A compelling argument for video referees
I’m probably the biggest proponent of the video ref alive.
We all know how things are. Refs are only human. Expecting them to get all their decisions right the way they have to make them, in a matter of seconds, sometimes even less, while having to run around the field and keep an eye on everything 22 players are doing, expecting this is not reasonable at all, to say the least. It doesn’t help that many players are well aware of the situation and try to make the most of it for themselves and for their teams.
So, no wonder, many times refs get it wrong. Sometimes embarrassingly so. In fact, it would be a miracle if this didn’t happen. On the other hand, players and fans are also only human. They are in it to win, so they won’t like it too much if they loose because of ref errors. Nobody likes it. After all, it’s a sporting contest, the best one is supposed to win. And the one who sometimes screws it, willingly or not, understandably or not, is still the ref. It also doesn’t help that his error is usually almost immediately visible on TV for everyone, except maybe for himself.
As a result, the refs have to put up with more than their fair share of bashing. Deservedly or not, depending on the angle one looks at it from.
Nothing new here. So why did I have to write yet another piece on the subject ?
For one thing, because I think it’s goddamn important. It’s the biggest issue football has had for some time, at least that’s what I think. Sure, people know and talk about it, but they don’t seem to care as much as they should. So maybe it helps a bit if I bring it up, again. In any case it can’t hurt, can it ?
Second, maybe I can bring a fresh angle to it. Something I haven’t heard mentioned in connection to it, and it seems to me it should be.
I’m going to take issue with something opponents of video evidence keep repeating. “No big deal”, they say. “All teams have their ups and downs with ref errors, today you gain from it, tomorrow you loose. So, stop whining and move on.”
Not really. While this is factually true, it misses the point.
Germany, 2 years back. It’s the World Cup semifinal, the hosts are playing Italy. It’s minute 83 or something, the score still 0 – 0. Suddenly, from a play that didn’t look at all dangerous, Cannavaro pushes Podolski down in the box while fighting for a ball in the air. Not much but the referee sees it. He decidedly steps in and blows the whistle. It’s a penalty. – Actually, no. Either making an honest mistake, or maybe having second thoughts about whistling in the first place, he wrongly places the offense outside the box, so he just grants a free kick. One the Germans duly miss. We all know what happens next. The game goes into overtime and the Italians score 2 beautiful goals. Then they go on to become world champions.
So the question naturally arises – what if ? What if the ref hadn’t made that mistake and had granted the penalty ? It’s an error the video ref never would have made. The Germans might have missed, or the Italians might have scored back; while everything is possible, it’s not very likely. The thing to be expected is that the Germans would have won. Maybe then they would have become champions, or maybe not. In any case, Italy could never have.
Sure, maybe Germany had their share of ref mistakes that favored them, in that tournament or in others. As Italy may have had some against them. It doesn’t change the fact that in 06, with correct refereeing, they most likely wouldn’t have been champions.
Now here’s what I think about it. I think that if the world champion is put under so much doubt, then it’s definitely a big deal. It’s definitely not like today you gain, tomorrow you loose, it cancels itself out. Maybe it’s time we stopped a little and had a good look at it.
The author writes at Fair Football.
This article is a submission for the Soccerlens 2008 Writing Competition; to participate, please read the details here. The competition is sponsored by Subside Sports (premier online store for football shirts) and Icons (official signed football jerseys).
Well done FF! I hope this gets some good deabte. For others reading, myself and FF have debated this elsewhere and I think he has some good ideas on the subject, even though I have not been a major advocate for video.
FF, I have taken the liberty of including an extract from your site which outlines the model you would use:
“However, I believe it can be done without disrupting the flow (too much), while at the same time getting a substantial improvement in officiating quality. Here’s how:
Play is never stopped (until an offense is found), video review is done simultaneously by an off-field ref, or rather team of refs, assisted by the best possible real-time / replay video evidence. When offenses are determined, they signal to the field ref to stop play. The video refs are competent (of course) and organized such that they can handle 3 – 4 separate incidents simultaneously if need be (that is, if more incidents occur before the previous ones are completely decided).
The field ref never makes decisions, but rather communicates his opinion to the team of video refs; they make the decisions.
One problem is when a goal is scored while a decision is being made. For instance a penalty call is analyzed, which may take 1 – 2 minutes, and in the meantime (since play continues until the offense is determined) it may happen that a goal (maybe even more) is scored at any of the ends.
For one thing, this won’t happen very often. I imagine there will be much fewer such cases than there are now wrongly awarded or un-awarded penalties. But when they happen, I’d suggest (as a starting point, I’m not sure it is the best way) that if play hasn’t stopped until the goal was scored, it be disallowed, if it has stopped and resumed, then the goal will count since it is practically another run of play. In any case, even when a goal is disallowed as above, the minutes played count for the total time of play.
Goal-line situations are another matter and should be dealt with by special technology, as even the governing bodies admit. Maybe even off-side calls, in the near future. Until then they can be decided by the video refs.
This would likely be pretty costly, at least at begin, maybe with time technology will improve and get more affordable. To reduce costs, I would suggest:
1. Limit things only to critical decisions such as penalties, plus off-side calls and offenses in situations that are likely to result in goals (such as attacker has the ball with nobody but the keeper to beat). Correcting just these would be easier and would result in substantial improvement. Then with time things might be extended.
