Time for Soccer to change...

Hazys

The officiating in the World Cup has been atrocious, some ridiculous decisions and completely inconsistent decisions also, for example; the USA disallowed goal Vs Slovenia, Lampard's 'Goal', Argentina's first goal...not to mention the Theirry Henry incident. Soccer has to change, there is too much at stake. Fifa preaches fair play, there isn’t much of that going on in the current game.


TBH I used to be a huge fan of soccer back in the day but two things slowly turned me off the game, the officiating and diving. The level of officiating has stayed the same in the last 10 years and diving has got way worse and it can now be seen in my brother's U15 games. I have turned more to Rugby and NFL (American Football) where the standard of officiating in comparison to soccer appears almost flawless, also no diving. I have rekindled a bit of my love for soccer again from this world cup and I have watched a good majority of the games but I’m slowly starting to get pissed off again at the primitive nature of officiating and I find diving disgusting.

I feel sorry for the referees, they are only human and have to make a split decision from 20 yards away to whether a player took a dive in the box or not? FIFA isn’t helping their refs.

I also dont blame the players for diving also, if you are going to get away with it...why not? So much to gain from diving, very little to lose.


I propose 3 things (mostly applicable to large professional leagues and World and Continental Cups):

1. A diving committee: to review games after they are played to find 100% blatant dives and award yellow cards after the game
2. Goal Line Technology: its there, its ridiculous its not used
3. Video Reviews: Like in the NFL, managers are allowed are certain amount of challenges a half for major decisions, like offside goals, and penalties

For proposal 3, people will complain games will take too long with all the stoppages but the Mexican players saw the replay seconds after the goal yesterday and knew it was BS. It works in Rugby, why not Soccer?


So what do you think? Is the game fine as is or does it need change? http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5336733/ce/us/us-federation-open-added-ref-technology

conno16

lets not get carried away now
goal line technology a must yes
video ref yes - but only for goals.. ref should have option to seek input from the video ref but not obliged to

Guy:Incognito

Why not do it like Rugby?

The Argantinian first goal yesterday is a prime example of it. Everyone, including the ref, knew the goal was dubious at best so all he would have to do is ask the 4th official (on the radio) "Is there any reason I can't give the goal?" . It would have been over and done with and Mexico taking a free out long before it got settled down they way it did.

KittyeeTrix

I can't see why there is an argument against goal line technology

Guy:Incognito

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

I can't see why there is an argument against goal line technology

There doesnt need to be any specific goal line technology, the exiisting TV cameras are fine as is. They just need to be used by the officials.

gibson

Even if they couldnt have goal line technology could they not have another official who isnt out on the pitch watching the match and reviewing replays and just tell the ref through his ear peice if it was over the line or not. It'd take seconds as others have said

eagle eye

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

I can't see why there is an argument against goal line technology

The argument against it is that if you bring it in the game will eventually become too stop/start.

Guy:Incognito

eagle eye wrote: »

The argument against it is that if you bring it in the game will eventually become too stop/start.

But theres no need to stop anything. The ref can continue as normal until he gets word in his earpiece from a 4th offcial telling him somethign is up.

Ordinary man

Id like to see goal line technology. Also a citing procedure like in rugby if a team felt a played dived for a penalty or to get a player sent off. Another problem seems to be the amount of games ending up 11 against 10 because a player picked up 2 soft yellow cards

eagle eye

Stekelly wrote: »

But theres no need to stop anything. The ref can continue as normal until he gets word in his earpiece from a 4th offcial telling him somethign is up.

So then what happens?

Does the game clock get reset to the time of the goal?

Royale with Cheese

Goal line technology, whatever way they decide to go about it is a must. Video replays might be pushing it a bit (it would make things a bit stop/start and would need to be used sparingly) but I think their introduction is inevitable, alebit not until about 2050 at this rate.

Guy:Incognito

eagle eye wrote: »

So then what happens?

Does the game clock get reset to the time of the goal?

We're talking a couple of seconds here. Most of the time it would be for dodgy offside goals or dubious penalty calls. Most of which invovle time wasting from groups of players roaring at the ref or linesman anyway.

