FFA must lead world in video technology

Thanks jb for confirming what you meant. I know when I'm running a line myself I tend to rely (though not entirely) on the sound of the kick while I watch (mainly) the positioning of the forwards. I'm well aware that it's not foolproof either, as the sound does take some noticeable time to reach my ears!

Peter K -Maybe a bad placement of words Peter what I meant was that any referee,anywhere else in the world will ,when judged by the full range of electronic mediums available will always be found to have made mistakes sometime in a game.That was in no way a criticism of the officials but a fact of life when their "real time" decisions are dissected into slo-mo instant replays from multi - faceted angles. Your second point is worth dissecting a bit more.Let's picture an AR perfectly lined up with the last defender. What is he watching at that exact point in time,that line or the ball which could be anything between 10 to 50 metres behind that line?. In the time he absorbs that a pass forward has been made and he gets his attention back to "the line" a class striker could have moved 2-3 metres off the defender's shoulder but is technically not offside.Plus, in that instant of changing his attention point from ball to line the AR could well be part of that 2-3 metres BEHIND that all important LINE he was policing only seconds before. To repeat "Not easy is it" Cheers jb

For red cards, it has to be a case where we used the same standards as we used for post match appeals for red cards. Our current ruling is that the red card can only be rescinded after the match via appeal if the incident would not be considered a yellow card offence (I think there was a controversial sent off with Melbourne Victory early on in this season that was dismissed as frivolous because of that) So only clear cut mistakes can be reversed (such as mistaken identity or red card for a normal foul)

Goal-line is the only applicable use. For anything foul or card related we can't use it because it is not like cricket with "in-line with this wicket, caught on the full" etc, type clauses in the rule. For football it is "if in the opinion of the referee" and the referee's opinion of careless, reckless, excessive force and, in some circumstances, "attempts". You cannot get a definitive ruling on an opinion from a video referee.

I think near-instantaneous decision making technologies like the potential of the Hawkeye goal-line technology as part of the referees decision making toolset is the way to go. At the end of a decision there needs to be a referee using what he sees and certain tools that have the potential to make the best decision with the information available right there on the field as it happens using the laws of the game, while not disrupting what is a fast flowing sport. More referees/officials on the field and training standards can help but only go so far in ensuring the best decisions are made (in not awarding incorrect goals, mainly). Technology should not be feared, some aspects of it may enhance a game that has moved forward in speed and skill over it's 100+ year history, but I also agree that there should not be an open slather on technology for technology's sake and some tools are not suitable for football.

No sanction for getting it wrong, but they only get one shot at it. If you are 100% correct with your challenge then it doesn't go away (you essentially get it back) and you can use it again. The talk of sending to the stand was just talking about when that happens (for whatever reason) it doesn't really disadvantage the team much but in a post challenge world it would be an additional punishment which might actually affect the match. I wouldn't be gung ho about calling for this system world wide but I wouldn't mind a trial in say the A league or MLS for a few seasons.

With only one use a game (unless the Ref was 100% wrong...in which case it's justified) then it's just a one shot waste of time.

I'm personally not too keen on challenges, AndyRoo, but some of what you say has merit IMHO. I think you might be suggesting that if he (or she for that matter) gets it wrong, then there's some sort of sanction -- not too much, and with no great permanent effect -- such as sending to the stands. Would you consider rewarding him for a correct challenge by letting him have a second one? I love the use of the word "goose"! It's an oldie (I think) and a beauty.

I think you would have to be very careful with a challenge system - the temptation of coaches to use it to disrupt an opponents momentum in trying to win or draw a close game would be an obvious mis-use of such a system.