2. I’d like to see this as soon as possible applied at least for the Champs League and World Cup, to begin with. Besides, these are cup-like tournaments where ref errors matter more than in league tournaments. With time and with experience, as well as technology advances, it might become more wide-spread. But hey, if wealthy leagues like the Premiership feel it’s worth doing it as well, they should.”
While there are some challenges with this, as you recognize yourself, I think it is one of the most interesting and best thought out models I have seen and would be open to seeing experiments with it.
Bring on the debate!
Wow. I’m speechless.
First of all, thanks for your advice. As you see I changed my mind, but didn’t write about my model but about the issue in general. I thought at least this might stir up a debate. But now that you also brought my model up, it’s for the better. Thanks for this too.
Details on my site everybody. Don’t miss it, it’s *very* interesting.
And a suggestion. Maybe under “World Cup semifinal” you can put a link to the game. If possible, some place which mentions the incident I’m talking about. I can give you a link:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/worldcup2006/cup-commentary/2006/07/germany_vs_italy_semifinals_ju.html
But maybe you have a better one.
Thanks.
FF and Brian – I’ve been proposing something similar for a couple of years now – limited trials for specific cases (penalties are a good candidate), goal-line tech, post-match reviews to sort out diving / off-the-ball incidents, etc.
Football as an institution will not accept a stop-start solution to problems if the reason is technology and not one referee conferring with the other. the fear is legitimate – that referees will start over-relying on video tech to bail them out.
Maybe it would be better if we ironed out problems one by one. Goal-line tech and post-match reviews are a non-invasive and limited way to start.
I think it should be done like American football. The on field ref (perhaps there could be two of them) make the decisions and each side can protest any particular call. If challenging side gets it wrong they lose a substitution, but if they get it right, the decision is reversed.
Another way you could do it is that every “high impact” desicion gets reviewed straight away. Most of the time a video review allows for an almost instant decision (think bolton v manu and the ronaldo penalty a few weeks back). The flow of the game in those instances is not really disrupted at all.
I’m not sure how to handle blow offsides calls where the attacking player was actually onsides because play will probably get stopped. However, rescinding goals where there was an offsides infraction would take a matter of seconds and also wouldn’t really slow the game down at all.
FF and BD Condell – The whole premise that play would continue while a call is being reviewed is ridiculous, decisions are always made, and if need be corrected, before the next restart. You should know this already and know that FIFA will never change this. If a video ref is the direction you want then and I can’t completely disagree with this, then the call needs to be challenged at the time, reviewed and a decision made before the restart. I somewhat agree with Tripp but why should they lose a substitution, they only have three as it is. Limit the amount of video ref challenges per game, say two, keep track of the time for the review, make the decision and add the lost time onto the stoppage time after the 45 minute half. Teams will eventually learn when the right time to challenge the call is. Say if the AR made a really bad offside call when a goal was scored and the ref called back the goal, when the referee made or didn’t make a call in the penalty area that could effect the game or when he hands out a red card unjustly. These are all valid arguments for a video referee.
Ahmed, why “over-relying on video tech to bail them out” ? The way I think it should be, the field refs as they are today wouldn’t exist at all. Nothing to bail out since they practically won’t *do* anything. They’ll be just an auxiliary to the video ref brigade in case their angle of view is needed (which should sometimes be necessary) and they’ll “represent” the ref team in relation to the players. Sort of like an observer and an ambassador, not the judges they are today.
The reasoning is simple, since the task is clearly more than they can carry, this is the way to go. The video refs can be many, they don’t have to run around so they can be of greater age thus have the benefit of added experience (which will probably be significant). They are helped by technology, and the simple truth is the human body cannot compete with technology. Last but not least, they’re not there for the players and fans to bash and abuse them. There will be no point in arguing with the field ref since he won’t be the one making the decisions any more. So this “bailout” conception IMO is seriously misplaced.
I don’t know what you mean by “stop-start solution”, but if you mean the game is stopped until the decision is taken (with video help), then it’s not at all what I propose.
RB: “The whole premise that play would continue while a call is being reviewed is ridiculous, decisions are always made, and if need be corrected, before the next restart.”
Can you give a reason for this ? Why should it be ridiculous, just because you say so ? I don’t see it that way at all.
I have to second BD, I’d love to see some trials with this procedure. But then, of course I do, since I’m the one who proposed it.
Ahmed, of course, I was also saying this in another discussion with BD, it would be nice if they started with goal-line technology at least. And, agreed, post-match review also. Much better than nothing at all. That’s a different point but still very valid.
@RB: FF and BD Condell – The whole premise that play would continue while a call is being reviewed is ridiculous, decisions are always made, and if need be corrected, before the next restart.
Not ridiculous at all RB. Take these scenarios:
1.A challenge in the box is viewed by the ref as a possible penalty. He raises his arm to indicate to the video ref that he needs clarification while letting the game continue.
Scenario 1: The attacking team scores so the goal stands as a fair advantage.
Scenario 2: The defending team clears the ball, the video ref communicates with the on field ref that it was not a penalty and play continues without a break i.e. no disruption to the continuity of the game.
Scenario 3: The ball is cleared but the video ref indicates that it was a penalty so the ref blows.
This would mean that 1.the referee isn't forced into an instant decision which he may be unsure of and 2.that there will be more flow to the game and fewer errors.
Right. Except that I don’t suppose the field ref will have to raise his arm, they’ll have some form of communication which will be a little more sophisticated I guess. Raising arms would give the players an indication that at least something might have happened, thus interfering with the game, and this should be kept to a minimum. Aside of this minor detail, it’s just as you said.