Paleface

Sepp Blatter is an idiot who thinks he's preserving the beautiful game by keeping all officiating to be performed by one referee and two linesmen.

Unfortunately they have too much ground to cover and there are far two many things going on at pace in the modern game for them to do their job effectively. It could be argued that they never did their job effectively and we are only noticing this more and more with modern television equipment not missing much that goes on.

I know there is now a fourth official but when does he really get involved in on field incidents. Its more managers and coaches who he deals with aswell as keeping track of the time and substitutions.

This delemma clearly needs to be addressed. Why not simply have more officials? The extra official at each goal in the Europa league was a great idea. Would it not also be feasible for there to be one referee for each half as there is in Aussie Rules. This way there are more eyes on the action and less chance of mistakes being made.

I'm all for goal line technology also or just even using the tv cameras as already suggested. I can't see FIFA going for this though. Sepp Blatter will continue to say that the solution can't be any different at an under age match in the park as it is at the World Cup final. He is a clown!

Guy:Incognito

Paleface wrote: »

Sepp Blatter will continue to say that the solution can't be any different at an under age match in the park as it is at the World Cup final. !

That doesnt wash anyway though. At it's lowest levels football doesnt have official linesmen. Sure theres enough of a struggle to get refs.

ArmaniJeanss

Stekelly wrote: »

Why not do it like Rugby?

But what you suggest in your next post is absolutely nothing like the way they do it in rugby.

Stekelly wrote: »

But theres no need to stop anything. The ref can continue as normal until he gets word in his earpiece from a 4th offcial telling him somethign is up.

In rugby the TVMO isn't even watching the game - he only looks at a specific incident when the referee stops the game and asks him to check.

curry-muff

What Ive always thought would be the easiest route would be to have the 4th official watching a screen of some form, and relay the verdicts to the referee through an earpiece, so simple and cost effective, why not just do it?

dreamers75

How does the TV replay work for under 7s in the park?

flahavaj

dreamers75 wrote: »

How does the TV replay work for under 7s in the park?

They would manage just as well as the under 7 rugby and tennis players do.

_blank_

dreamers75 wrote: »

How does the TV replay work for under 7s in the park?

Those same games that have the full compliment of officials, just like the WC games have?

namloc1980

I think only very specific types of incidents should be reviewable i.e. ball over the line / offside goals etc. Things like handball or fouls should not be reviewable. In short only black and white things should be reviewed. Many many fouls and possible handballs are very subjective. What one person deems a handball another might see it as someone protecting their face.

To minimise stoppages give each manager 2/3 challenges per match like in American Football.

_blank_

namloc1980 wrote: »

Things like handball ...should not be reviewable.

:eek::eek:

But then Henry would still have gotten away with it.


No way

No way

Guy:Incognito

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

But what you suggest in your next post is absolutely nothing like the way they do it in rugby.

.

It was seperate posts about different things and two different opinions on the way it could be done.

If the ref feels something is amiss with a goal he can ask the 4th official if theres a reason not to give it.

Outside of that if the 4th official saw something that should be stoppign play he could do that.

ArmaniJeanss

curry-muff wrote: »

What Ive always thought would be the easiest route would be to have the 4th official watching a screen of some form, and relay the verdicts to the referee through an earpiece, so simple and cost effective, why not just do it?

The thing is - its not easy to actually come up with a workable solution.
Lets run with your suggestion and see where it leads.

Does the fourth official make his own input, or does he respond just when asked by the referee?
If the former (he makes his own input and tells the ref in the earpiece 'STOP the game, you have blundered') what happens if they are in total disagreement - the referee saw the alleged handball and considers it accidental in his opinion whereas the 4th official considers it deliberate and informs the referee he has missed a deliberate handball? Ditto the 'interfering with play'/'second phase concept' with offsides, its quite often one persons opinion against anothers opinion, neither wrong.
What if the incident the referee has missed only becomes apparent when viewed by the TVMO at a specific angle 90 seconds after the game has continued.

