a good idea, experienced people might have thought of some problems that you had not?

Upthread, there’s a suggestion that diving be addressed by throwing around red cards at the beginning of a tournament. I can tell you, if you want to ruin a tournament, throwing around red cards at the start is a good way of going about it. We’ve been down that road before.

I think you’re exaggerating the importance of flow in the game

I don’t think I am. It’s fundamental.

and the extent to which it is not interrupted now. Substitutions, injuries and diving cause significant disruptions

Well, not really, because in the first instance, the referee can and will book people for delaying the game unnecessarily (what’s he going to do with a review, book the video ref?) and in the case of injuries, where they can, players are told to leave the field. I don’t think diving causes any significant delays at all. But in each instance, the necessity to get on with the game is understood and encouraged in the Laws. There’s a a reason for this, and video reviews go in the opposite direction.

sg: Post-match adjudication of diving

So, what, somebody plays for 90 minutes and then gets a red card? Or they get a retrospective yellow card at 67′ to add to the actual one that they got at 54′, which unfortunately annuls the goal they scored at 83’… Brane hertz.

The flip side of the ‘flow’ argument is that the game does stop when something big happens – and when something big happens, the game needs to stop. Which in turn means that a big part of the ref’s job is identifying when something big hasn’t happened, so that the game can continue. A ref who gave a free kick every time a player took a dive (or a penalty for every dive in the box) wouldn’t last very long.

as opposed to the soccer lover’s claim that the game emerged shining and perfect from the arsehole of god.

Of course nobody thinks this, but refer upthread.

I find the on-pitch behaviour of players absolutely reprehensible.

Me, I find treading on people’s heads, or punching faces, or brawling, or gouging people’s eyes, rather more reprehensible. These are among the reasons football doesn’t take lectures in ethics from certain other directions.

but they can’t make him change his mind

This is 99.9 (recurring) per cent true, but I can think of one notorious example from a Liverpool v Roma game about ten seasons ago where, if I recall correctly, precisely that did happen. Of course precisely because it was so exceptional, it’s the exception that proves the rule.

Rugby union ethics seem to me to be very military-public school. You absolutely can’t dissent, and who is above you is above you without argument – but where people are not above you, a sizeable amount of brutality is tolerated. (Of course there’s violence in league as well, but to my mind there’s less of it, is less tolerated and it’s less intrinsic.)

Also it’s worth noting that football has, of course, rather than being perfect and untouchable, undergone many changes over its history – the change from “three” to “two” in the offside rule*, the introduction of substitutes, the introduction of penalty shoot-outs, the introduction of the away-goals rule, the introduction of three points for a win, the change in the back-pass rule and so on. Most of these have worked out pretty well, I think. People aren’t opposed to change as such – matter of fact, football fans propose changes all the time. They can, however, be dismissive of wholesale changes proposed by people who are neither very knowledgeable about the game nor particularly fond of it. Of this, I say “good”.

[* strictly speaking, Law]

But we’re talking about wholesale changes proposed by people who are knowledgeable about the game, and live or die by it. Though apparently you have redefined football fandom as meaning “me, and people who agree with me.” No True Scotsman would ever disagree with you, of course.

ejh,

Your conceit in purporting to speak for people who love the game is grating not least because you’re taking your passion for your minority position as proof of the popularity of your position.

As I typed that, it is being reported that Sepp Blatter the FIFA President has apologised for the 2 errors in the 2 Sunday games and has said they will consider changes.

Everyone knows it will only be a matter of time before reason wins over romance.

Where video assistance would succeed is cases- the vast majority of them- in which a video ref, at the same time as the fans in the stadium, 3 seconds after the event sees that the Argentine striker was clearly offside

Heh.

You are a silly person.

If you’re going to overrule the officials, you need to be sure.

You think you can do that on one viewing?

We already have people who do that – they’re called “linesmen”, or latterly “referee’s assistants”. They get one go, to decide.

If you’re going to do better than them, and overrule them, you’re going to need more than that one go. To make sure that you haven’t missed anything, you see? Which very obviously means that you’ll need more than three seconds. Or more than ten, for that matter.

You can like that or not like it, and deny it or not deny it. What you can’t do is make it untrue.

Why not just stop the clock when a player does that but do it in an official way?

They do. The referee’s watch is officially the clock.

