Jump to content

MLS and video replay - for agrument's sake


Guest Doyle

Recommended Posts

quote:Originally posted by Doylecanuck

Excuse the self-promotion.

http://canadiansoccerblog.ca/2010/01/13/video-replay-an-opportunity-for-mls/

Video replay would not work in soccer because play is only officially terminated at the end of each half. In basketball, hockey, football, tennis, etc., there is a natural termination of the flow of play, which allows an appropriate block of time for the referees to view the video footage. How would you do that in soccer, where the referee is the only one who keeps official time. It's a ridiculous idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doyle in the username suggested it would be someone who still can't get over what happened in the Republic of Ireland vs France playoff and I opened the link and lo and behold. Anyone remember similar demands for replayed games and video replay from Irish people after this penalty against Georgia earlier in the qualifiers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=Jf9fx4ipF4Q

The bottom line is that if you let the other team have possession in and around your own penalty area bad things are liable to happen and people need to accept that they can't rely on the ref in these situations to get everything 100% right in a fast paced and free-flowing sport like soccer. The way to prevent goals being conceded under these sorts of circumstances is to stop the other team getting the ball in under control to dangerous areas close to the goalmouth in the first place. Both Georgia and the RoI failed to do that and were therefore the authors of their own misfortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Ah, I don't know. Not convinced but am warming up to the idea a bit as the debate continues. I'm sure it could be overdone but I'm also sure if it were handled smartly there are times & places where it could be warranted and still also be minimally intrusive.

If some league somewhere would be willing to play Lab Rat I can't see much harm in FIFA developing a system and giving it a whirl to see what does and doesn't work in real life. Doesn't matter how good it sounds in the garage you can't tune your car 'til you get to the track.

I think for a lot of people the biggest fear is that once you allow video replay into the sport, even under the most stringent of conditions, you're opening a can-of-worms. There's no telling where it'll go to next or when it will all end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

Doyle in the username suggested it would be someone who still can't get over what happened in the Republic of Ireland vs France playoff and I opened the link and lo and behold. Anyone remember similar demands for replayed games and video replay from Irish people after this penalty against Georgia earlier in the qualifiers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=Jf9fx4ipF4Q

The bottom line is that if you let the other team have possession in and around your own penalty area bad things are liable to happen and people need to accept that they can't rely on the ref in these situations to get everything 100% right in a fast paced and free-flowing sport like soccer. The way to prevent goals being conceded under these sorts of circumstances is to stop the other team getting the ball in under control to dangerous areas close to the goalmouth in the first place. Both Georgia and the RoI failed to do that and were therefore the authors of their own misfortune.

My last name not withstanding, I'm a Canadian supporter, not an Ireland fan. (Actually, as an Arsenal supporter, I was more disappointed in Thierry Henry than I was outraged for Ireland.)

Anyways, as I said, I don't know what form it would take, but I agree with Cheeta – there's got to be some kind of non-invasive way to use technology to better the game. Maybe it's only for dubious goals, or situations wherein the play is stopped already? What about just giving the fourth ref a video monitor? He's not doing a whole lot over there, apart from taking abuse from the managers.

I don't have an answer, but I'm sure someone out there in soccer officialdom can think of something.

The point is, this is going to be tried, somewhere, somehow - I don't see any way around that. I just think this is one experiment that MLS would be wise to try out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

Doyle in the username suggested it would be someone who still can't get over what happened in the Republic of Ireland vs France playoff and I opened the link and lo and behold. Anyone remember similar demands for replayed games and video replay from Irish people after this penalty against Georgia earlier in the qualifiers?

Canuck in the username suggests it's a Canadian fan who follows the game on this continent and writes unpaid articles for the purpose of promoting the domestic game. But hey, what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

Doyle in the username suggested it would be someone who still can't get over what happened in the Republic of Ireland vs France playoff and I opened the link and lo and behold. Anyone remember similar demands for replayed games and video replay from Irish people after this penalty against Georgia earlier in the qualifiers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=Jf9fx4ipF4Q

I've seen this used too many times as a counter-argument to the non-call against Henry. I don't think there's any comparison! It was a clear handball by Henry - and clearly intentional.