If the TVMO doesn't make his own input and only responds to the referee then we are back to the issue of how is a decision referred to the TVMO. Is it every goal, corner, offside, throw-in, freekick where one team thinks the decision is wrong? Or is it a challenge system, 3 per game? Or is when the players plead enough with the referee?
If its a challenge system what happens yesterday if after Lampards shot the ball doesn't go out of play for the next 5 minutes. The appeal happens at the next break of play, the goal is given and the clock rewinds 5 minutes? What if the next break in play is caused by a sending-off foul, does it stand?

I agree that something has to be done, but to refer to easy solutions is Sky Sports nonsense which totally underestimates the myriad of issues and rule changes that would need to be examined.

namloc1980

Des wrote: »

:eek::eek:

But then Henry would still have gotten away with it.


No way

No way

What about 50/50 handballs?? Say some guy blocks his face his hand but the ball hits his hand. The video official deems it a handball and awards a penalty.....is that fair?

seadnamac

Major overhaul. Diving committee is an absolute must. It is a sport that tolerates cheating for f*ck sake. No other sport would put up with that. Goal line technology along with automatic reviews for incidents that lead to goals and a given number of challanges for all other incidents. It really isn't that difficult or complicated. Soccer is a disgrace in the context of sport as a whole. Personally, over the last five years or so I have become disillusioned and disgusted with what the sport has become. Cheating, feigning injury, diving, aggresively influencing the referee and non-sporting behaviour have all become "part of the game". That, in my opinion, is not what sport is supposed to be about.

I love the game but I hate the sport.

ArmaniJeanss

Stekelly wrote: »

It was seperate posts about different things and two different opinions on the way it could be done.

If the ref feels something is amiss with a goal he can ask the 4th official if theres a reason not to give it.

Outside of that if the 4th official saw something that should be stoppign play he could do that.

I understand it was seperate posts, seperate ideas, and I wasn't trying to be smart about it!

I just find that people blithely say 'we must have technology like rugby or cricket or tennis' but when it actually gets down to the nuts and bolts of what they want it tends to change from a TVMO referral system to a TVMO who pulls up the referee, and then they decide maybe a challenge system. Basically changing their mind depending on which controversial incident is the most recent. And then wandering away from the discussion muttering 'but something must be done'.

But its actually incredibly difficult to come up with a good working solution.

_blank_

namloc1980 wrote: »

What about 50/50 handballs?? Say some guy blocks his face his hand but the ball hits his hand. The video official deems it a handball and awards a penalty.....is that fair?

That's not how it should be done though. Leave the final decision to the ref, the 4th official just has to give an opinion.

For instance, the Tevez goal last night, the TV Official could have said "Hey Ref, by the looks of things, Tevez was offside, in my opinion that shouldn't be a goal". That would have taken 5 seconds or less.

If the ref gives a penalty for handball, the TV Official could say "Hey ref, that looked a bit like ball to hand there, in my opinion, that shouldn't be a penalty". The ref has a choice, he can say "Nah, I deffo saw movement towards the ball, penalty stands".

It's just another pair of eyes, the linesman can already do it if he sees something off the ball, or on the ref's blindside (this is exactly the reason the linesmen are positioned where they are on a pitch btw, the ref is supposed to run the diagonal during a match, opposite side than the linesmen).

Even the UEFA Cup thing of another linesman behind each goal should be introduced here, I reckon they'd have gotten at least one of yeserday's bad calls correct, the Lampard goal, and probably the Tevez offside too.

namloc1980

seadnamac wrote: »

Major overhaul. Diving committee is an absolute must. It is a sport that tolerates cheating for f*ck sake. No other sport would put up with that. Goal line technology along with automatic reviews for incidents that lead to goals and a given number of challanges for all other incidents. It really isn't that difficult or complicated. Soccer is a disgrace in the context of sport as a whole. Personally, over the last five years or so I have become disillusioned and disgusted with what the sport has become. Cheating, feigning injury, diving, aggresively influencing the referee and non-sporting behaviour have all become "part of the game". That, in my opinion, is not what sport is supposed to be about.