@158

If you’re going to overrule the officials, you need to be sure.

Nobody has to overrule referees. The referee will remain the ultimate judge. The final authority whose decisions will remain binding.

You think you can do that on one viewing?
Yes. And how do I know? In the actual game it took all of 3 seconds for a video replay to reveal that Tevez was offside. What was ridiculous was seeing the referee confer for endless seconds with his assistant and then make the wrong decision.

If you’re going to do better than them, and overrule them, you’re going to need more than that one go. To make sure that you haven’t missed anything, you see? Which very obviously means that you’ll need more than three seconds. Or more than ten, for that matter.

As I already said, the referee will retain final authority. The whole idea is to give him more information on which to base his decisions. I’ve been a referee and I know that referees usually know something is amiss but make wrong decisions because they do not positively know such decisions to be false. Referees are told to not give decisions unless they’ve seen them.

In Thierry Henry’s handball in the France v Ireland game it was clear the referee knew something was amiss. Same with the Tevez situation on Sunday. Same with the Lampard situation. If the referee had received some information even 30 seconds after the incident it would have led to a better outcome.

I challenge you to paint a scenario in which during a game there are multiple stoppages which would be CREATED EXCLUSIVELY BY a referee seeking video evidence to make his decision.

In the actual game it took all of 3 seconds for a video replay to reveal that Tevez was offside.

No it didn’t, because, as I say, you need more than one viewing to be properly sure. There are any number of things that you might miss. It’s no good to say of something that you’ve already seen, well, that was obvious. It’s all the potential things – did anybody play him offside? when was the ball played? are there any defenders standing where I can’t see them? – that need to be checked.

But this is in the realms of the bleedin’ obvious.

I like the public clock and the fact that when it reaches zero play continues until the ball goes dead – makes for some very exciting finishes.

Yes, you could have a public clock, and of course one recent improvement to the game has been to share injury-time information with the crowd. I would be very wary though of taking timekeeping out of the hands of the referee, given that they’re best-placed to decide whether time is being wasted and so on.

Your conceit in purporting to speak for people who love the game is grating not least because you’re taking your passion for your minority position as proof of the popularity of your position.

Except you know, ejh is defending the mainline football position here and I have to say it’s a line that’s pretty popular.

Also, the examples of clear injustices cited here are pretty bad, because quite a few of them are cases where in my opinion the ref made the right decision. Going to video wouldn’t solve the problem of the ref deciding contrary to you, which seems to be a large part of the complaint.

The time thing is very clear. Any review would either only apply once the game had already been stopped, and would take at the very least 30 seconds (the tape’s at least five seconds, you have to watch it from say three angles, and then five seconds up/down, and a bit of faffing around with the tech) and would pick up almost nothing worth caring about, or else it would be intrusive as hell. How far back do we replay the tape? Goals can come after minutes of sustained pressure, which might involve one or two possible offsides, several maybe penalties, and a ball that might have crossed the byline when the winger was pushed wide just before the cross into the box.

(Finally, [t]he rugby crew saw the benefits of video refs, they made changes to the rules to improve safety, and they continue to refine the game; yeah, how are those ELVs treating you?)

Keir @168

There are at least 12 cameras in every stadium. In the broadcast room, the director and crew often see multiple angles. You don’t need to play the tape 3ce.

ejh,
Using advanced video technology i’d take less than a second with the right algorithm to identify which of the attacking team’s players was the closest to the defending team’s goal line than the last 2 defending team players. Amazing that what you consider bleedingly obvious doesn’t exist. You don’t need such extensive deliberations most of the time. I mean, if one player socked the other in the nuts you don’t need deliberation before telling the player that Player X just castrated Player V. If the application of video assistance will be limited to such cases, it’s already be an improvement on current officiating.

Even with widely available analog technology, you’d have seen the line used to determine offside in video replays. It’s very effective. To the trained eye, using that line offside can be seen instantly.

But there are problems with using video assistance to call offside. One is that being called offside effectively ends a team’s attack. If after video assistance, the ref rules the team wasn’t offside they’d have lost the initiative. So largely video would be useless. Nevertheless it can be used in dead-ball situations leading to a goal.

Me, I find treading on people’s heads, or punching faces, or brawling, or gouging people’s eyes, rather more reprehensible. These are among the reasons football doesn’t take lectures in ethics from certain other directions.

