How to improve World Cup refereeing

(...) > BTW Will Paul the Octopus be choosing a winner out of Spain and Holland? Paul already did. Today, he chosed the German team to win against Uruguay and afterwards, he predicted that Spain will be the winner of the Final. ;-) What has been starting as a PR gag for the 'Sea Life' Aquarium Oberhausen, 2 years ago will be finished, now because 'Pulpo Paul' is an very old octopus at the almost age of 2,5 and won't probably be alive for prediction for the EC 2012.

I think a lot of comments here are from people who see injustice in a sport, and want it reversed. But if we introduce video at what level do you use this technology. If players are protesting about numerous decisions now, imagine if the video is available. They will be constantly asking the referee to refer to the video. People will say limit the use of video to a few decisions. Well how can you help yourself? The technology is there so you might as well use it if there is any doubt at anytime. Using it a couple of times does not guarantee you will get all decisions right. Therefore you must use it at all times if there is any doubt. People say restrict decisions to 30 seconds. What if you can't make a decision in 30 seconds. Will you just make something up? Technology does not guarantee a better sport. My suggestions is to get rid of the incentive for players to dive or cheat. Suspend or fine players for simulation after the game. Review the video. Or if players go down injured during a game (to try to protect a lead), then make them stay of the field for a minimum of 2 mins. These are the kinds of things that will make players think twice about entering into gamesmanship. The Suarez incident is only sour grapes because of the way he gloated at the end. Think about if the Harry Kewell handball on the goal line had given Australia a 1-0 victory. Would we take it? Of course. The Lampard incident. Well maybe an extra referee on the goal line is a good option. And even then if we get it wrong well..who cares. Some things on video can be impossible to make a decision on as well. And like Dominic says, "lighten up and don't take it so seriously" :)

Dominic - Love your comments - you seem to articulate my thoughts quicker than I can type! Barry - As a player and a spectator, I definitely don't want the Game to stop & start constantly like other sports that employ video technology during the game (tennis, cricket, Rugby League, American Football). I'm sure if you ask the people who count - the players they won't want video referees. Sure, have goal line technology or (my preference) a match official placed behind each goal. I've been following every WC since 1974 and every 4 years we have the same arguments: * the ball is not good * the refs are making mistakes Here is my observations of football matches played around the world over the past 36 years ... In every football match - regardless of the level of competition - the total mistakes made by the players is greater in number and also has a far greater impact on the final score, than the total mistakes made by match officials.

Because just because someone was -tripped- doesn't mean he was -fouled-. A perfectly legitimate challenge is still capable of causing someone to stumble - the player who trips is naturally going to feel aggrieved irrespective of whether the opponent was going for the ball or his leg, and is entitled to appeal for a penalty. The fact that the referee chooses to judge that the challenge was legitimate does not render the tripped player a diver.

The Players are getting paid millions at their clubs not for playing in the national team. The Suarez incident is really not a big deal to me. You can consider it cheating if you want, for me cheating is something different. The goal by Maradona at the 86 cup, that was cheating. He scored a goal with his hand and told everyone it was his head. Suarez broke a rule and was punished for it. Where is the big deal. Ghana had there chance by scoring the penalty, they didn't took it. They had another chance by winning the penalty shoot out and they failes. And yes the Lampard goal should've count, but also England had another half time to score. The question is, where do you want to start investigating. It could be a missgiven throw in which leads to a goal. Everything counts on the field, do you want to review every corner, every throw in? That's just ridicoulus, but if you're going to start this whole investigating thing it will go further and further. Anyone will feel cheated one time and the next level is there. At the end you pause the game every minute to review the last decision. I didn't say on any comment that I like how that world cup turned out, but we have to send better refs instead a ref from every country. The referee from Spain who gave 11 Cards in one game also did a miserable job in the league, why is someone like this judging a world cup game? Send better refs and don't change the rules. And if there are only referees from five or six countries, who cares? And yes, this is the biggest sport event in the world. But it's just a sport event. Incorrect decisions are part of this cup since it was introduced and I don't know why you are so confident that there won't be any more wrong decisions when you change the rules. You don't need to get personal, we're just talking about a game ;)