No issue with a citing committee to pick up on diving/feigning injury etc. Allowing reviews of every incident on the field though is a joke. American Football has the most extensive use of replays of all field sports but it is perfectly suited to repays. There is a natural break in play after every single incident but in football you can go many many minutes before the ball goes dead. Reviewing every incident is not possible in a fluid game like football. I can't see how it would work.

namloc1980

Des wrote: »

That's not how it should be done though. Leave the final decision to the ref, the 4th official just has to give an opinion.

For instance, the Tevez goal last night, the TV Official could have said "Hey Ref, by the looks of things, Tevez was offside, in my opinion that shouldn't be a goal". That would have taken 5 seconds or less.

If the ref gives a penalty for handball, the TV Official could say "Hey ref, that looked a bit like ball to hand there, in my opinion, that shouldn't be a penalty". The ref has a choice, he can say "Nah, I deffo saw movement towards the ball, penalty stands".

It's just another pair of eyes, the linesman can already do it if he sees something off the ball, or on the ref's blindside (this is exactly the reason the linesmen are positioned where they are on a pitch btw, the ref is supposed to run the diagonal during a match, opposite side than the linesmen).

Even the UEFA Cup thing of another linesman behind each goal should be introduced here, I reckon they'd have gotten at least one of yeserday's bad calls correct, the Lampard goal, and probably the Tevez offside too.

That system wouldn't work. It has to be a decision, not opinion. It must be either:
1. The ref runs to the sideline to watch the replay and then decide (like American Football) OR
2. The video ref decides (as in Rugby)

flahavaj

dreamers75 wrote: »

How does the TV replay work for under 7s in the park?

Also that kind of thing is a sure fire way to end up doing a long stretch in prison sharing a cell with a big black guy called Bubba who doesn't take too kindly to guys who tape kids while they play in the park.:pac:

curry-muff

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The thing is - its not easy to actually come up with a workable solution.
Lets run with your suggestion and see where it leads.

Does the fourth official make his own input, or does he respond just when asked by the referee?
If the former (he makes his own input and tells the ref in the earpiece 'STOP the game, you have blundered') what happens if they are in total disagreement - the referee saw the alleged handball and considers it accidental in his opinion whereas the 4th official considers it deliberate and informs the referee he has missed a deliberate handball? Ditto the 'interfering with play'/'second phase concept' with offsides, its quite often one persons opinion against anothers opinion, neither wrong.
What if the incident the referee has missed only becomes apparent when viewed by the TVMO at a specific angle 90 seconds after the game has continued.

If the TVMO doesn't make his own input and only responds to the referee then we are back to the issue of how is a decision referred to the TVMO. Is it every goal, corner, offside, throw-in, freekick where one team thinks the decision is wrong? Or is it a challenge system, 3 per game? Or is when the players plead enough with the referee?
If its a challenge system what happens yesterday if after Lampards shot the ball doesn't go out of play for the next 5 minutes. The appeal happens at the next break of play, the goal is given and the clock rewinds 5 minutes? What if the next break in play is caused by a sending-off foul, does it stand?

I agree that something has to be done, but to refer to easy solutions is Sky Sports nonsense which totally underestimates the myriad of issues and rule changes that would need to be examined.

At the risk of making it too much like American Football Id say there should be some way to limit how often it is used, eg each manager is allowed to challenge the referees (similar to american football and tennis) decision 3 times. Possibly adding in some backlash for a wrong call like in American football where you lose a timeout for each wrong call, perhaps losing a substitution or something like that if necessary.

But still, allowing the manager to challenge a decision up to 3 times a game could possibly work.

seadnamac

namloc1980 wrote: »

No issue with a citing committee to pick up on diving/feigning injury etc. Allowing reviews of every incident on the field though is a joke. American Football has the most extensive use of replays of all field sports but it is perfectly suited to repays. There is a natural break in play after every single incident but in football you can go many many minutes before the ball goes dead. Reviewing every incident is not possible in a fluid game like football. I can't see how it would work.

It will work itself out. Agreed, not every incident on the field but put in place some sort of a framework for what incidents can be reviewed. Bookings/sending offs, fouls that lead to set pieces within a certain distance of the goal, conversely fouls that are missed that would have led to a set piece within from the goal etc. They're just examples. I'm sure a dedicated committee can come up with a workable framework. It would improve the sport immensely.