Well, my sport is brawling and punching (and kicking) people’s faces, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t take you up on the “ethics” lecture there. But you see, any of those activities (and let’s include ear-biting here, shall we?) would get you in a lot of trouble through the video ref in “certain other directions.” Whereas in football, I can run into the goal, push over the keeper, kick him, get my mates to join in, and somehow walk away with the keeper wearing the yellow card.

Does it strike you as interesting that this appalls a kickboxer, but is “part of the game” to a football fan?

Whereas in football, I can run into the goal, push over the keeper, kick him, get my mates to join in, and somehow walk away with the keeper wearing the yellow card.

Can you furnish us with a real-life example resembling this description?

ejh,

It would take less time than it takes Google to give you search results. Your telepathic powers would be more useful in other situations. Video technology can handle this one.

And sg, that never happened. The Slovak keeper got a yellow at the same time as Quagliarella when they scuffled over a ball in the net after the Italians scored. That’s nothing like what you claim happened.

But not in the “beautiful game,” whose players are thugs to match their fans.

I think at this point, you really need to take your ignorance and snobbery with you and depart.

This is a view I strongly favour.

After the match, Neuer gave this account of his actions: “I tried not to react to the referee and just concentrate on what was happening. I realised it was over the line and I think the way I carried on so quickly fooled the referee into thinking it was not over.”

To put it bluntly: Neuer cheated, and then boasted about it.

By any normal ethical standards, what Neuer did was wrong. But does the fact that Neuer was playing football mean that the only ethical rule is “win at all costs”

No, I say. And we would do well to focus on this instead of on the introduction of video equipment.

no keir, that’s not the case at all. Watch the goal-corner camera. They came running in, pushed him over, and kicked him. The goalkeeper turned up in time to see him punch one of them back from the ground.

Eh, he was also arguably slowing the game down in an attempt to put Italy out the cup. They both got a yellow, and then we all moved on and nobody’s that upset about it.

he was also arguably slowing the game down in an attempt to put Italy out the cup

You can watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_U9mSqCe88&feature=fvst

Plainly he’s preventing the Italians collecting the ball, and that’s what he got booked for. Their conduct is none too special, but his offence, for which he’s booked, is timewasting.

Re: Neuer, I have to say I’m not terribly concerned that he got straight on with the game and didn’t give the ref time to think. I don’t think it’s cheating at all. Keita in re: Kaka, now that was cheating.

Ray,

Yes, the algorithm can tell you that as well. There is a precise meaning to the term interfering with play. Furthermore, we’re not outsourcing refereeing to algorithms, it would still take the trained eyes of referees to interprete what algorithms or video flags.

This isn’t 1962. There are 100s of video technologies that can be applied to assisting referees.

Goal line crossings could definitely be sorted out by a video referee

I’d be wary of that “definitely”. It’s always possible for bodies to be in between the camera and the ball. But you’re probably right about the relative rarity of the problem.

because the camera angle which showed you which player was closest to the goal line would always (or even usually) show you the precise moment when the ball was kicked.

Is the “would” here supposed to be “wouldn’t”?

I find myself wondering whether the replays being operated at the present tournament don’t tend to stop the action before the ball is kicked. Naturally this will normally (though not always) tend to favour the attacking side and show people slightly onside who were actually slightly offside. In one way this doesn’t matter too much, given current instructions to officials as regards interpretation, but it does point up the difficulty in determining precisely when the ball is played. Which ,given that we’re talking international controversies, is liable to be important.

ejh,

I’ll gladly remind you. Anything from 1 second (I repeat 1 second or even shorter) to longer.

I’ve countless times seen 4th officials inform referees of what they’ve seen in real time and everything happens in seconds. If you actually follow football you’d have seen the sending off of Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger at Old Trafford last autumn. The 4th official saw him kick a water bottle and appealed to the referee who sent Wenger into the stands a few seconds later.

Substitute or supplement the video ref with the 4th official and the same thing can happen in the same time frame in exactly the same way.

It’s like saying “it only takes ninety seconds to travel from one Tube station to another” and forgetting all the time it takes to get down to the platform, wait for the train and get out of the station at the other end. Let alone buy the ticket.

ejh,

That’s where you’re refusing to engage with what video assistance to referees is all about. It’ s no more than a way to provide more information that would enable referees make the correct decision.

