A Goal or Not a Goal: Official Assisted Technology Systems
This article is a submission for the Soccerlens Football Writing Competition; to participate, please read the details here.
Written by Wesley Rasdorf.
Editor’s Note: This is a 2000-word article, but every single word of it is worth reading. Wesley has made an excellent case for introducing technology to help referees, and despite his use of the term ’soccer’, it’s a smashing (if long) article. Make sure you read it fully.
Uncertainty, controversy and ambivalence continue to surround professional soccer. An appointed FIFA referee enforces the laws of the game in cooperation with assistant referees. Despite their professionalism, good faith, and honest judgments, one cannot ignore the subjectivity, human error, and poor perceptions that coincide with a prompt decision. Having studied, mastered and applied the rules, we presume it is the duty and responsibility of officials calls to be made in the best interests of soccer.
Yet, we aren’t perfect. Even the best, most informed, and well intentioned people make decisions that, in hindsight, are hasty. As much as we loathe and scrutinize officials for not getting it right all the time, our criticism is warranted. Officials should be held to a higher standard and need to be publically censured for their errors in judgment because it is their professional opinions that rule in a soccer match. It keeps them on their toes! However, that is not to say we shouldn’t make their job easier. While it is reasonable check to criticize imperfect referees’ judgments, a fair balance would be rewarding them use of official assisted technology systems (OATS).
We expect matches to be managed according to the rules, in a fair, unbiased manner. Putting soccer officials under a microscope reveals matches aren’t always properly governed. Team administration, players, coaches, fans, owners, gamblers, and all others that have an interest in the outcome on the pitch, rely on officials to do their jobs correctly. Yet, referees continue to endorse unwarranted penalty kicks, offside calls and goals. These mistakes have a tremendous impact on the result of a game because they create monetary losses for fans, teams, players, coaches, and all related parties. Wins and losses, player performance and competitive balance are all affected by referee injustice. When this equity is jeopardized due to a faulty verdict, catastrophic losses accrue.
According to UEFA, in the 2006 Champions League Final, a significant $5 million in earnings difference exists, - $13 million for the winner, compared to $8 million for the loser. As you can see, a single bad call, like awarding a penalty kick (PK) for a “dive,” could have a substantial impact on the amount of total revenues that would go to the winning and losing clubs. This money offsets expenses in the form of players’ salaries, team equipment, youth development, etc.
An unfair judgment also negatively impacts fan equity and disgruntles soccer supporters, owners, bettors, merchants, advertisers, fanatics, sponsors, media, etc. whom all have investments in the match. And the most noteworthy loser is FIFA, whom suffers ultimately from lost value in terms of customers, fairness, respect, reputation, etc. The consequences are mind-boggling. Referee mistreatment due to a missed offside call, a “hand of god” goal, or a tally awarded where the ball has never actually crossed the goal line, could cost a team an enormous sum.
Without change, erroneous decisions will continue to lead to questionable tournament winners, goals that never were, and history changing calls. When officials make errors, they are often significant to the game and apparent to those watching it. Look at some of these examples. Cannobio’s “goal” to upset Real Madrid, Hurst’s “goal” in the 1966 World Cup Final (a different angle), a true Berti goal disallowed, Adriano scoring from an offside position, Fowler is called “offside” and Viera’s “header”. As we deal with these faulty determinations, it is very apparent we should look at alternatives to solve and prevent future occurrences. It is resolved that FIFA implement new technologies to improve officiating accuracy during matches.
Looking back at these calamities, OATS development is necessary for the future of soccer. Advances in technology have not only allowed referees to officiate more accurately, but OATS now provide additional information for an official to consider in making their determination. With OATS, a referee still acts on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the decision made was in accordance with the rules of the game and in the best interests of the sport. OATS rest on the assumptions of objectivity and accuracy. This evidentiary model reveals the “scientific truth” to the referee, showing, plainly and objectively, what happened on the play to the nearest millimeter.
Virtually every major professional sports league in America has adopted some form of OATS, whether it is instant replay in the NBA, Hawk Eye at U.S. Open, or the “challenge review” in the NFL. OATS are now, more than ever, in the public eye. To compete in America, soccer must enhance the accuracy of their officiating.
For example, a controversial issue in American eyes is deciding whether a striker was “tripped” and fouled, or merely “flopped,” diving to attempt to draw a penalty. We have seen highly skilled, experienced, and well positioned referees make the wrong decision on such a play that would be convincingly refuted by OATS. However, since OATS has not been adopted, the referee would not have been able to see a replay and correct the error. Furthermore, by supporting officials, rather than exposing them to a bevy of criticism, OATS would encourage making the proper, even if unpopular, decisions.