The penalty call against Georgia was for a hand-ball by their #3 - don't get sidetracked by the offside claims - this happened after the alleged handball. Although it's not clear, it is believable. Check the replay - the immediate appeal by the two Irish players - the defender's arm appearing to go up as the ball heads towards him - and the referee appears to be in a good position to make the call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for no replay in soccer except for questions of whether the ball crossed the line on questionable goal situations.

The pilot project in Europa League (having 6 rather than 4 officials working each game) is something that I'd be in favour of considering as a way to improve officiating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers

I've seen this used too many times as a counter-argument to the non-call against Henry. I don't think there's any comparison! It was a clear handball by Henry - and clearly intentional.

So what is your argument related to the use of video replay on that basis? Are you arguing that bad calls should only be reversed if there is clear intent by the player? I don't think that's going to fly. Once the technology is introduced and the referee can be second guessed teams are eventually going to demand that all bad or even somewhat questionable decisions that result in a goal being conceded be reversed and most goals and penalty decisions could easily wind up turning into prolonged dramas with teams demanding that video be consulted and rechecked carefully from various different angles before action continues. Does anyone seriously want to watch that unfolding game after game? Much better to stick to the principle that the referee makes the final decision and both teams have to accept it and get on with the game, in my opinion. The use of additional assistant referees would be a better way to eliminate mistakes while keeping the flow of the game intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

So what is your argument related to the use of video replay on that basis? Are you arguing that bad calls should only be reversed if there is clear intent by the player? I don't think that's going to fly.

You misunderstood - or misinterpreted - the purpose of my post. It was simply to challenge the use of the Georgia-Ireland game as a comparison with Thierry Henry's handball. (And it can only be a handball if it's intentional).

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

Once the technology is introduced and the referee can be second guessed teams are eventually going to demand that all bad or even somewhat questionable decisions that result in a goal being conceded be reversed and most goals and penalty decisions could easily wind up turning into prolonged dramas with teams demanding that video be consulted and rechecked carefully from various different angles before action continues. Does anyone seriously want to watch that unfolding game after game? Much better to stick to the principle that the referee makes the final decision and both teams have to accept it and get on with the game, in my opinion. The use of additional assistant referees would be a better way to eliminate mistakes while keeping the flow of the game intact.

As for my views on the use of video replays, I'm in favour of using them as much as possible. I don't think 'the flow of the game' will be impacted - particularly on questionable incidents which lead to a goal or a penalty. The game is stopped in these situations in any event.

I think it is ridiculous that millions of TV viewers around the world can instantly see an incident that is missed by the game officials yet the game officials are not allowed the use of technology to help them make the right decision. Just wait until the World Cup in South Africa is decided by a bad call or non-call!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers

Sorry Bill, that's not true.

Let just say that instead of a Henry handball in the France vs Ireland game we would be talking about a defensive handball on the line (to prevent a goal) by an Irish player. Ref missed it. Shay Given collects the ball, boot it up field and Ireland scores on a Robbie Keane strike. How do you handle such a situation with video replay?

The play hasn't stop in between the missed call that prevent France from a penalty (and a red card) and Ireland goal.

Now, let's say what we thought was a handball on the line by the Irishman wasn't an handball. If we allow the game to be stopped in such a situation (ambiguous PK situation) we will prevent, in case we find out with video replay there was no PK, the other team from a counter attack opportunity.

I can't see how video replay could be introduce in soccer, this would lead to big injustice because some teams will benefit from it while some could be penalized from the use of it. So, it won't improve the game, it will remain like it is now. Injustice will still happen.