The 4th official that saw Zidane headbutt Materazzi at the last World Cup saw it on Television. It could well have been the video assistant seeing it.

I do agree that offside is the most problematic law that referees can get video assistance in applying because offside decisions are not only instant but they change the momentum of the game by stopping an attack.

Goal line decisions are different. Because goals decide games, it is well worth spending even 60 seconds to determine if the ball crossed the line.

There are several other laws the referee can get assistance with. There’s sending offs….refs have been known to send off the wrong player. There are many cases of obvious simulation (a man elbowed in the ribs who clutches his face) etc etc

Is the “would” here supposed to be “wouldn’t”?

yes

And the idea that a video recording is going to be any real help in deciding whether someone dived or not seems like total wishful thinking to me.

bet you don’t say that when it happens to your favourite team!

I think at this point, you really need to take your ignorance and snobbery with you and depart.

Or I could take my sarcasm and depart? I lived in Finsbury Park, I’ve had more than enough experience of football fans to last me a lifetime, thank you. The difference between an Australian kickboxing crowd, an English rugby crowd, and an English soccer crowd is more than just the shape of the ball(s), you know. And it’s not snobbery to point out that having to be divided from the opposing team’s fans by lines of police, closing the station down with dog squads, and having to take a different route home lest you stumble on the bastards is not “beautiful.”

sg @130,

and you’re failing under the excessive use of the “Bong! I’m a prat” approach to arguing

And that, sadly, fails for Failure to Recognise That Justin Is, in Fact, a Prat.

That said, he’s largely right on the central matter in contention.

Look, in principle I’d be all for a system with (say) a chip in the ball, a chip in each player’s boot and some sort of sensor at (or a ball’s width behind) the goal line. A computer could track the positions of the 23 chips, transmitting a peep to a plug in the AR’s ear when a player is offside as warning to watch whether he is then involved in active play. And the goal line sensor could send a peep to a plug in the ref’s ear when the ball is behind it. No delays, no challenges, just a tech assist to the officials to help eliminate errors.

But I wouldn’t support anything that delays play. The video official works well in rugby, but then he is called on at times when, by definition, play has stopped; different matter altogether. If there is an inobtrusive, real-time tech fix like the one I described, well hooray. But failing that, better a few more dodgy calls than a move in the direction of American football.

Post-match review for uncaught bookable offences is another matter altogether. And it happens already; it should happen more often and more vigilantly in my view, but isn’t any new principle.

So, yes, I have to vote with Justin on the substance of his argument. Can’t say I care for its marginal decorations — its schoolboy contrarianism, its smug catty snobbery — but then, he is a prat, isn’t he.

Mrs Tilton,

I don’t think anyone has ever shown that using video assistance would add substantial delays to restart of play, substantial here measured in seconds. I have heard it asserted but never demonstrated.

There are many actual high-profile cases where referees have taken input from other officials to make correct decisions in matches, inputs which were based on the other officials seeing a video of the incident. I can recall quite a few of those instances and none involved a lengthy pause in the game.

It is inconceivable that it will be impossible to design processes for the use of video assistance which do not affect the current flow of the game except for instances where the referee would have stopped play to confer with the officials anyway. And even if it would turn out it’s impossible to design processes that don’t delay the game, I don’t think we have enough reason ex ante to conclude it is.

Two things here

Sorry about that – my third point was initially disallowed.

They’re worried this means they have to stop bringing up ‘66.

I was not previously aware that German fans enjoyed bringing up the subject of the 1966 World Cup.

There’s an easy, workable system: put the disputed play on the stadium monitors, and if the ref looks at it and goes “oh shit,” he can retract the call.

Little or no delay, and while it would miss a lot, it would prevent some of the awfulness we’ve seen (but the ref evidently hasn’t).

It’s hard to see Paraguay being any threat to either Spain or Portugal if that game’s any evidence: it wasn’t so dull because the teams were especially defensive, it was dull because neither side possessed any guile or strength or flair around the box. The sort of game that’s a good advert for sleep.

Provided he’s not actually following the game he’s refereeing in the meantime

Oh, like the ref was following the game in England v. Germany? Would diverting his attention for a moment be such a clear loss?