Good point jb, about what if none of us had the video replays (neither slow nor normal-time of course). Let me add that most referees (and ARs) would review their matches from videos after the game, and while that won't alter that game, it will help improve their next game. I'm concerned at your phrasing though in "he will always make mistakes when overseen and judged by electronic technology". I don't think it's quite what you meant? Referees (and ARs) make thousands of decisions per game -- many of which are "there was nothing wrong with that, we'll play on". I think the vast bulk of refs get it right far far more often than they get it wrong. Don't you agree? Finally, I think you'll find that with some notable exceptions (especially at the "park" levels of our game) many ARs (linesmen) are well and truly up with most of the swift forwards, usually by beginning marginally ahead of them. Their major problem comes from judging exactly when the ball was kicked, ie, exactly when to be judging the off-side call. I've watched videos of potential offsides in normal time, and thought wrongly about whether it was offside or not, even though on video the view of the two necessary components are easier to see at the same time -- namely the kicking of the ball and the position of the forward. Only slow motion playing of that same video could convince me that I saw it wrongly even then. You might see that I do wholeheartedly agree with your general thrust though, that yes it's difficult, or as you put it: "Not so easy is it."

PeterK Excellent initiative & something that never crossed my mind. Such a change would not compromise the purity of the Game and would be done for legitimate practical reasons & not to pander to cries from the theatre-watchers.

Fussball, I've often thought that we could indeed make the goals bigger. I believe FIFA (or probably more accurately the FA Board) did look seriously at it some time ago, and the only reason it wasn't implemented was that it would cost too much all around the world. It would be a good way of moving better towards metric measurements too. Most of us still enjoy stating that goal measurements are 8 yards by 8 feet, and in those units it's nice and simple, but an enlargement of length from 8 yards to 8 metres would be easy. (Not so the height of 8 feet of course!) But you and many others are probably well aware that the current metric dimensions are given as 7.32 m by 2.44 m. Even "8 m by 2.5 m" would be simpler than that! Personally I enjoy the old money for our measurements, but I am aware that many countries are now "metricated". (In fact is it only the US which is not?)

I fully endorse Fussball's entire post.

i dunno, even only being a football fan for half my life, i've seen more occasions where the cameras just add more uncertainty than clarity. There is a subtlety and subjectivity to football officiating which i think is a bit more the case than other sports. The fact that others do it is part of your premise, but i don't reckon its all that relevant tbh.

Andrew.- Your "following" comments are beginning to counter points made in your original article. Let's take the penalty incident you used because it was current. As it happened the referee (as Fuss points out) pointed to the spot immediately, the three commentators on TV immediately passed the opinions that it was a penalty ,and, I must be honest ,sitting in my chair at home I too thought it was a penalty. So let's go to the other extreme of what you propose. Say FIFA,FFA, and all other world bodies were instructed to ban all instant replays,all slo-mo shots and all different angled perspectives,where would we be? Back following the referees opinion with the countless arguments ,discussions and debates in pubs, clubs, and anywhere fans gather.Now I know that is probably a ridiculous suggestion to be taken seriously but I think you will get my point,The man in charge is in the middle and just because he only has a range of vision in real time he will always make mistakes when overseen and judged by electronic technology.As others have pointed out to you the number of incidents that would NEED to be ruled upon with electronics are probably minimal when one considers the number of so called "incidents" in the game. Offside calls are another great bone of contention for again the line officials don't really have a chance to police the rule as it now stands.Strikers are being paid huge money to develop pace and ability to move "off the opponents shoulder" and the poor linesman is expected to keep pace with them when they "push" the line and sprint on the instant the ball is played,actually rendering them onside when the linesman,trying to keep up has a distorted cross field view for he is invariably behind that player when the ball is played from 15-20 yards behind the striker. Not so easy is it. Cheers jb

Answer to your last question - FFA

I don't see how it insults the integrity of match officials? Besides that article isn't even about technology. Rather it seems to say that umpires/referees do a tough job so people should go easy on them if they make an error, especially at park level. Nothing to do with video technology at all.