OATS would be a combination of replay review and computer generated line imagery (CGLI). First, replay review would occur strictly after a goal, much like that initiated in the NBA, where only a last second shot is reviewable. Here, OATS would be triggered automatically following a signaled goal to determine, if in fact, a goal was actually scored. The officials would judge the legality of the goal in these situations based on evidence to determine the following issues:
- Whether the ball completely crossed the goal line.
- Prior to the goal, whether the ball or player(s) committed a violation (i.e. offside, out of bounds, handling of the ball, goalkeeper possession, etc.).
- Whether a called foul, committed by a player in 18-yard box, is indeed a PK. If it is determined that no foul was committed, the called PK should be overturned, and possession forfeited to the opposing team.
- All replay reviews would be conducted by the officials gathering as much information as possible. With conflict, the center official would make the final decision.
- The call made by the game officials during play would be reversed only when OATS provide the officials with “clear and conclusive” evidence to do so.
NOTE: The officials would be permitted to utilize instant replay to determine how much time should be added on for the review as well.
Overall, OATS does not attempt to assure a perfectly officiated contest. Instead, we recognize the vast number of plays in the sport requiring judgment calls by on-field officials to allow the game to flow naturally, thereby restricting the use of OATS to coincide only with soccer’s most crucial plays. Consequently, soccer provides a salient example of balancing concerns over integrity of the game versus the introduction of new technology.
Second, for purposes of this reform, CGLI would be implemented, similar to the “yellow line/first down” marker in the NFL. CGLI would show the exact position of the last defender in comparison to the attacker(s) for accurately determining offside calls. This electronic line judging system, would flawlessly detect the offside position the moment the ball was played, perfecting these often disparaged decisions by referees.
Critics of OATS will argue its emergence threatens soccer’s foundation. They believe in the status quo and deem OATS a disruptive force that will alter the fabric of the game. Yet, in America, soccer is one of the only sports not to use OATS. Empowering OATS would give soccer a competitive advantage in terms of media advertising. Determinations based on instant replay video footage are afforded some time for consideration and depend on the images and viewpoints captured. By allotting a short commercial break, soccer molds into the American sports television landscape, generating additional profits and boosting popularity.
FIFA’s president, Sepp Blatter, continues to rule out the use of video review during games, in part because there would be no cost effective way to implement it throughout the world. Yet, establishing this “quick intermission” would allow teams to generate more advertising revenue to cover these one-time setup expenses.
Suspending the game does foster delay, increases game length, and disrupts momentum, but more importantly the benefits OATS create in terms of value outweigh these costs - preserving the integrity of the game is priceless. The increased quality of on-field officiating, the increased accuracy that replays provide, and the increased safety net that OATS would encompass is well worth the price to alleviate the detriment caused by poor refereeing decisions.
Sepp Blatter, comments in an article, “Not a day goes by without technology making progress, and we, therefore, have a duty to at least examine whether new technology can be used for the good of the game.” FIFA agreed to use the microchip technology in 2005, but has not embraced the technology revolution. Combining OATS with FIFA’s already established ball with an embedded microchip, that signals to the referee whether it has crossed the goal line, could revolutionize the sport and instantly aid in referees’ performance.
Proponents of OATS believe it provides a unique vantage point, crucial for increased accuracy and encouraging integrity in the game. Adversaries urge that prompt and fair decisions are best achieved by allowing officials closer to the action, on the field, and able to perceive the characters and circumstances present at the time, make the call. This doesn’t account for human error; therefore we need a system in place to offset individual faults.
An incorrect ruling by the referee can alter the outcome of the game and deprive a team - players, coaches, and supporters of victory and the subsequent spoils. OATS would significantly reduce the number of incorrect and embarrassing decisions made by referees and will additionally heighten the duty of officials to make the correct calls. This resonates with fans who gain deeper trust as participants in the game, while OATS protects all parties from unfair losses. And because a referee’s ability to commit error is well established, this aptitude to err is not something that should be cultivated since OATS assures better officiating.
Another argument is that OATS promote hesitation in judgment because a referee’s initial decision is being deferred to technology, causing the game to suffer. Referees working in a high-pressure environment are accustomed to making instantaneous rulings in order to allow the game to flow smoothly, to protect the safety of players, and to avoid being perceived as uncertain in their judgments.