Half-time notes:

a. Puyol is a very dirty player. People don’t realise this, probably because he has long hair and plays for Barcelona, but that doesn’t make him a a hippy. He kicks and elbows like he was on a bonus for it.

b. If Casillas played for Barcelona rather than Real Madrid, the Madrid press would be screaming for him to be replaced. He’s been making bad mistakes for club and country for some months now. Personally I think it’s probably been right to keep him on the grounds of not changing a winning side, but he’s been iffy again tonight and I very much doubt the Madrid press would be so indulgent if it were Valdés in the team but in poor form and Casillas out of it but playing the best football of his career.

Btw, I think Spain’s 1-0 goal was offside! Why don’t they show that one with their fancy graphics?

Seen the fancy graphics and he was just offside.

Ollie @ 206: It is inconceivable

That word.

So, it will be Brazil-Spain. And Brazil gets it again.

Spain actually played ok, still I don´t see them beating Germany or Argentina. Brazil on the other hand could defeat both Spain and Argentina with relative ease but would have a hard time with Germany and is going to have an even harder time arriving at that match by beating Holland.
The three top teams in my opinion are
1. Germany
2. Holland
3. Brazil

GP @228: How does Holland enter that list? I will be really, really surprised if Brazil don’t beat them. In fact, I have a hard time imagining anyone beating Brazil this time.

But I do find I am secretly hoping for Germany, and Arg-Ger on Saturday will be exciting! Argentina is definitely no pushover, like er… some other teams that Germany have met.

Regarding that goal by Villa, I will give the ref a pass. It is narrow enough that it’s okay not to call it.

http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-offside-wc-david-villa-spain-v-portugal-goalflv-8486371.html

How does Holland enter that list? I will be really, really surprised if Brazil don’t beat them. In fact, I have a hard time imagining anyone beating Brazil this time.

I’m reminded of their last quarter-final meeting, which you’re bound to see the highlights of between now and the game, in which the Dutch did next to nothing until they were 2-0 down, then suddenly turned into demons and scored twice in a few minutes. It took an outrageous free-kick to win it.

That game reminds me of one reason I’m very glad the competition is being held in South Africa – it’s not too hot for football. One reason the Dutch were so poor was that they were playing at walking pace, like practically everybody else, because of the heat – a style that sited Brazil much more than them. It’s been much better in South Africa, players can actually run around like you’re supposed to.

I think Brazil were outstanding against Chile, but in some ways Spain’s win yesterday impressed me just as much, because Portugal are a better team than Chile. What especially impressed is that Portugal got nowhere near the goal after Spain went ahead. That’s what wins World Cups. Brazil and Spain seem to me to be a little better than the other contenders in that department, not simply because they have strong defences but because they both keep possession so well.

Llorente, who came on for Torres last night, looks about eighteen. I was astonished to look him up this morning and find he was twenty-five. The caption is unintentionally amusing:

Llorente…. marked by Peter Crouch, moments before his first goal

Capello may stay, says BBC blog, giving three reasons why this may be so and leaving out a fourth one, unless it hints at it obliquely by referring to Roy Hodgson as “the one genuine English candidate”.

the rules are the rules and they shouldn’t be hit-or-miss in application

The rules of football have always been hit-and-miss in application, in that they’ve always depended on individual judgment for their application – they’re a bit like the law in that respect.

Some sports – tennis, for instance – are made up of a series of individual actions, each of which has to be technically correct in measurable ways. The laws of tennis are like a criminal code consisting entirely of speeding offences: automation adds precision and doesn’t meaningfully reduce the scope for judgment, because judgment doesn’t really come into the question of whether or not a ball is out.

Football isn’t like that: compared to tennis, the proportion of a game which is made up of incidents amenable to measurement is much smaller, and the proportion of those incidents which are disputed is smaller as well. Most of football is all about judgment – not only that, but most of the problems which are being proposed for automated solutions are all about judgment. It’s just not an appropriate set of solutions.

Offside is a matter of judgment?

Yes. Football is a branch of drama, not of mathematics. Cope with it.

Is that an actual ex cathedra pronouncement, Pope ejh, or is this one of those things that members of the faith can have separate private opinions about?

Drama is a branch of mathematics. While else do they number the acts?

Phil,

If refereeing decisions are hit-and-miss, should they be? If you say yes, why then shouldn’t we have biased refereeing? Is a bent referee different from a poor referee in practice?