Fussball - a couple of observations on comments you've made : "With all these proposed changes to the Game, perhaps, it would be easier for you to find another sport? I’ve followed Football all my life and I certainly do not like any of your proposals." I'm not suggesting changes to the game, simply equipping referees to make more accurate decisions - I can't understand why any fan wouldn't want that. I've also followed football my whole life, hence caring enough to think about how the game can be improved (in my eyes). You can't tell me that the Suarez and Lampard incidents were a good look for the game and that you would be happy for the entire Cup to be decided by incidents / decisions like that. Dom also wrote "Don't take football so serious" are you kidding - this is the biggest sporting event in the world. The players are paid millions, whole nations pin their hopes on their team and the players train their whole lives for maybe one chance to play in a cup yet are content for incorrect decisions to be made when very simple changes could improve the accuracy...

It'll be interesting to see how famous cult team St.Pauli do this season now that they're back in the top flight.

Yes writing on the Bundesliga from an insiders perspective would be interesting. We do have some live Bundesliga games on our HD channel and Setanta Pay TV. Loved the story of little Hoffenheim, a village team who have risen to the top division...these stories help to make football great. Pity about Paul...although l hear now that some in Germany want him as an entree instead of a football predictor! :)

Paul only uses his power on German games. :) Maybe I'll start writing articles on the German Bundesliga when it starts in August. The interest seem to be rising since the world cup, also I may can improve my English skills a bit with some articles. Also I want to have a look at cricket, never saw a game in my lifetime so I give it a chance. I like this side a lot since the behavior here is nice and people actually have nice discussions. One thing that brought the world cup to me.

Fair enough I like to believe that the contentious line ball decision such as the grosso penalty etc will remain whether with video referees or without it. The whole purpose of video referees should be to remove blatant mistakes. That's all. These are the type of incidence that causes most of the complaints from fans such as the henry hand ball or the Mexico off side. Contrast the reaction to 1-0 victory of Spain over Portugal. Well, the goal was marginally offside and yet there was hardly any complaints of we were robbed. There's a reason why I wanted a time limit to video referees is to avoid over-analysis of line ball decision. Now if FIFA decided to introduce video referees by introducing stoppages to game or introducing it without time limit. Then I would oppose it as much as you.

Terrific response Dominic and well done not to respond in the same derogatory manner that Apelu wrote his post...not sure l would have done the same. Whilst there are some modifications l would like to rules; to allow a penalty goal (in the Uruguay v Ghana example) and allow goal line technology, the game's rules adequately cover other scenarios eg diving...give them a yellow card, harrassing the ref...give them a yellow etc. You are right that human error is part of life and when we replace humans with robots then we no longer have a sport we can love. Having watched some of the other sports eg Cricket where technology has been introduced it is now overused and still in some instances doesnt clarify the situation at hand. l do believe FIFA should appoint a panel of full time refs who are the only ones that can officiate such tournaments as the WC and continental championships. Therefore we retain the human element but hopefully also improve the level of officiating. l have enjoyed your comments and better luck to Germany next time...you can be proud of the way they played this tournament. BTW Will Paul the Octopus be choosing a winner out of Spain and Holland?

Yeah, I can move on if the referee rob the team I'm supporting of victory. I can accept it as it's just sport. That doesn't mean the sport can't be improved if the decision making is improved. I don't think you can stereotype people who want video referees to be people who are unhealthily obsessed with the achievement of their sporting team. I'm not going to stop following the sport due to referee mistake. I think the drama of referee mistake is a contrived one and cheapens the game. If the game gets boring without referee mistakes then I believed that Football is in a lot of trouble. Football is a great enough game offering enough drama without needing it to be spiced up by referee mistakes. In my opinion, sport is about testing the ability of the competitors and it’s the actions of the players and the coaches that create the spectacle (not the referee). Referee mistakes cheapen the spectacle as we see an outcome that wasn’t due to the ability of the competitors. In any case, with video referees, there will still be referee mistakes as the video ref will only adjudicate in specific areas of the game and they are operated by humans as well and they are capable of human error. It's just that IMO they will be less errors.