OATS aren’t negating referees’ autonomy in this respect, but are enforcing higher standards of competition rules, which promote more accurate officiating and purer competition. It preserves the integrity, fairness, and trust in the game because OATS assist referees’ competitive judgments in promoting fair play. Moreover, OATS focus officials’ judgments by enforcing responsibility for making the right call, resulting in more efficiency and fewer errors.
OATS may serve as a blessing and a curse for officials as FIFA considers its use. The unique nature and culture of the sport plays an integral role in the scope and method of adoption. While it provides a means for referees to correct their mistakes, technology also produces unwanted reform. Introducing OATS as a tool for referees to utilize, the fundamental nature of officiating remains unchanged. Referees’ reasoning, analysis of facts, and application of game rules in reaching a decision are only enhanced. Whether assisted by technology or relying solely on their own senses, referees are in the business of making better competitive judgments.
There have been a number of plays over the years that have caused soccer players, teams, and fans to call for the league to adopt OATS. As such, the technology debate in soccer is a critical issue. Sports leagues, teams and players want qualified officials to regulate their games and make correct, even if unpopular, calls based on the best information available. You be the ref!
This article is a submission for the Soccerlens Football Writing Competition; to participate, please read the details here.
First of all, well done, I think that this is a very good article. However, as usual, there are some points with which I’d like to take issue.
You write that,
“For example, a controversial issue in American eyes is deciding whether a striker was “tripped” and fouled, or merely “flopped,” diving to attempt to draw a penalty.”
Such a statement assumes that there is ALWAYS a clear difference between a dive and a foul, when anyone who watches the game knows very well that this is not the case. You cannot substantiate the “exaggeration” of a foul, nor can a replay “prove” that someone has deliberately thrown themself to the ground; in short, a camera cannot capture human intent, and nor can a digital reconstruction, thus the majority of video replays in “foul/not a foul” situations will be a waste of time (especially confronted with tacit laws of the game, such as the unwritten code that one should try to stay on one’s feet when fouled in the area, unless absolutely impossible). And this brings me to another point: at which juncture in the game does the ball get stopped? I’ll give you the example of a striker who sprints past the last man and receives a slight tug on his shirt; let’s assume that the referee allows play to continue and the striker goes on to scuff his shot. No replay is used to determine whether the striker would have had a penalty, right? Otherwise one ends up with an unfair advantage to the attacking team, who effectively receive two bites of a quite sumptuous cherry. Video replays in such cases can create a surplus of frustration akin to the annoyance already experienced by players when fouls are punished instead of allowing their team-mates to play the “advantage” rule.
My last point concerns the frequency with which video replays would be used. One of the greatest factors of the Premier League is its relentless fast-pace and lightning quick counter-attacking. My opinion is that fans will begin to get frustrated with video replays when the technology is enlisted (with a time delay) for decisions which they feel referees ought to have been able to make without the delay. It’s all very well talking about the “integrity” of the game (and it seems to me that you are trying to protect the “integrity” of the BUSINESS, and not the game), but entertainment is clearly one of the most important, if not the most important, factors to consider.
I’ll just add the cliché point, which I feel still rings true, that poor refereeing decisions add an extra something to the game, a sense of injustice at times and disbelieving euphoria at others, which then account for additional debate and for renewed determination, etc. Fans and coaches very often need a blame figure onto whom to confer responsibility (is this not a component of human nature?) and to remove the referee’s culpability COULD theoretically have a negative effect. This point, however, remains in the background, as it is in itself an “intangible”.
Hugo, I completely disagree on your last point. There’s really nothing more nausiating that blown calls. Especially calls that could easily be reviewed and overturned. There’s too much money in football now and teams won’t stand for it when, as Wesley points out, there are millions of pounds, dollars, euros on the line. I fail to see how the lack of culpability is a good thing. People need to look in the mirror and admit their team lost the match. Besides, most of the time the issue is caught on video and the fans know the deal.
While you can’t prove the intent, you can often make the determination of whether or not the other player caused the alleged diver to go to ground. That can often be determined quite conclusively. Sometimes it can’t, in which case the PK would not be recinded. Either way, nothing is lost and we can only gain with the application of such a system. I agree that certain calls would be difficult but we’re only talking about the most crucial calls being reviewed. The awarding of a bogus PK is crucial and the flow of the game is already disrupted so there’s really not much impact. Refs would still continue to referee in the traditional way for the majority of the match, but could refer to OATS when something crucial has occurred.
First off the article was OK. But just OK regardless of the editors note preceding it. Did I really need to read the whole thing Mr. Editor? Hopefully if this bloke is published regularly you will edit him.
Good topic, good point, but don’t go on and on.