Stostosto @230: Holland is good at keeping possession, they also finishes well. It will not be easy at all for Brazil. Germany and Holland are similar in that they both possess these characteristics and are in my mind the two major candidates to keep Brazil from taking home their 6th World Cup.
Brazil also suffers in midfield because there is not a proper sub for Kaka. Julio Baptista is Kaka´s official sub but lacks creative play and thus does not serve the fowards effectively. The Portugal match made this clear plus the multitasking Daniel Alves , who replaced defensive midfielder Elano in the same match was also expected to fill the Kaka void, did not. The only option Brazil has for this problem is what they did against North Korea: pull back Robinho and have him do Kaka´s job. This was done against NK, even with Kaka on the pitch but underperforming. See the Robinho pass to Elano for Brazil´s second goal as an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-dk5l1_o1E
This Kaka sub problem is why Dunga came under so much heat for not including Ronaldinho Gaúcho and/or Paulo Henrique Ganso (Santos player) in the squad. I can see Dunga´s reasons for doing this though: Ronaldinho underperformed constantly while playing for Brazil during Dunga´s reign and Ganso is very young and busted out on the stage less than 6 months ago. In the end Brazil is stuck with an out of position Robinho being Kaka´s de facto sub, this may work against North Korea but I doubt it will be enough versus Germany and Holland, or even Argentina.
In the end Kaka is the key, when he plays well all goes well for the Brazilians.

They get a small number of accuracy issues verifiably wrong, but that’s inevitable given the conditions under which they have to work.

This seems awfully weak in the context of a discussion about changing the conditions under which they work. If under other conditions those accuracy errors would be completely evitable, then why not change the conditions?

Indeed, since you’re raising the parallel of judges, would you similarly oppose the introduction of security camera, DNA, forensic, etc. evidence into the courtroom as it only interferes with the exercise of judgment? Clearly that would be nonsense, so why isn’t it similarly nonsense in sport? The application of a set of rules to events on a pitch is no more ineffable than the application of a set of laws to the events of a pub brawl.

Also, I dispute the idea that a referee’s job consists *mainly* of “issues on which there can be no definitive right or wrong answer”. There may be a substantial number of cases in which the right answer isn’t certainly known to the referee, even with video replays, but that is a far cry from imponderable issues of philosophy, or even statutory construction.

If under other conditions those accuracy errors would be completely evitable, then why not change the conditions?

Because the technological fixes being proposed would not be confined to accuracy errors, partly because the boundary between accuracy and judgment issues is fuzzy but mainly because once technology’s in place people do tend to trust it, appropriately or not. (In this thread we’ve seen technology seriously proposed as an antidote to diving, of all things.)

would you similarly oppose the introduction of security camera, DNA, forensic, etc. evidence into the courtroom as it only interferes with the exercise of judgment?

I would oppose over-reliance on any or all of those things – evidence doesn’t speak for itself, and I do think that a parade of scientific certainty can interfere with the exercise of judgment.

The application of a set of rules to events on a pitch is no more ineffable than the application of a set of laws to the events of a pub brawl.

True, but not really evidence either way – in neither case does looking at the CCTV tell you who started it.

And, in the case of football, there is also the issue of delay & interruption of the flow of the match. Of course it’s possible to add technology to issues where a judgment call is needed, and it can be beneficial if used with appropriate care. But in this case it would be almost certain to slow down the proceedings to an unacceptable – or at least game-changing – extent.

In this thread we’ve seen technology seriously proposed as an antidote to diving, of all things.

You don’t think there are any cases where viewing the action from another angle, or seeing something that he happened to not be looking at when it took place, would allow the referee to judge better (not merely differently) whether a dive had occurred?

AFAIK, nobody has suggested that technology could *completely* eliminate diving, or infallibly flag all instances of it (which would amount to eliminating it since it would be pointless if it didn’t work reasonably often, or if it was penalized far more often than it worked).

There’s a substantial number of cases where someone watching live TV knows more about what happened on the field than the referee does, in real time. I’m not suggesting the extra official should just watch the TV broadcast (that would open up the possibility for the broadcaster to influence the officials) but the warnings of hypothetical unspecified technical difficulties ring rather hollow when the TV stations have already figured out how to instant replay the right angle, from the right time, within a few seconds of the play they are replaying (and before play has resumed, in many cases). Indeed, it’s *because* TV stations have already solved this problem that there is fan pressure on the officials to adopt it — because at least then the officials will be able to see what the fans are seeing and judge on the basis of that evidence and not merely the vantage point they happened to have when the play occurred.

