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

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!

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.

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.

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.