There has been the same debate in every sport before video technology has been introduced, that it won't work/will destroy the game. It doesn't. Football would be no different.

namloc1980

seadnamac wrote: »

It will work itself out. Agreed, not every incident on the field but put in place some sort of a framework for what incidents can be reviewed. Bookings/sending offs, fouls that lead to set pieces within a certain distance of the goal, conversely fouls that are missed that would have led to a set piece within from the goal etc. They're just examples. I'm sure a dedicated committee can come up with a workable framework. It would improve the sport immensely.

There has been the same debate in every sport before video technology has been introduced, that it won't work/will destroy the game. It doesn't. Football would be no different.

How would that work? Let's say there is a reviewable incident......do you call a halt to the game straight away pending the review or wait until the next break in play which might not happen for 3 or 4 minutes?

eagle eye

Personally I'm in favour of it, I think technology is great but I do understand the downside to it.

1. The game will be disrupted by this.
2. It could lead to confusion and players might grab the ball in order to stop things and have a replay.
3. You bring it in, next season there is a terrible challenge outside the box which is not covered under the new rules and goes unpunished on a United/Chelsea/Arsenal player and the manager declares holy war and demands that this should be reviewable. Something similar happens in another game and there are more calls for it. Where do you stop once technology is introduced?
4. Games last longer.
5. How do you decide if something is reviewable? What if there is something that looks ok to the officials but an incorrect call has been made, maybe a challenge per team. But lets say that you do this, then they lose out on their challenge and then a legitimate goal is not allowed later in the game.
6. A decision is questioned but in the mean time the ball ends up in the back of the net, does this goal stand? Or because its being reviewed is this goal disallowed?

Mr. Presentable

Officiating mistakes I can put up with. They are human error.

Cheating is the real plague in the game, and sadly it is excused and accepted by most fans so long as they feel they benefit.

"He went down to make sure the ref saw the foul"

As with most things in life, you get the soccer you deserve, and so long as you keep buying the shirts, paying the Sky subs and going to the games, there is no reason for it to change. This is true at both club and International level.

Blatter is stealing from you by not using available tools to keep the game honest, but so are the players who dive to get their side back into the CL final, to end the opponent's unbeaten run, or, like Portugal, who don't appear capable of any other tactic.

The only way soccer will change is for the followers to change, and that ain't gonna happen. Think of it as being on a par with Pro Wrestling and it all makes sense. Blatter is McMahon

seadnamac

namloc1980 wrote: »

How would that work? Let's say there is a reviewable incident......do you call a halt to the game straight away pending the review or wait until the next break in play which might not happen for 3 or 4 minutes?

Wait until the next break in play. I don't know what the average amount of time is for the ball to be in play but I don't think it actually is that long. Throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, corners etc. Football is actually a very stop start game, it's just that the stops don't last that long. Anyway, like I said, it will work itself out, someone out there can come up with a workable framework.

Paparazzo

Refs make mistakes, but more respect for the ref is needed. In rugby never see players crowding around a ref shouting abuse at him.

namloc1980

seadnamac wrote: »

Wait until the next break in play. I don't know what the average amount of time is for the ball to be in play but I don't think it actually is that long. Throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, corners etc. Football is actually a very stop start game, it's just that the stops don't last that long. Anyway, like I said, it will work itself out, someone out there can come up with a workable framework.

What if the next break in play is a penalty incident or a goal or a sending off??

Mental_Legend

If the ref spots something that looks a bit dodgy, what's wrong with taking 10-20 seconds to ask a TV official to review the incident? For example, if there's a foul right on the edge of the box and the ref gives a penalty, but it later turns out the foul was outside the box, there would be uproar. Why not avoid this uproar by having somebody in the ref's ear who can look at the foul again and tell him whether it's a free or a penalty?

Also, and I hate to bring this up, but after the Henry handball incident in November when Shay Given sprinted up to the ref, how could the ref say there was nothing wrong there? If there was another official who could look at a replay and alert the ref, I'm not saying we would have been at the World Cup, but national uproar here could have been easily avoided.