Here's a must read on the subject:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1230713/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Dont-fooled-perfect-storm--video-replays-work.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0XscULxbG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

BBTB - I don’t think its legitimate to discredit Doyle’s argument simply on the basis of his username and possible allegiances. It would be like me looking at your name and assuming that you are some stuck-in-the-past antiquarian who is not open to new ideas or innovation within soccer. Hmmm...

Brownbear - no natural termination of the flow of play? Are we watching the same sport? Goal kicks, free kicks, goal celebrations, time spent seeking (pseudo) medical attention and magic spray, substitutions, etc. The game I watch is full of stopages that would allow ample time for an off-field review by another official who could quickly communicate the outcome to the ref. This isn’t like hockey where officials need to see if the small puck crossed the goal line that was probably obscured by thick netting and quite possible the goalie and any other players piling on top of the fray - I think most potentially reviewable calls could be upheld or overturned pretty quickly..

Loyola - your ability to construct a very specific and probably quite rare series of events (unawarded legitimate goal followed almost immediately by a permitted goal at the other end) does not eliminate the fact that VR could be used to achieve the correct call in a large number of situations where those calls have a huge impact on the game. Would it be the perfect panacea for officiating? No, but I think it could be an improvement on the errors that seem to be rampant in today’s game.

Like some of the other posters, I will admit that I don’t know the proper balance in the way that VR could be used. What I do know is that without the use of VR, I have seen a ridiculous number of poor calls that have had an undue influence on the outcome of games, and in some cases the consequences of these games are significant (yes, Ireland France for example, but also a fair number of Canada’s MNT games). I also know that there are ways of structuring the use of VR so that it wouldn’t be used frivolously (e.g. a challenge system where a failed challenge results in the loss of a sub) or unduly (e.g. it could only be used to review a specific set of circumstances, like goals, awarded PK’s, etc.). What I find most bizarre is the resistance even to that idea that VR should be introduced as a pilot-project, which would provide the opportunity to explore if and how it can be used to address some of the negative facets of the sport I love. There is an ongoing epidemic of diving for penalties, faking injury, etc., and I think that the appropriate use of VR (possibly coupled with the idea of post-match disciplinary sanctions) could help clean it up. I also think that we owe it to the players and fans to at least give the idea of VR a fair trial rather than nix the idea before it is even given a chance to show its benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by dyslexic nam

Loyola - your ability to construct a very specific and probably quite rare series of events (unawarded legitimate goal followed almost immediately by a permitted goal at the other end) does not eliminate the fact that VR could be used to achieve the correct call in a large number of situations where those calls have a huge impact on the game. Would it be the perfect panacea for officiating? No, but I think it could be an improvement on the errors that seem to be rampant in today’s game.

Like some of the other posters, I will admit that I don’t know the proper balance in the way that VR could be used. What I do know is that without the use of VR, I have seen a ridiculous number of poor calls that have had an undue influence on the outcome of games, and in some cases the consequences of these games are significant (yes, Ireland France for example, but also a fair number of Canada’s MNT games). I also know that there are ways of structuring the use of VR so that it wouldn’t be used frivolously (e.g. a challenge system where a failed challenge results in the loss of a sub) or unduly (e.g. it could only be used to review a specific set of circumstances, like goals, awarded PK’s, etc.). What I find most bizarre is the resistance even to that idea that VR should be introduced as a pilot-project, which would provide the opportunity to explore if and how it can be used to address some of the negative facets of the sport I love. There is an ongoing epidemic of diving for penalties, faking injury, etc., and I think that the appropriate use of VR (possibly coupled with the idea of post-match disciplinary sanctions) could help clean it up. I also think that we owe it to the players and fans to at least give the idea of VR a fair trial rather than nix the idea before it is even given a chance to show its benefits.

First, I have no problem with post-game sanction after using the video replay.