You don’t think there are any cases where viewing the action from another angle, or seeing something that he happened to not be looking at when it took place, would allow the referee to judge better (not merely differently) whether a dive had occurred?

I’ve already answered this question, so I’ll just quote myself. “Of course it’s possible to add technology to issues where a judgment call is needed, and it can be beneficial if used with appropriate care. But in this case it would be almost certain to slow down the proceedings to an unacceptable – or at least game-changing – extent.”

True, but not really evidence either way – in neither case does looking at the CCTV tell you who started it.

Interesting that you mention brawls. Under the current rules of football, when there is a brawl, the referee and assistants are required to observe proceedings with a view to taking action. Since brawls, of necessity, lead to delays in the game, you’ve just supplied another example of how video assistance can help referees make better decisions without adding delays.

The video assistant can just tell the referee what he’s observed along the lines of “Maradona headbutted Pele”, and the referee can take action.

“They get a small number of accuracy issues verifiably wrong,… ”

But surely some wrong decisions (goals, red card send-offs) are game changing – its those decisions that, for the benefit of the game, should be correct or at least quickly corrected.

How about:
1) a video ref.
2) each team captain gets to make 1 (or max 2) requests for a review of the on-field ref’s call per half.
3) video ref must make decision within some time limit (60, 90 seconds) else on-field ref’s call is automatically upheld.

I guess it would be incidents like the England no-goal and the red card stuff that would get the review, and quite rightly so, and not miscellaneous diving.

Ollie, once the referee stops play he has effectively decided that no other offences occured earlier in that period of play, otherwise he would have had to stop play earlier or give advantage. If there is an incident of violent conduct during play the play has to be stopped and a freekick awarded.

How can a referee give a freekick for a passage of play that has stopped and then play restarted for another reason? Can you give one example of a ref giving a freekick or card after play has stopped and been restarted?

Well, a strong defence and glimpses of the sublime would beat nearly any team, wouldn’t it?

Philip,

once the referee stops play he has effectively decided that no other offences occured earlier in that period of play, otherwise he would have had to stop play earlier or give advantage. If there is an incident of violent conduct during play the play has to be stopped and a freekick awarded.

It doesn’t apply to any incident the referee has not seen. Under current refereeing processes, the referee is supposed to stop play as soon as he has been informed of an instance of violent conduct. But there is no limitation in the rules on when he can be informed. The other officials are required to inform the referee as soon as they observe violent conduct but there is no time limitation on how long after the act they observe it. If video assistants become part of the match officials, then the video assistant can detect an offence 2 minutes later and tell the referee. That’d be consistent with the laws of the game.

How can a referee give a freekick for a passage of play that has stopped and then play restarted for another reason? We weren’t talking about giving free kicks, we’re talking about punishing violent conduct, the standard punishment being a sending-off.

Can you give one example of a ref giving a freekick or card after play has stopped and been restarted?
Let me guess what you’re asking here. You’re asking for an instance in which an offence happened, the referee gave a free kick, and then restarted play? That’d be the only way that question could make sense.

My answer would be that it never happens that a referee stops play, gives a free kick, play is restarted and then the referee stops play a second time for the same offence and gives a card or free kick. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about an act that wasn’t immediately detected, and hadn’t been punished, which the referee is now aware of. The referee would still immediately stop play, send the player off for violent conduct and restart play accordingly.

‘The other officials are required to inform the referee as soon as they observe violent conduct but there is no time limitation on how long after the act they observe it.’

Yes there is – before play is restarted for another offence.

‘We weren’t talking about giving free kicks, we’re talking about punishing violent conduct, the standard punishment being a sending-off.’

Then the game is restarted with a freekick from where the offence occured, or a penalty. If the referee is sending off a player from a previous play the there would have to be a rule change as to how play is restarted.

@264

Yes there is – before play is restarted for another offence.

Absolutely not. This is hilarious.