"Dom, so you are one of those dim witted people that cannot see anything wrong with a law that gives the advantage to the offender and see nothing wrong with cheating? Is cheating something that you do to get through in life?" First of all, we're talking about football and not about my life. I think it's a big difference between taking a dive in a football game or i.e. cheating your wife. So, no, But when you're talking about real life examples, you want to build up cameras in every place to watch over your head? Little bit of clockwork orange? I can't understand why people can't accept that there are human beings on the field who are doing mistakes. Even with video technology you'll have wrong decisions all over the place. So why over complicating the game? Just don't take football too serious. Surely it's awfull when your team loses based on a wrong decision, but does that affect your life in any way? In the next week another game will come and the one in which you lose is forgotten. Theirs really too much drama about that whole rule thing. I watch football for my whole life, sometimes it gives me thrills, sometimes I'm sad and sometimes I'm mad about the refs decision, but that's what football is about. If you're making a clear sport out of it, without shades of grey and every situation is black and white, I don't know if I want to go to the stadium every week. It would be boring.

In any case the goal line debate may become moot The hawkeye technology can apparently caused a beep in the earpiece of the referee within a second if a ball cross the line which FIFA are considering. Therefore whether to stop the play or not will become irrelevant.

The issues of players surrounding the ref is an issue that could be solve without even a discussion about video technology It just requires the referee to used its power to yellow card players for dissent. I would like to see one day where a whole pack of players get yellow carded for dissent

Have you thought, that perhaps the video referee and the on field referee are at constant communication with each other. Think about it this way. The referee asked the assistance "What did you see?" and the referee makes the decision. This happens all the time. However in this case, the assistant has access to video technology. This system could work by having the video ref just relays information to the on field referee and then the on field referee can rescind the decision based on the information given. The video ref could just tell the on field referee, player A, B, C were offside. The on field ref could then decide which players were interfering with the play.

Yes we have to wait as the player surround the ref yelling at him ad trying to influence his decision. For me that's one of the blights on the game.

Fussball Because it's impossible to do it fairly with offsides. The offside flag is usually done before the ball hits the back of the net. The referee usually blows offsides, however for a few seconds afterwards the attacking side plays on and score the goal. The defenders can easily say they heard the whistle and therefore didn't defend the ball as much as they normally do. It would be unfair to award it a goal even if the ball wasn't offside. There's too many issues that arise from allowing goals being scored in that manner. However if the ball hit the crossbar and bounces out. If the referee calls it a goal then the play ends right there even without video technology. In the scenario I've advocated, the referee will probably be instructed just to call it a goal. In any case, the goal line scenario is a minor point, I've wrote down the alternative suggestion in the response to Aka.

I just had a brief look at your article (it's too long for me to read at the moment) and I'm impressed by the amount of thought and analysis you've put into the subject. The reason I don't want video referees is because, IN GENERAL, I'm happy with the the status quo and, quite frankly, I'm not sure if I'm going to be any happier with the video referees decision anyway. In Australia we still argue about the Grosso penalty at WC 2006. Many non-Australians think it is a penalty. Even with many off-side decisions, after multiple viewings, there is often no consensus about the decision. Rather than video referee I would prefer an extra official behind each goal whose sole purpose is to adjudicate all the decisions that occur in the penalty box - from illegal holding, diving and whether the ball crossed the goal line. UEFA trialled this extra 2 officials during the Europa Cup and I think Platini said it was a success and will continue.

There isn't that much of a change at all. Video ref reviews goals, sends off and penalties and are given 30 seconds for them to rescind it. Football is a great sport and pretty much the only sport I follow regularly. That doesn't mean it's perfect or things can't improve. So what's your problem with it? So when a goal is scored. You don't think it's ok for the video ref to check if there was any offside? Do you think 30 seconds time limit is too long? Or is it just the principle of referee mistakes being corrected that you don't like If you want a more detail reason why I want video referee. Have a read here http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/04/03/should-football-have-video-referees/