I've always been a fan of getting as much right as possible. Ideally yes we would stop fans from blowing fake whistles and if they find a way to do this then I will support it. However it's entirely different to video technology. If we have a piece of technology which can fix, or improve accuracy in this case, of a certain area of decision making why would we not do it? The DRS in cricket isn't perfect but according to the ICC it has improved correct decisions from 92% to 97%. It hasn't solved the rain/light issues which plague the sport, and it hasn't made decisions perfect but it has clearly improved a particular aspect of the game. I'm not sure why anyone would consider that a bad thing? Hypothetically, I have a big hole in my roof and also a serious plumbing problem. I don't have enough money right now to fix both of them but I have enough to fix one. I have two options: 1) Fix what I can fix now and work hard to get the money to fix the other problem when I can. 2) Because I can't fix both I should just give up and do nothing until such time that I am in position to fix absolutely everything at once. Clearly option 1 is the better choice however if I use your logic then I should choose option 2 because, why do one thing if I can't do everything? Just because you can't (or are at least very unlikely to) achieve perfection doesn't mean you should stop improving yourself (or whatever your doing) as much as possible.

In connection to point 6 As long as the number of decisions that the video referees correctly overturns outnumbers the time where the video referee incorrectly overturns the decision There is a net improvement in decision making and is sufficient to justify usage of video technology The times where the video referee makes a mistake and doesn't overturn an incorrect decision. This is not evidence against video referee because this would have occurred without video referees anyway.