Second, my example is just that an example of what could happen. The problem with soccer is that some plays have a natural termination (goals, PK situation where the ball end up out of bound) but some don't (PK situation where the ball stays in play) so the question remains: Why some team could benefit from a video replay (PK situation where the ball goes out of bound) and another team couldn't (ball remaining on the field after a tackle in the box)?

Allowing teams to challenge calls or non-calls would lead to the some questions I tried to raised in my first post. When do we allow the use of video replay? Anytime a team feel a wrong call was made (let say with a maximum of 2 challenges)? If teams have to wait for the play to be "dead" before challenging, what do we do with what happened between the moment of the litigious play and the stop of the play (a YC, RC, goal, PK could've been called in between)? etc.

The problem I have with video replay advocators is that I have yet to see a detailed proposition that wouldn't lead to possible injustice.

BTW, you could change my example with litigious situation in the box (no-call), slow build up for a goal at the other end of the pitch with the ball always remaining on the field between the 2 situations. The ball could even been lost 10 times by each teams between the 2 situations and still we wouldn't have a natural termination of the play. That's not rare. Or the classic situation where you have a no-call on a hard tackle near, or in the box, followed, 10-20 seconds later with the other team tackling hard in the midfield on the counter with the ref handind a YC. So, what do we do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dyslexic nam

Some thoughts:

BBTB - I don#65533;t think its legitimate to discredit Doyle#65533;s argument simply on the basis of his username and possible allegiances. It would be like me looking at your name and assuming that you are some stuck-in-the-past antiquarian who is not open to new ideas or innovation within soccer. Hmmm...

The use of antiquarian is a bit absurd given the Blizzard only folded 16 years ago and there were strong rumours of a comeback as recently as 2001 but no matter. What I was getting at with the Doyle in the username bit is that this current uproar is very much a knee jerk reaction to one particular incident that has not been fully thought through. An interesting question, which is part of what I was getting at with the Georgia clip, is why this latest incident has been seized on to the extent it has been when there have been so many other controversial goals in the past? Here's John Molinaro's take on that:-

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/fifaworldcup/blog/2009/11/ugly-stereotype-fuels-outrage-against-france.html

I don't agree with what he has to say verbatim (and was slightly amused by his use of "Anglo-Saxon soccer world" to include the Republic of Ireland given that's pretty much the last thing most people from there would ever want to admit. Australians use "Anglo-Celtic" nowadays to get around that particular cultural sensitivity) but having more than a passing familiarity with the tabloid media in that part of the world I wouldn't totally discount his line of argument.

People should also maybe bear in mind that technology has been available to do something about this issue for a very long time now. Before I was even born England won a World Cup after a goal that clearly should have been disallowed when viewed in replays (the 1966 World Cup finals was the first time they were available on British television) but was allowed to stand after advice given to the referee by a Soviet linesman who is widely believed to have been influenced by the legacy of WWII. If anything should have led to this problem becoming "crystallized" in a World Cup context it should have been that.

For the sake of balance where England are concerned this happened in another World Cup 20 years later back when the Blizzard were still around:-

The issue has no doubt been considered carefully over the subsequent decades by the powers that be. I strongly suspect that when it has been looked at calmly and rationally by the people who propose and draft rules changes the conclusion has always been that it would wind up creating more problems than it would solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loyola,

You handle just as the NHL does now ... and in fact did the other night in a Leafs game.

1. The play continues until the next natural stoppage no matter how that stoppage occurs, even a goal (in the case of the Leafs game, it was a penalty shot).

2. When the play stops, the play in question is reviewed. In the case of the Leafs game, a puck went into the net unspotted.

3. The correct call is made, in your example the Penalty is given. In the hockey example, a goal was given.

4. Anything that happened after the moment of the play in question DID NOT EXIST.

Certainly occasional injustices will occur but the number of such occurances will be reduced. That's why offsides are an area that will never truly be solved by a replay.

What has developed in the NHL is a slight change in the mindset of the officials. They are now occasionally allowing play to continue knowing that they can go to replay to see if that puck went in or not. They'll let the play conclude and then go upstairs.

