The World Cup thread touched on the subject of instant replay, but I thought it would be useful to separate out a discussion of how a hypothetical replay system (to confirm or reverse referee calls) could and should work from the ongoing talk about the actual current event.
So, should there be replay in top-level matches? If so, how should it work?
It’s been discussed endlessly over the years, but its never looked like it’s going to happen. I’m not fully conversant of the arguments against it, though.
One problem with replay in soccer is that play is continuous. It’s not like American football where the game is divided into discrete, sequential plays, giving an obvious time to review each play if necessary. For example, what should happen in soccer if the refs make a mistake by not ruling that a goal has scored on a shot? When should play be stopped? How long should play be allowed to continue before a review is no longer allowed? If a review overrules the call on the field, what happens to all the play that followed - should it be allowed to stand?
The game’s so slow that it’s an instant replay of itself.
There are a few issue that pop up in this debate. Most importantly, what can they be used for? I think most people would be in favour of checking whether the ball has crossed the goalline or not, but for other things it differs. What to do with off side - if somebody is falsely given offside it isn’t possible to let the game continue from where it ended.
; can you stop play because you think someone was fouled?
I personally would like a few thinks to be done by video evidence:
I would actually be a lot happier if the FIFA (and also national FA’s) would be a bit less reluctant with retracting cards/suspensions or giving suspensions later. now there is this insane idea of protecting the referee by not challanging their decisions, while at the same time saying it is impossible to get everything right all the time. After matches they should just be able to say: he, it did look a bad tackle at first, but from replays it seems nothing much happened --> lets retract this guys suspension.
Hockey is one of the best success stories for instant replay. Since the mechanics of both games are basically the same, ask a hockey fan how they do it.
Also, people like to claim that soccer is continous, but after watching a handful of games so far this worldcup, I call bullshit. I bet a soccer game has more stoppages than an American football game. I also bet that the average time the ball is in play between stoppages is under a minute. I further bet that the average length of play on goals – counting from when the ball was last put in play until the goal is scored – is less than 20 seconds. Maybe even in the single digits.
I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t usually accept such a small sample to come to such a strong judgment. A World Cup can’t be compared with the games played during a season in the leagues and not even with tournaments like the Champions “League”.
I’ve read more than one critical interview with referees from Europe who criticize their colleagues for disrupting the matches so often without any need (though they tend to argue that it’s not their fault but rather a result of the orders they’ve got from functionaries of the FIFA). And the approach of the referees has also aided the players’ tendency to go down easily whenever they feel an opponent close by.
It’s a vicious circle.
Additionally, it’s a World Cup of midfield vs. midfield with an emphasis on defence rather than offence. The ensuing games are rarely fluent.
A ball going out of bounds is a stoppage.
Not in the sense that the players stop moving around, arranging their shape to gain or keep the ball once it is thrown back into the field. And anything that happens during the time is part of the ongoing match: any foul observed by the referee will lead to consequences, for example.
Besides, the players can choose to either throw the ball in as quickly as possible (in league games you often see the ball out of play only for a couple of seconds, meaning that the difference between holding the ball shortly or throwing it in again is too marginal to be significant) or take their time, depending on the situation.
Right, but all that happens in American football as well but nobody ever considers pre-snap to be part of the action. Therefore, it is not part of the action in soccer, either. And even more to the point, if the ball is goes out of play, that is by definition a stoppage in play.
Forget hockey, rugby is even closer to soccball and utilises instant replays.
I consider pre-snap part of the action (at least everything after the center first grabs the ball).
The point is that although the clock keeps running, play is stopped in soccer all the time, giving ample opportunities for a replay official to get word to the on-field ref that there was a mistake made.
The real issue is what to review. Goals, sure, but what else? I don’t think reviewing who fouled who is worth it when it’s around midfield, and even on calls nearer the box, you’d have to get the on-field referee’s take on things.
However it’s implemented, there should be a designated review ref looking only for dives, and players who dive are then shot by a sniper team. (I’ll settle for a red card if anybody objects to my original idea.)
You can criticise football for a lot of things, but being slow is not one of them! Take a look at the Cameroon v Denmark match, for instance - a shot saved at one end within 15 seconds of a save at the other end. You don’t get that happening in American football, where it seems you need to have umpteen “downs” (whatever the hell they are) and three commercial breaks before the ball is even allowed past the halfway line!
To be fair, 15 seconds between shots on opposing goals is hardly the norm.
Hardly the norm, no, but it can and does happen, and that sort of thing is the main stumbling block with instant replays - the action can have moved on and a goal be scored at the other end without any break in the play.
Easy peasy: put a fourth (fifth, in the case of the WC) official in the press box, with access to all the cameras. If he sees something that has to come back (like Brazil’s second goal yesterday) he alerts the ref. Done.
Not really. Rugby is quite stop-start (scrums, line-outs, penalties, free-kicks) and has clearly defined rules for what happens in the touch in goal area (the endzone) if a try is found not to have been scored by the attacking team. If he’s failed to gound it scrum five, attacking ball, if he’s knocked it on, scrum five defending ball etc etc.
Soccer on the other hand doesnt really have any rule that says what happens if a replay shows that the ball didnt cross the line and the ref has ruled that its a goal.
Then a rule would be made, just like when it became an indirect free kick from where the ball was played if the goalie picks up a backpass.
How about a drop ball from where the ball was struck?
Question: what do they do in (ice) hockey if TV replays show that the puck crossed the line, but the referee did not give the goal?
(sorry for any incorrect hockey terminology)