If you are going to copy and paste. I guess I'll copy and paste. I support a restricted use of video referee. It would be strictly in the domain of the referee (no manager challenging decisions). It is there to overturn goals, penalties and red cards and there should be a time limit on the video referee to make the decision correctly. I wrote the article two years ago defending the usage of video referees that I think is still relevant and I copy and paste it here 1. Human errors are part of the attraction of the game and removing referee mistakes will cause football to lose some of its spectacle because the game will become less human. Human errors are part of the attraction of the game. However, the human errors that makes compelling viewing is from the players and the coaches. In my opinion, sport is about testing the ability of the competitors and it’s the actions of the players that create the spectacle. Referee mistakes cheapen the spectacle as we see an outcome that wasn’t due to the ability of the competitors. Sport should not be used as a vehicle to test referee ability. As much as I respect the difficulties of the referee’s job, I don’t watch the game to see how good the referee is. If the referee makes a really good decision, I don’t go “Wow, that’s a great decision. He’s my favourite referee, I’m going to watch every football match with that referee just to see him exhibit his brilliant decision making skills.” The human element of the decision making of the referee isn’t part of the entertainment of the game in my opinion I see the role of the referee to be the same as the roles of administrators. They are essential to the running of the game and should be given respect but they are not part of the spectacle and their mistakes do not give the game any sort of "charm". Let’s remember that the video technology will be operated and interpreted by human beings and therefore subjected to the intrinsic flaw of human nature such as making mistakes. Including video referees is no different to the on field referee asking their assistant what did they see? It just happen that in this scenario the assistant has access to video footage. 2. The game would be boring without controversy to be discussed. Well football is in absolutely dire states that the game itself isn’t entertaining enough or discussable enough without the need of referee mistakes to spice the game up. I'm quite sure exceptional skills, great goals, great saves, tactics etc could drive discussion of the game without the help of referee mistakes. 3. Football is a reflection of life and society. Life isn’t fair and neither is football. It’s true that life isn’t fair. However, it’s also true that in most just societies, there’s a drive by humanity to make life as fair as possible. I don’t see many people in real life saying “life isn’t fair” and then think it’s a good idea to do nothing to ensure life remains unfair. People generally try to make things as fair as practically possible and there are numerous people campaigning to improve the fairness of society. The desire of the football community to make the game as fair as possible by reducing referee mistakes is a reflection of societies’ aims to always improve itself and to become as fair as possible. 4. Football unlike other sports does not have a natural break in the game. Therefore, introducing video referees will slow down the game. There is a natural break in the game that can be exploited. When a team scores a goal or when a team is awarded a penalty and to rescind red cards. How long does it take for a team to celebrate a goal? How long does it take to set up a penalty? How long does it take for the game to resume after a send off? Surely the time it takes the team to celebrate a goal, complain about a penalty or red card will give the video referee ample time to review the legality of the decision. Now, there may be some decision that enter the shade of gray territories. Where it could be argued either way whether the goal is fair or not, and will require multiple viewing of replay to get the correct decision. This can be addressed by putting a time limit on the video referees, such as 30 seconds for them to make the decisions. Have the benefit of doubt go to the original referee decision. So they will not pick up all mistakes they will pick up the clear-cut mistakes. Fans are generally forgiving about shade of gray decisions. However, they are more likely to be enraged about clear cut mistakes from referees. 5. That system may prevent illegitimate goals. However, what about penalties that should have been given to attacking sides that the referee misses? Yep, this system is not going to solve that issue (at least without introducing stoppages to the game) and will not solve every type of referee mistakes. So if the onfield referee misses a clear cut penalty and the game continues then that is a mistake that will continue to not be rectified whether with video referee or without video referee. Or they may be a goal that was incorrectly disallowed offside that can’t be reversed because it would be unfair to the defending team because they play to the whistle (they will stop defending properly after the referee blows offside even if the attacking team was onside and therefore the goal can’t be retrospectively rewarded fairly) Is that a reasonable argument to scrap video referees because it can’t pick up all mistakes? No because the goal of video referees is to REDUCE mistakes, not remove it completely. The mistake up there will still occur with or without video referees but the video referees will fix up other mistakes that they can change and therefore producing a overall net improvement in decision making. 6. Video technology has to be perfect and produce no errors, otherwise it shouldn’t be used There will be occasions where the video referee will miss out an infringement. There will be decisions where there is no correct answer and video technology can't resolve. There will be situation where the video referee incorrectly overrules a decision and therefore makes things worst After all, the video referee is only human and will make mistakes like any other referee. However as long as the errors they overturn greatly outweighs the errors the make and overall reduce the error rate the referees make in the game. Then it’s a net benefit.and an overall improvement to the game. The goal is to improve decision making not remove errors completely from the game. We never used the logic that something has to be perfect or we shouldn’t use that in real life (we probably would have to refuse all forms of technology and medicines with that logic) and we shouldn’t use that same logic in football. I find it strange that anti-video technology points out a few scenario where the video referee makes a mistake as evidence to not implement video technology whilst ignoring countless mistakes that happen by the on field referee that could easily be solve by video technology and dismissing it as part of the game. Either referee mistakes is something is part of the game or not. If you can accept on field referee mistakes then you should be able to accept referee mistakes made by video referee as part of the game as well. The reason why people want video technology is so there will be less mistakes but there will be some mistakes committed by video referees that still be “part of the game”. That shouldn’t diminish video referee as a whole if it resulted in less mistakes being committed. 7. Some countries don’t have the technology to implement video referees. Then make the video referee an optional choice for the leagues’ to implement. Just because the American Samoa league can’t afford to implement video referees doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be implemented in major leagues and the World Cup. Right now zero countries can implement video technology. If laws are change to allow some countries and competition to used video technology to improve decision making. Then there is an overall net benefit in global terms. It’s better to some countries better off then no countries be better off with video technology. 8. The game should be adjudicated the same way at elite level and at park level. Well lets get rid of 4th officials then. Also in elite competition, referee has access to audio communication technology (yes they used technology) so that the referees can communicate with their assistance to ensure that they can hear each other over the loud crowd noises to ensure decision making is improve and the referee makes the right decision. This isn’t present at park level either, should we get rid of this technological aid to ensure standardization with park levels? A lot of people make this statement that the way referee adjudicate matches at elite and park level should be the same without even justifying why the game benefits because of that.. In the end, if a video referee will improve decision making at the elite levels, but leaves the park level unchanged, then that’s a net benefit in decision making overall.