It works and many injustices have been removed from the game. Not all but many. It's progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt this would work because some "natural stoppage" are often being dealt differently by players/team . A throw in, a quick FK near the box, etc could be stopped by a challenge now. It's different than a substitution because coaches doesn't used this to stop the play since they are usually prepared 30 seconds or a few minutes earlier.

I'm also wondering if the keeper having the ball in his hands would be consider "natural stoppage".

Also, I have a problem with your paragraph 4 since this could lead to someone who just commited a RC offense to stay on the pitch. I know it would be rare but that would happen at some point. I'm not sure how the NHL work but if the Bertuzzi attack would've happened 10 seconds after a legit goal had been scored, I can't imagine the "it did not exist" line being used.

In the wake of the Henry saga, the introduction of video replay would lead to another question: What kind of action is reviewable? Henry action led to a goal but what if it happened in the midfield and 2-3 subsequent pass would've led to the goal? Can we review this? Can the FK that led to the goal be review?

My problem is we'll need to identify some barriers and those will lead to another kind of injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ball in the goaltender's hands is not a natural stoppage or even a stoppage of any sort. The referee doesn't add stoppage time for a ball in the keeper's hands does he? Of course not.

Natural stoppages are when the referee blows his whistle - throw ins, free kicks, corners, off-sides, goal kicks, fouls and penalties.

In regards to "paragraph 4", there is an answer from the NHL rule book. I didn't mention it before as I didn't want to overly complicate things. Penalties that have been incurred after the play in question are still handed out. This actually happened in the Leafs game that I referred to. After the play (which was later declared a goal), the Leafs broke down the ice with Ponikorovsky pulled down while on a breakaway. This normally would have been a penalty shot but under their rules, in this case, that penalty shot is changed to a two minute penalty.

As to what is re-viewable, that's where FIFA has to use their heads. Do you go the NFL / CFL route and make a lot of things re-viewable or do you go the NHL route and limit it to the the legitimacy of a goal .... or do you go somewhere in between.

I don't see why identifying barriers is a problem. There has to be parameters to any rule. When does it apply, when does it not apply, under what conditions is the rule invoked etc etc etc. All rules have parameters.

In the case of the Henry goal, reviewing the offside is difficult. Reviewing any offside is difficult because, as you referenced earlier, once the whistle has blown, you can't take it back.

IMO, you have to stick to the ball crossing the line and fouls in the box ... by either team.

The truth in the Henry instance though is that they didn't need replay. They needed the extra officials for each box ... the ones FIFA has refused to use in South Africa. Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why identifying barriers is a problem. There has to be parameters to any rule. When does it apply, when does it not apply, under what conditions is the rule invoked etc etc etc. All rules have parameters.

It will lead to injustice because some teams will be able to benefit from it to get a PK or have a goal called back while their opponent won't because situation X isn't a reviewable situation. Let's say that 10 min before Henry play Robbie Keane had took a shot that hit the crossbar and then bounce on the line. Ref awards incorrectly a goal. France ask for a review. The goal is dissallowed. Then the Henry situation happens. You can't review it because the problematic situation isn't a reviewable one (rule edicted by FIFA). Now we are back to square one and Ireland would still complain.

You can also change my example by placing Henry handball outside the box (which wouldn't be reviewable). You can think of a variety of litigious situations that happens somewhere on field who have, over the years, led to disputed goal or a contested no-call. I can't see how this could be cover without eventualy causing prejudice to a team.

In some situation it would work great but in other we would still be facing injustice. It's just that it would be another kind of injustice.