Here are 2 points from the lotg which address this issue and show that the lotg acknowledge that the referee might miss certain acts on the field, be informed of them afterwards.

must indicate to the referee when the wrong player is cautioned
because of mistaken identity or when a player is not sent off having been
seen to be given a second caution or when violent conduct occurs out of
the view of the referee and assistant referees. The referee, however, retains
the authority to decide on all points connected with play
AND

Whenever the assistant referee signals for violent conduct and the signal is not
seen immediately:
• if play has been stopped for disciplinary action to be taken, the restart must
be in accordance with the Laws (free kick, penalty kick etc.)
• if play has already restarted, the referee may still take disciplinary action but
not penalise the offence with a free kick of penalty kick

The lotg allows for the fact that the referee might not see violent conduct and allows for him to be informed of it after which he must act immediately. Any restart of play restrictions on when the decision can be made count only from when the referee has observed the act or been informed of it.

what that the ref doesn’t see, his heart doesn’t grieve over.

Deluded much?

I suppose shedding tears doesn’t mean your heart is grieving: http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CC8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishcentral.com%2Fsport%2FReferee-admits-he-cried-after-his-Irish-World-Cup-mistake-96870684.html%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_source%3Dtwitterfeed%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter&ei=eLosTMWZC9aksQaJkNjRAg&usg=AFQjCNFnYl5t9YFPCEXMaATun9vdAZH0jA&sig2=I-lM8fTe0djkMpjFqO6T6A

Surely it’s occured to you that the list of match officials can be enlarged to include a video assistant or a 5th official, or even a veejay, such a person nevertheless being trained and qualified to perform that function?

Yes of course. But how many people did you want to be involved here?

But when you said ‘But many other decisions are not time-bound. There is no statute of limitations in football.’ Did you mean that few decisions are time-bound and there is a statute of limitations for most offences.

Call it rhetorical flourish, or plain old exaggeration.

Examples of the wrong player being given a card or a player being given two yellows and not being sent off are very rare and most games don’t have an incident of violent conduct.

True, and you could also rightly add that retroactive punishment for violent conduct or wrong handling of cautions/sending offs already exists.

But what about simulation? There are cases where a player is elbowed in the face and holds his nuts.

Hang on, that from the laws of the game is merely a tidy up piece to say that the 4th official can correct clerical errors, and can draw attention to, say, a sub punching the other coach or whatever, things the ref couldn’t be expected to see. It has nothing to do with the rest of the game, of which the ref remains the final arbiter, forever and ever amen.

And violent conduct is one of the more nasty automatic reds, and that’s a particularly narrowly written law for the very reason they don’t want clever buggers like you reading it as a licence to re-litigate things over and over.

Philip,

What about penalty shoot-outs. I’ve seen penalty shoot-outs where the ball went in, or infringements occurred and the officials didn’t give the goal, or gave the goal dsepite the infringements.

Keir,

It has nothing to do with the rest of the game, of which the ref remains the final arbiter, forever and ever amen.

That’s an odd statement. The 4th official informing the referee of an infringement he might have missed doesn’t stop the referee being the final arbiter. Not in the slightest. Zidane headbutted Materazzi. The 4th official told the referee who had the option to act or not act.

It’s also extremely ridiculous to suggest that the 4th official’s role only relates to things the referee couldn’t be expected to see. It applies to anything.

stostosto , how’s that brazil prediction feeling round about now?

d

Another game won by the cheaters. My god this world cup sucks.

An appropriate comment for the first day of the Tour. Keep this in mind when people dismiss cyclists as dopers.

Bloix, only after Ghana missed a penalty, which came from a freekick they probably shouldn’t have been given, and Uruguay had a very good penalty shout turned down. I thought it was a great game.

Okay, it was a great game, but it was a heart-breaker. Maybe soccer needs a goal-tending rule.

Did Muller actually head that ball? I’ve seen the replay now about 10 times and it doesn’t look to me like he made contact.

@284: if the trajectory of the ball abruptly changes, chances are it hit something.

Anyway, as this thread started with England, I think it is befitting to conclude now that England gave most trouble to the best team in it. If they had the luck of playing Brasil, they were in semi-final without actually trying to score a goal.

For those interested: compare the reactions of Spain after eliminating Paraguay (having played fairly – but certainly not better than the others) with those of the Dutch after eliminating Brasil (having been outperformed by the opponent – and having played poorly even at the times they scored); somehow you would want the latter to qualify for the final such that they can be well & truely humiliated by the Germans.

This thread scrolled out of the screen. Very much in the way that Holland didn’t.