It would take 10 seconds to determine whether a foul was inside or outside of the box, 10 seconds to determine whether there was a handball and whether there was intent or not, 10 seconds to determine whether or not the ball crossed the line, and 10 seconds to determine whether a player was offside or not before being involved in a goal. These things don't happen in every match, so no way would there be constant stopping and starting.

Nabber

What happens if the video ref gets it wrong? Will the team accept it. Or will there need to be change again after that match?

I'm in favour of technology. I also think that the only person allowed to approach the ref should be the captain. Anyone else should be booked.

NTMK

I like the AARs idea as it doesn't slow the game down.

as for diving a review committee should be set up i think it is the only way to stamp it out

On SSN today they had the lad that invented hawk eye and he said it would be as simple as having officials watching the goal line camera and if the ball crossed the line the ref would get a beep in his earpiece

But certain aspects need of the game need to be reviewed

KittyeeTrix

NTMK wrote: »

I like the AARs idea as it doesn't slow the game down.

as for diving a review committee should be set up i think it is the only way to stamp it out

On SSN today they had the lad that invented hawk eye and he said it would be as simple as having officials watching the goal line camera and if the ball crossed the line the ref would get a beep in his earpiece

But certain aspects need of the game need to be reviewed

Simple, effective and not at all time consuming!!!

seadnamac

namloc1980 wrote: »

What if the next break in play is a penalty incident or a goal or a sending off??

What about it? If it is found that there should have been a free kick given to the other team before the new incident, then they go back to the free kick. It's only fair. Or do you mean if it's for the same team? You would give them the advantage I suppose?

All this would only apply to incidents that are missed eg. fouls that are NOT given. All other incidents that are given result in a break in play anyway so no problem there.

I'm not claiming to have the solutions but solutions are there.

namloc1980

NTMK wrote: »

I like the AARs idea as it doesn't slow the game down.

as for diving a review committee should be set up i think it is the only way to stamp it out

On SSN today they had the lad that invented hawk eye and he said it would be as simple as having officials watching the goal line camera and if the ball crossed the line the ref would get a beep in his earpiece

But certain aspects need of the game need to be reviewed

And who's going to pay for setting up Hawkeye at Tolka Park or Turners Cross or in the Scottish Third Division?

namloc1980

seadnamac wrote: »

What about it? If it is found that there should have been a free kick given to the other team before the new incident, then they go back to the free kick. It's only fair. Or do you mean if it's for the same team? You would give them the advantage I suppose?

All this would only apply to incidents that are missed eg. fouls that are NOT given. All other incidents that are given result in a break in play anyway so no problem there.

I'm not claiming to have the solutions but solutions are there.

So some fella commits a serious violent tackle and gets a red card but because we go back to an earlier incident that red card is wiped out?

seadnamac

namloc1980 wrote: »

So some fella commits a serious violent tackle and gets a red card but because we go back to an earlier incident that red card is wiped out?

Ah no a red card offence is a red card offence. The sending off should stand. Just the same way as players can get booked or sent off at half time and such, whether it's involved in an actual play or not.

seadnamac

namloc1980 wrote: »

And who's going to pay for setting up Hawkeye at Tolka Park or Turners Cross or in the Scottish Third Division?

There is no video ref in AIB league matches in rugby or hawkeye in regional domestic cricket and it's not an issue. Why should it be an issue here?

namloc1980

seadnamac wrote: »

Ah no a red card offence is a red card offence. The sending off should stand. Just the same way as players can get booked or sent off at half time and such, whether it's involved in an actual play or not.

Can of worms. If this is to be done the game should be halted.

namloc1980

seadnamac wrote: »

There is no video ref in AIB league matches in rugby or hawkeye in regional domestic cricket and it's not an issue. Why should it be an issue here?

So only the big games deserve video reviews?

seadnamac

namloc1980 wrote: »

So only the big games deserve video reviews?

Those leagues that can afford it and have the infrastructure to do it. Again, this is how it works in other sports and it's not an issue, why should it be an issue here?

LuckyLloyd

The game is a shambles as is. Major changes required.

The whole "but what about the lads down the park" argument is LOL. That people involved in amateur / underage soccer believe they are playing the same game as is being played at the WC / Premiership is the height of self delusion.