As for the officials behind the goals,while I agree that it would've probably invalidated Henry goal I can see why FIFA won't make the move. Changing the mechanics of officiating like that 6-7 months before a tournament starts isn't an easy task. First, you have to make sure every officials have been prepared to ref that way and so far only Europa is being used as a test for this form of officiating. No one outside Europe would be used to it. I'm expecting this form of officiating, if proved beneficial for the game, to be implented for 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no comparison between the NHL and most pro soccer leagues around the world. In Scotland, for example the only games that are consistently televised live with equipment in place for multiangle instant video replays are Rangers and Celtic away games. Some games between the smaller clubs may not even have a camera present for TV news highlight reel purposes. One of FIFA's main argument against video replay has tended to be that they want to keep a consistent set of rules for all games played all the way from an amateur game played in a public park to the World Cup finals. Given you usually need to get to a fairly high level of play before you ever see a linesman, I don't see a problem with adding a second set of assistants to take care of the behind the goal perspective on things at a still higher level. Of the goals and clips that have been added to this thread it seems to me that would probably have taken care of the Henry handball, Geoff Hurst's shot bouncing off the line with the whole ball never crossing it, Maradona's "hand of God" and the bizarre penalty conceded by Georgia where the second opinion could only be provided by an assistant on the other side of the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIFA hasn't acted on this because it is run by a bunch of gutless wimps who don't care about the integrity of the game as much as they care about how much money is being made.

There is no difference to the officiating! The referees and assistants will call the game just as they always have done. The only difference is that instead of working with a sideline assistant referee, the referee will work with a sideline assistant and a goal line assistant.

It's damned simple.

The big problem here is that individuals like Sepp Blatter are incompetent boobs who don't deserve the positions that they currently hold. Two words make my case .... "Jack Warner". If they really cared about the integrity of the game, "Jack Warner" would not be running CONCACAF.

Who says they wouldn't be reviewing an Henry situation in the future? There are no rules or guidelines in place yet. You're pulling something out of your hat to fit your argument.

This will be an evolving scenario if it in fact ever comes to fruition.

It's relatively easy to come up with arguments against something like this but I would bet you dimes to donuts that the "injustices" you refer too will be cut in half if video replay is implemented and the game is taken out of the 19th century into the 21st.

There is no perfect system but what is so wrong about improving the situation we have now? England won a world cup in part because of a goal that was never scored. Is that not an injustice? Years later, Maradona leads Argentina to a win over England in part because of his "hand of god" goal. Is that not an injustice? .... And now Henry. Steps have to be taken to make sure that these injustices don't occur in the future.

You know what, the reality is that the only way to remove the potential for a moment of injustice in a sports event is to just not play the game at all. Short of that, the powers-that-be have to move forward to at least improve the situation and not just live with the way it is now.

Right now, FIFA is tacitly approving these injustices through lack of actions that are easily achievable and that is shameful and incompetent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not seen the Georgia video but I'm going to track it down. (Edit: I've just watched it. That was perhaps one of the most bizarre calls I've ever seen .... outside of CONCACAF of course. Replay or no replay, it's hard to reckon what that particular referee was ingesting prior to the match. Kissing toads perhaps?)

In regards to the other instances that I also refer to in the post I was writing when your post went up (which I did not see until after I posted), I'm not convinced that the Hurst goal would necessarily have been called correctly by a goal-line official. The film showed it reasonably clearly IMO but that was one of those lightning quick plays that one rarely sees. Maradona and Henry, yes, the goal-line official would most likely have caught those assuming they hadn't taken an envelope! ;)

In any case, you're right in regards to some league's not having enough cameras to do the job. For that reason, perhaps we deal only with official (non-friendly) international matches.

The other option is to allow some leagues to opt out due to technical limitations. Leagues and internationals don't have to be treated the same for the purpose of Video Replay. Really, leagues are the least of our worries, international play has been what has been most discussed. Club tournaments as well of course.

If one league is up to it and another isn't, than so be it.

There are plenty of options out there and if FIFA ever breaks down and allows video replay, they are going to have to deal with a lot of variables before the rule actually comes into play.