One question, the author stated:
“This electronic line judging system, would flawlessly detect the offside position the moment the ball was played, perfecting these often disparaged decisions by referees.”
Does this mean the equivalent of robot linesman? Electronic offsides rulings in real time?
Anyway to the topic as a whole…I am against review of any kind as I think bad calls, diving and poor referee eyesight are just part of the game (especially during a long league play). Good refs punish divers. There are good and bad refs and even with a moderate amount of review they will still influence the game more than we would like at times. The only exception to this I could see would be in a major tournament such as the World Cup where heavy diving (Italy ‘06) etc. could be exposed.
If there must be technology in the beautiful game I can think of three tolerable instances.
1. Penalty kick rulings: If you are going to hand out an almost sure goal lets be sure you got it right.
2. Whether the ball crosses the goal line: This doesn’t come up that often but would be quick enough to check and get on with the game.
3. Offsides resulting in a goal: And only resulting in a goal. Checking offsides each time it is called would be a horrible intrusion on the pace of the game.
Anything more than these (where game stoppages are already occurring) would kill the excitement and momentum of the game.
All said I like the Author’s clarity and conviction and definitely am interested in who will win the competition.
Interesting article Wesley, but way too long. You could have trimmed it down by at least 1/3, some passages are redundant. Deliver your message concisevely, don’t ramble on and on (or at the very least, divide it up into sections with headings).
With that said, nice coinage of the word ‘OATS’, but I don’t see a widespread usage of OATS (at least in the way you described it) anytime soon. While there has been a progressive introduction of technology into the beautiful game, there are some things which just wouldn’t fit in well.
—————————————————————————-
1. Video replay
Not gonna happen. The disruption to the flow of the game would be too important. Even if (and I’m talking pure science-fiction), we could somehow provide the referee with virtual screen glasses, which would instantly project images of the last play of the match, the ref would still need time to review the data, and make a decision (by the way, these glasses exist is some form or another, but are not used in any sport yet, as far as I know).
You brought up additional revenue potential for commercial breaks during these “deliberations” (I quote: “(…) competitive advantage in terms of media advertising. (…) By allotting a short commercial break, soccer molds into the American sports television landscape, generating additional profits and boosting popularity“). Pardon me for saying, but commercial breaks during sports events is something Americans are used to, not the rest of the world. Just like NBA fans don’t seem to mind the sh**load of time-outs in a game, or like in the NFL 2 minutes left on the clock can effectively strech to half an hour, soccer fans wouldn’t be able to accept the game being stopped every 5-10 minutes because of a video consult, AND on top of that be forced to watch advertisements. Are you kidding me?
2. Goal-line technology
Already being tested, like you mentioned. The next Club World Cup (held in Japan in December) will be utilizing ‘Smartball’ technology, the new line of ‘intelligent’ soccer balls developed by Adidas. These balls will be using an embedded microchip to automatically determine if shots have crossed the goal line. ‘Smartballs’ are still undergoing a testing phase, continuing their first use in the Under 17 World Cup in Peru 2005.
I’m with FIFA on this one: there has to be VERY thorough testing before this technology is adopted in more ’serious’ competitions.
3. Offside technology
You cited CGLI… I don’t see how a soccer official would be able to utilize that information on-the-go, without having to stop the game to check video replay. Unless you meant CGLI usage in conjunction with video, in which case refer to point #1.
What might be something to think about, is inserting a microchip inside each of the player’s shirts (or better yet, shorts at belt-level) which would work as sort of a GPS system pinpointing each player’s position on the field, at any one time. Sensors on the sidelines would then be able to generate a player’s map, and decide if at the moment of a pass a player is offside or not. Problems with such a system would be the potential damage which could occur to the microchips during the soccer game (players tackling, etc.)
—————————————————————————-
Overall, while I agree technology should be used to help the referee’s role, it will never substitute itself for the referee. Nor will it force the introduction of ‘breaks’ or ‘time-outs’ in a match, because the flow of the game is too important for that. Video replay will never see the day IMHO in soccer.
In addition, FIFA are not only looking at technology to reduce refereeing mistakes during matches, but also at additional referees. I cited the ‘Smartball’ technology before, but another innovation of the Club World Cup will be the addition of two extra referees to the regular linesman-referee-linesman trio. Each additional referee will stand close to the goalmouth, although their precise role (as well as their exact positioning) is to be determined later as the competition draws closer.
Video can be just as deceiving… It’s something that could benefit the game as well as hurt it.
