Comments on: A compelling argument for video referees

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:42:50 +0000

This topic needs to be re-addressed and raised with FIFA. The England goal today that was missed by the referees against Germany in the FIFA 2010 World Cup was ridiculous and totally affected the rest of the game.

By: FF

FF — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:14:31 +0000

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.

By: BD Condell

BD Condell — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:19:44 +0000

@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.

By: FF

FF — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:24:45 +0000

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.

By: FF

FF — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:42:15 +0000

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.

By: RB

RB — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:38:35 +0000

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.

By: Tripp

Tripp — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:57:46 +0000

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.

By: Ahmed Bilal

Ahmed Bilal — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:49:19 +0000

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.

By: FF

FF — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:47:32 +0000

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.

By: FF

FF — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:35:12 +0000

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.