While it is a nice idea that all games be treated the same from top to bottom, as you mention, there are lots of lower level games that don't have linesman. It's a laudable goal of FIFA but that doesn't mean that wherever and whenever possible, they shouldn't try and do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see a huge injustice in a World Cup being won based on a difference of a few inches. England got the ball in under control to Geoff Hurst at the top of the six yard box and he was able to turn and get a great shot away. Germany were the authors of their own misfortune by not defending better in other words and in the big scheme of things probably deserved to concede a goal on that basis. As for Henry's handball how on earth do you let the ball bounce in your own six yard box from a free kick almost at the half way line? The RoI brought it on themselves by giving Henry the opportunity to do what he did and in the big scheme of things defending like that probably also deserved to be punished by a goal.

Beyond that it is maybe worth bearing in mind that it is drummed into players from a young age that you have to play the whistle and you never stop whenever you think a foul has been committed or the ball has gone out of play etc. The attitude that goes hand in hand with that is that it is only a free kick if the ref actually blows his whistle so everybody who plays the game competitively (with practically no exceptions) will routinely try to get away with stuff that is against the rules when/if they think they can get away with it and will routinely try to influence the ref's decision even when they know full well that the decision should go against them. What Henry and Maradona did is part and parcel of actually playing the game in terms of how the real world actually operates and a lot of people would probably enjoy watching soccer much more if they realized that and let go of utopian notions about fair play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIFA hasn't acted on this because it is run by a bunch of gutless wimps who don't care about the integrity of the game as much as they care about how much money is being made.

There is no difference to the officiating! The referees and assistants will call the game just as they always have done. The only difference is that instead of working with a sideline assistant referee, the referee will work with a sideline assistant and a goal line assistant.

It's damned simple.

The big problem here is that individuals like Sepp Blatter are incompetent boobs who don't deserve the positions that they currently hold. Two words make my case .... "Jack Warner". If they really cared about the integrity of the game, "Jack Warner" would not be running CONCACAF.

Who says they wouldn't be reviewing an Henry situation in the future? There are no rules or guidelines in place yet. You're pulling something out of your hat to fit your argument.

This will be an evolving scenario if it in fact ever comes to fruition.

It's relatively easy to come up with arguments against something like this but I would bet you dimes to donuts that the "injustices" you refer too will be cut in half if video replay is implemented and the game is taken out of the 19th century into the 21st.

There is no perfect system but what is so wrong about improving the situation we have now? England won a world cup in part because of a goal that was never scored. Is that not an injustice? Years later, Maradona leads Argentina to a win over England in part because of his "hand of god" goal. Is that not an injustice? .... And now Henry. Steps have to be taken to make sure that these injustices don't occur in the future.

You know what, the reality is that the only way to remove the potential for a moment of injustice in a sports event is to just not play the game at all. Short of that, the powers-that-be have to move forward to at least improve the situation and not just live with the way it is now.

Right now, FIFA is tacitly approving these injustices through lack of actions that are easily achievable and that is shameful and incompetent.

I think you are missing the point. What I want to illustrate with those fictive examples is the barriers wont solve the problem at all, they will just create another sort of injustice. No matter what the rule will be it will either change the flow of the game or create litigious situations that won't be reviewable because of the new rule. So in the same game could potentially benefit from video replay while their opponent won't when both would've a perfectly legit case.

BTW, ask any FIFA ref (or a good ref) if changing the mechanic of the officiating is that simple, you might have a different answer. Positionning, responsabilities, angle, communication, etc are all part of officiating that would suffer significant changes with the introduction of the behind the goals officials. The fact that most refs (only a small fraction with Europa refs) around the planet won't have experienced this kind of 5 refs system prior to the WC is the reason why FIFA won't introduce it. Like I've said, 2014 is more likely.

BTW, am I a "gutless wimps who don't care about the integrity of the game as much as they care about how much money is being made". Because on the issue of video replay I think just like FIFA.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...