Tripp - you’re still talking about the integrity of the business. I want to protect the game, not the money circulating through it. But my last point was by far the weakest, I know.
i want a word count lol
when he sent it in, it was exactly 2000 words including the title
Wesley - I think this is a good idea, but if there was a way to implement this without stopping the game it would be better. Putting this system in place would take away from the advantage soccer has over every other sport in that there aren’t any stoppages. In soccer the clock doesn’t stop for any timeouts, administered penalties, huddles, play calls, out of bounds or instant replay. Maybe like Marco talks about, players could have GPS tracking put in there shoes or uniforms and let the 4th official monitor and communicate the offside rule.
Hugo, I hear ya. I think that we can have the best of both worlds by using technology only in the most important situations. The goal line stuff for sure and other situations where play has been stopped anyways. The awarding of penalty kicks, goals scored that were ruled offsides, and the like. It should only be used in crucial situations. We do have refs and linesmen on the field and they can and will make the majority of their decisions unassisted.
Roguebear outlined my point of view on the subject well. I’m all for the tech, but only to assist on major calls. Reviewing every call would be a complete waste of time and no sport does that. Not even American Football with all of it’s rules (over 300 of them) does that!
The bit about video replay… well that’s simply spoken by a man who can’t see the difference between the sports (in particular NFL and soccer).
The main problem is that there are no natural breaks in soccer. If someone had to review every goal, near-goal and in general every suspecious incident the game had to be stopped to prevent further incidents from happening. For instance, a ball is close to crossing the goal line but isn’t called “in”… should the ref. stop the game completely and maybe deprive the opposition from a counter attack and a possible goal? You simply cannot review these incidents on video, because it would completely take away the pace and flow of the game. It works fine in the NFL, because there is a natural break after every play.
It’s a little harsh saying that a club’s financial status is dependable on referees’ deicisions ( that’s basically what you’re saying, I think). Referees may (in rare cases) make mistakes that decide the outcome of a match, but I’m pretty sure it evens out for all teams over the course of a season. And yes, if the mistake is made in the last game of the season, and a team is send into the Championship because of it, it’s very unfortunate… but couldn’t that team just have found the points elsewhere?
Second last comment: I don’t think supporters of soccer have any desire of winning over americans, and as such there is no reason to change the rules for that. If you do decide to cherish the game the way it is, we’d more than welcome you as fans, but it doesn’t really matter to us.
Last comment: I think you place a little too much emphasis on the money issue… it’s more about passion than it is about money. Fans support their team no matter how much money it generates.
Thank you all for your dissent! I published this article to spur the debate for utilizing official assisted technology systems. I am not arguing for the replacement of the referee, but I am taking the position for granting technology for assisting them in their decisions. Freeman Dyson, in his book Disturbing the Universe, writes, “There is a great satisfaction in building good tools for other people to use.” In this sense, we need to build good tools for referees to make better informed decisions. It is this premise of building the best OATS model to which I am concerned. I am not saying that I have the right answer, but I do believe that there is a need to solve the problem, as well as prevent fairness problems from occurring in the future.
First, Hugo your comments are appreciated and I do believe in referee discretion for the most part. Here, though I am not proposing that we use OATS for every foul, but I would like to see OATS incorporated in the run of play or like similarly to that in the NBA, which uses its last second shot review. Thanks Tripp for helping me clear this up. I proposed OATS to be used only after a goal is scored to justify the legality of the goal, or like Kyle presents, by the 4th official who would monitor offside calls in the run of play by communicating with the head officials. This still allows for discretionary refereeing,i.e. for “advantage” situations and the flow of game, thus preserving the integrity of the game, while preventing future problems. Seeing this from the eyes of FIFA, one need only take into the consideration if the World Cup, Champions League or EPL were decided by a controversial decision, which was then appealed in the court system for damages. Now we have a real problem and one that should be taken very seriously. Imagine if last year’s champion was still being determined in court. So I argue for both the integrity of the game of football and for football as a business.
Second, Roguebear, in response to your great comments about the electronic line judging system. I was proposing a system that Kyle, Marco and you bring to light, for offsides rulings in real time. I am not saying I have the right answer, but a comparable system to reduce error and escape injustice is my point. And in regards to your three tolerable instances, I support these instances them clearly in my article, again to discourage liability claims for the good of the game.
Third, Marco, excellent opinion. For your video replay argument, I do think that it would be tough to implement, especially around the world. And yes, I was spinning the advertising commercialization from an American perspective. I do think visual OATS are a fair way to decide if a goal is legitimately scored. Advertisements and the money they generate wouldn’t be a necessity, just a bonus. In regards to goal line technology, I argue that with “smartballs,” a type of OATS, I would like to see it supported to determine if goals have or have not been scored. And finally, the offside technology you present, along with Roguebear and Kyle with microchips, GPS and visualization is exactly what I support. The way it works is yet to be determined, but the goal of these type of OATS would be to reduce bad decisions.
And last, Tomas, thank you for awesome post too. I realize that there aren’t any natural breaks in football and, as a fan of the game, coach, and former player, I think that instilling this type of system would have its best effect if it didn’t disturb the natural flow of the game. In my article, I am only arguing that play would be stopped to verify a “ruled” goal. OATS, like CGLI or “smartballs” would determine whethere the ball crossed the line in play. This wouldn’t disrupt a counter attack and deprive them of their right to play quickly. This is as fair as I could think, since both teams would be celebrating, then jogging back to the center circle and waiting for the game to be restarted via the referee’s whistle and a kick off. It is only this break where OATS would be allowed to be used to stop the game and observe evidence to allow or disallow the goal. With your financial argument, I think to preserve the game of football, it is necessary to use OATS. Again, if one team is awarded a goal, and advances or wins the EPL because of it, there are some definite legal arguments for recouping damages that would be awarded for that team that is undeserving of the victory. And finally, I am not arguing about money or passion of the sport. It is about preserving the honor, dignity, and trust of the sport. Would you be passionate about sport that isn’t fair?
Thanks again for all you comments. Carpe Football!
The sport has been like this for more than 100 years, and it still works. Fair or not… I think the unfairness is evenly distributed.
About a single blow of the whistle to decide a championship… I simply don’t believe that. Imo a team that is dependent on that single blow to win (or not to be relegated) has had 37 other games to claim that one point, so it’s not fair to blaim it on that one verdict. For instance… West Ham last season: 33 games into the season, they looked assured as going down, but they won a lot of points in their last games and saved their existence at top level. They grabbed their chances, whereas other teams bottled it.
TO me it’s simply too much emphasis to put on the refs - especially since I’m sure, every team has its fortunate and unfortunate moments over the course of a season.
Tomas - I don’t disagree that the status quo has worked for more than 100 years, and that unfairness is distributed amongst teams. Even more so fortune, serendipity, luck and perseverance are elements teams must deal with too. I agree completely. But this isn’t saying that the status quo is sufficient to preventing future problems or will continue to work effectively. My article presents potential issues that we need to examine now, so the sport will continue to improve, grow and prosper.
Hypothetically, in regards to a single whistle blow deciding a championship, please take the following issue into consideration. AC Milan and Tottenham are playing for the Champions League final and Tottenham is awarded a goal that has not crossed the line. Without OATS, Tottenham is handed an unfair “victory” and AC Milan is severely punished both monetarily and prestigiously. AC Milan’s lawyers sue for damages, pain and suffering from the loss, and altogether injustice. Fans sue FIFA and the Champions League for unfair business practices and deprivation of their equity. Coaches, team owners, and anyone invested with the team then brings this refereeing issue to trial, where visual evidence is examined for several years in court, to determine the outright winner. Now this may be an extreme case, but I’m just painting the picture to show what could possibly happen. It could delay the start of the next season, players’ could strike, riots could break out, the Champions League could shutdown, etc. In all, it has negative connotations associated with it that the sport of football should anticipate and correct before there is a real problem, especially with the potential lawsuits that could severely impact, damage and harm the game. Why not fix the problem before it’s too late?
My article about OATS deals with issues of fairness and justice. I think it’s necessary to institute a type of OATS system to help FIFA referees prevent and plan for future problems.
I respect your effort… I really do, and you have some good arguments, but here is the thing:
Even despite the most extreme case of injustice, clubs and fans move on, because injustice is partially an accepted part of the game, simply because we’re dealing with human beings. Yes (regarding your utopian example), there might be some kind of uprising, had Tottenham been awarded such a goal. It happens once in a while. But the sport and all its followers are used to this, and it IS part of what makes the passion such a vital part of it all. Usually when a club and its fans experience injustice in some way, they tend to move closer together, and the riots usually stop there, because it is still just sports. People are very passionate, but they’re also able to let these things go, simply because it’s sports. I cannot think of any incident in football that has had a heated debate for very long. Usually the cases go on to become myths (Maradona’s hand of God, the goal in 1966), if they are severe enough. If they are less important, they tend to be forgotten and only brought up occasionally.
Soccer, to me, is the perfect combination of thrilling entertainment and passionate debatable issues. If there was nothing to get upset about, the game would loose a lot of its appeal to a lot of people. I guess my argument is that these cases of injustice are part of what makes soccer such a fantastic sport to follow.
It would be a shame to “technologify” the game too much imo.
Again, very good points of view Tomas. I realize that injustice is partially an accepted part of the game today instigating passion and thrill, but my focus is on minimizing the inherent future risks in football by using OATS. What happens when the situation above occurs? Are fans, players, teams and everyone else involved in a refereeing debacle, going to accept it 5 or 10 years from now? Especially with more money entering the realm of football from increased corporate sponsorships, advertisers marketing teams, and more licensing/merchandising deals. Huge entities like these corporations, teams, and soccer itself are subjecting themselves to a high risk situation. And the football industry operates, not by whim but by design, not for pride but for profit. They have a lot more invested and a lot more to lose. I am proposing that we mitigate these potential circumstances.
For instance, a non-team related instance, where let’s say Thierry Henry is set to break Alan Shearer’s goal record of 261 in the EPL after being traded from Barcelona to Sunderland. In his final game against Manchester City, he shoots from 25 yds out and bangs the ball off the bottom of the crossbar and straight down into the goal. It would be his 262nd goal and he would get the record, but the referee doesn’t award the goal. Conclusive evidence shows the ball crossing the line, but without OATS the decision rests entirely with the official. Now here is the dilemma, he would be the all time leading EPL scorer and attract the prestige, the power, the image, the fame, and all the profits that come along with being the leading scorer. His lawyer, sues for compensation for the agony Henry is faced with waking up everyday and being cheated. He sues Manchester City, the referees, FIFA, and the EPL for trillions of dollars in lost wages, loss of celebrity image, and hero visibility. After all, you can’t put a price on being the all-time leading scorer ever in the EPL. I mean how can you put a price on being a football God! I guess in my opinion, I don’t see the passion, thrill or art of winning an unfair game.
No but unfairness is a part of the game, and it is most likely pretty evently distributed among teams and players.
About all the lawsuits you mention. I can’t remember 1 lawsuit coming from a bad call by a referee, so I can’t quite see the logic in using that as an argument. Of course you’re right about the prestige and all that, but it’ll never lead to a lawsuit. But I do like your case scenarios… Tottenham in the Champions League final and Henry back with Sunderland… that’s some pretty hilarious stuff.
Tomas - there hasn’t been an issue like this yet. But that’s my point…in the event that a crucial decision is challenged in court, is soccer (i.e. FIFA, the World Cup, the Champions League, the EPL, the Bundesliga, the Italian Serie A, MLS, etc.) prepared to deal with the ramifications?
Blimey, how American are you Wesley!?!
Firstly, I and probably hundreds of millions of other people around the world have no wish to change The Beautiful Game, to make it more acceptable to Americans. In your article, several times you comment on the (real) issues that you folks across the pond have. Nothing anti-American intended, you could be from the lost tribe of Amazonian Warriors and we still wouldnt want to change it.
Secondly, you keep talking about this person suing that one and it snowballing. Is America really that litagous? The only legal case made that I can think of (partly because of the rules surrounding membership of leagues), is Sheffield United last summer and that was as successful as the proverbial chocolate teacup.
You also had strong arguments about the financial implications of bad decisions. To my mind, SO WHAT! Football is about money, but I wish it wasnt.
Anyway, you probably had some valid points, but I cant be asked to read the whole article to find them.
What I will say, is my negativity towards technology is to do with the potential break-up of momentum or flow, which is so amazing to see in action.
I dont really subscribe to the ‘debate is part of the game’ school. Decisions should be correct. However, the trouble is, when you break up play and allow a team on the back foot to re-group, what you will eventually get is exactly what money is doing to the game today. The best teams will make better use of that break and cause further divisions between the top 4 and the rest of the league.
When the technology is almost instantaneous, then I will welcome it with open arms.
ohmygosh, funny and interesting response! I am American (although I wish our country was more passionate about football), but this is a universal issue. I am not arguing to make the game more acceptable for Americans. Instead, my article about OATS deals with issues of fairness and justice on a global scale. I think it’s necessary to institute a type of OATS system to help FIFA referees, while preventing and planning for future litigious problems (whether it happens during the World Cup, the Champions League, the EPL, the Bundesliga, the Italian Serie A, La Liga, MLS, etc.).
As to the disruption of flow and momentum, I agree with you whole heartedly. Spontaneous use of OATS would be desirable or even utilization during real time because it won’t disturb the natural flow of the game. In my article, I am only arguing that play would be stopped to verify a “ruled” goal. OATS, like CGLI or “smartballs” would determine whether the ball crossed the line in play. This wouldn’t disrupt a counter attack and deprive them of their right to play quickly. This is as fair as I could think, since both teams would be celebrating, then jogging back to the center circle and waiting for the game to be restarted via the referee’s whistle and a kick off. It is only this break where OATS would be allowed to be used to stop the game and observe evidence to allow or disallow the goal.
Secondly, I would like to see OATS incorporated in the run of play or like similarly to that in the NBA, which uses its last second shot review. I proposed OATS to be used only after a goal is scored to justify the legality of the goal, or by the 4th official who would monitor offside calls in the run of play by communicating with the head officials. This still allows for discretionary refereeing,i.e. for “advantage” situations and the flow of game, thus preserving the integrity of the game, while preventing future problems.
And to date, there haven’t been any real challenges by teams, players or fans regarding incorrect calls and unfair victories, but can you see the potential? In the NFL recently, for example, a NY Jets fan is suing the coach, league, teams, and referee for damages he suffered due to “unfair business practices.”
Anticipating these types of situations is the premise of my article. It’s like preparing for an tsunami, terrorist attack or earthquake. They are never predictable, but being ready with preventative measures, like OATS, is a way to avoid and solve the problem.
Here’s a better example, that just happened illustrating my point…in an article entitled, Steve McClaren blames referee for costly defeat.
Yeah, but couldn’t Robinson just have made a better safe at the second goal in stead of pushing the ball (as he does in every damn game) straight out in the box, and the game would have been a draw. There’s just so much more than one decision in such a game, and you can’t blame the referee alone for what happened, and certainly not for what happened after the first goal. McLaren is on thin ice here imo, and being a cry-baby never helps in these situations.
And all the talk about lawsuits… it’s just an american thing, where everybody sues everybody on very slim basis. It’s a part of the American way of life that we won’t take in over here…:-)
Btw, I think tonight’s game illustrates one of the points I made in my article about why England hasn’t won any titles in the last 40 years (http://soccerlens.com/the-reason-behind-englands-failures-since-1966/3373/) - complete lack of creativity. England virtually produced no chances, and against a good, but not great, Russian team it wasn’t enough.
Oh and I forgot - what about Gerrard’s huge chance from the setpiece, where he missed from 7 yards… it all comes down to England’s own faults and not the referee’s one mistake.
I’m not arguing that England had their fair share of chances, but again my point is that by going back to injustice. OATS could review the goal or use the 4th official to monitor the call from a computer generated line image, where he could view the decision from a different perspective and communicate in the run of play so that the center gets it right (and play doesn’t stop), ultimately getting it correct. It would at least prevent injustice in this instance.
It is a system that would limit the referee variance by reducing the chances to make an error. The OAT system is the solution to the injustice, integrating all the elements required to make the right decision, transforming the referees into “geniuses,” by not missing crucial calls. Essentially, OATS is an organism driven by the integrity of its parts, all working in concert for a realized objective, not to create injustice. In turn this maintains the discipline, standardization, and order of football. It makes it an equal playing field for both teams so to speak, more fair and breeding competitive balance.
If England dont qualify, its because of dropped points against Israel and Macedonia, not because of a harsh penalty decision.
If OATS had been used, who know how it would have changed the complexion of the Russia game at Wembley when Russia had a perfectly good goal disallowed.
I’ve heard some suggestions that Rooney’s goal last night was offside, but didnt notice that myself.
Anyway, these things are supposed to even themselves out over the course of a season or a campaign.
Wesley, the article about the NY jets fan… The article says its unlikley to succeed, so litigation, still not an issue…
Sorry mate!
ohmygosh - I was just trying to give you of a current event that could have used OATS.
I’m probably a little late but since I’m very interested in the subject I’ll post anyway, maybe at least the author will get to know about it.
I agree 100%, I’m all for video help. Arguing that it would be useful, fair and badly needed is knocking at open doors. However, the heaviest argument against it is that it would disrupt the flow of the game, and since the beauty of football relies much on its free-flowing style (which I certainly agree with) it cannot be done practically. The article doesn’t address this properly, since it takes the view that breaking the flow to some extent would be acceptable or even beneficial, in terms of generated revenue. I disagree completely here. For one thing, I wouldn’t like it, and I don’t think the problem is that there’s too little revenue. But more importantly, I believe fans all over the world wouldn’t generally like it, and in this respect Blatter & comp. are right and are speaking for the public.
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 goals.
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 we’re at it, you might check my web site, it might interest you.
FF