Penalty awarded after a video replay in World Club Cup.

A significant moment has arrived in football I think. First time in a FIFA competition (World Club Cup) that a refereeing decision has been made based on video replays. Kashima Antlers (v Athletico Nacional) were awarded a penalty. The ref was alerted to an incident during play. He stopped the game, and went to view a pitchside monitor. On the basis of this he gave a penalty.

Thoughts? Personally I'm for video replays, but I was wondering as well would people be concerned that the game was actually stopped to facilitate the ref to view the incident?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38318258

Beefy78

Zidane was sent off in the World Cup Final after a video replay.

I'm all for technology being used but it needs to be done fairly and in an organised way, not ad hoc because the cameras have spotted something and the ref has taken it upon himself to act.

ArmaniJeanss

Beefy78 wrote: »

Zidane was sent off in the World Cup Final after a video replay.

I'm all for technology being used but it needs to be done fairly and in an organised way, not ad hoc because the cameras have spotted something and the ref has taken it upon himself to act.

In fairness it was done 'in an organised way'. Its part of the experimental rules of this competition.

dfx-

A sad day.

Referees should give what they see, not what might be if they take a timeout and look from enough angles.

enzo roco

dfx- wrote: »

A sad day.

Referees should give what they see, not what might be if they take a timeout and look from enough angles.

Nonsense. Refs need help. There is so much money involved in the sport. The technology is there, use it...
A timeout happens many times during a matches anyway. An injury (real or fake)... Substitutions that take ages, when a player is wasting time and has to shake hands with 10 teammates before he gets to the sideline.
Sure there is only about 67 mins of playing time in the average match.
The timeout argument doesn't make sense to me. Works perfectly in other sports, and they are still entertaining

GavRedKing

If they go ahead with it, I hope they stop the clock while they look at it, if its that clear cut a decision will be made within seconds anyway but eating in the game or adding it on as stoppage is a no-no for me.

Beefy78

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

In fairness it was done 'in an organised way'. Its part of the experimental rules of this competition.

Fair enough, thanks. In which case I support this. It is definitely worth trialling what what is achievable and seeing how it slows down the flow of the game. As a fan of both cricket and NFL I've seen how technology can improve a sport but neither's solution is flawless.

dfx-

dfx- wrote: »

A sad day.

Referees should give what they see, not what might be if they take a timeout and look from enough angles.

This is what would concern me, disrupting the flow of the game, even though I'm for video replays. Maybe limit them to goals wrongly allowed/disallowed due to an incorrect offside decision? The ball is in the net, so there is a break in the game. Checking to see if the offside decision was correct or not wouldn't mean prolonging the pause too much.

eagle eye

Well for me the most important thing is that the game should continue until the ball goes out of play.
Then the replay should take place and if it's found that the decision has to be changed then the clock should be reset to the time it happened at and the game continues on from there.

I'm all for video replay btw.

ArmaniJeanss

eagle eye wrote: »

Well for me the most important thing is that the game should continue until the ball goes out of play.
Then the replay should take place and if it's found that the decision has to be changed then the clock should be reset to the time it happened at and the game continues on from there.

Whilst I'm aware that extreme examples make bad examples, what happens if say Barcelona do a 7 minute 100 pass possession before the ball goes out of play. Are we resetting the clock those entire 7 minutes if the decision is that a penalty should have been awarded. I'm not sure that's viable.

LuckyLloyd

This scenario would be absent from my initial implementation of video replay as a refereeing aid tbh. And I say that as a vocal proponent of its introduction.

There was no natural break in play; ref didn't see anything; assistants didn't see anything; team didn't vociferously appeal.

I think it's okay to let this one go. The video ref saw it 90 seconds later, but imo it's too late to go back. I'd be super comfortable with the initial implementation being on a referral basis only. So realistically that will be after key incidents or when a team throws a conniption. That would cover the Thierry Henry handball, but some things will still slip through the net initially.

Soft launch, get the basics in and utilise it as a tool for key decisions that naturally lend themselves to review.

MagicIRL

What they need to do, before any video tech, is to just stop the clock when the ref blows his whistle, and resume it when the game restarts.

Why the clock keeps ticking when play has stopped is just ridiculous.

GavRedKing

MagicIRL wrote: »

What they need to do, before any video tech, is to just stop the clock when the ref blows his whistle, and resume it when the game restarts.

Why the clock keeps ticking when play has stopped is just ridiculous.

Ya, theres never enough added time at the end to allow for teams taking the p*ss and time wasting.

WBA were at it from the first goal kick at the Bridge last weekend and nearly came away with a point.

However, if they did stop the clock and re-start it when the game re-starts, it would probably actually run for about 110 mins, I dont know if thats the answer either.

LuckyLloyd

MagicIRL wrote: »

What they need to do, before any video tech, is to just stop the clock when the ref blows his whistle, and resume it when the game restarts.

Why the clock keeps ticking when play has stopped is just ridiculous.

There's no interest in football in accurate time keeping. If a ref played a strict 90mins of playable action games would take three hours to complete

J. Marston

Video of the incident...

https://streamable.com/yafb

This will be introduced and there will be ad breaks before the decision, I guarantee it.

LuckyLloyd

As always, because you can't apply video technology to 100% of scenarios with 100% accuracy isn't a reason not to apply it. Incremental improvement, gradual increase in refereeing quality.

Rugby and the NFL have constantly reevaluated their use of video technology since introduction. You're not going to identify all use cases and their pitfalls upfront, nor should you have to.

Having a video referee empowered to review the entire game in the background and signal the on pitch referee the minute he sees something that was missed is a mad place to start.

The cynical side of me says it's the kind of implementation one would start with if they wanted the idea to fail...

Turtwig

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Having a video referee empowered to review the entire game in the background and signal the on pitch referee the minute he sees something that was missed is a mad place to start.

The cynical side of me says it's the kind of implementation one would start with if they wanted the idea to fail...

Yeah it does kind of smack of "we already tried that didn't work too great".

I'd be in favour of allowing teams 2 referrals in a game. It'd only work though if there's sufficient camera angles to cover the entire pitch (looking at you AFC bournemouth ) and play hasn't progressed beyond 10 seconds of the disputed event.

The danger here is that it could be used by teams as a means to halt momentum, regroup, time waste etc.

TheDoc

To be honest am all welcome for it and interested in seeing it work and work well.

Too much rides on football now to simply have some guy in the middle calling the shots, and personally I think the standard of refereeing in say England, is pretty abysmal at the moment. It's cool for us fans just saying it's a game, but clubs now operate like large business, and relegation's and the likes cause cut backs, staff losses and redundancies.

So many people benefit positively every season, and so many negatively, from accumulated poor referee decisions that its simply too important to leave to the ref anymore.

The ref's should know themselves the contentious decisions, they clearly do. I'm thinking of say the Luiz on Aguero incident recently where the ref goes to blow his whistle then didn't. They know the ones that are touch and go. They should have help available for them to query.

Also not too concerned with the breaks in play. I think the worry is "oh well what if the other team counters" but in reality it isn't that often that a team actually breaks and scores straight on from a contentious decision

POKERKING

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's no interest in football in accurate time keeping. If a ref played a strict 90mins of playable action games would take three hours to complete

I think the added time at the end should be stop started, so for example there is 5 minutes added on, its 5 actual minutes and once the clock hits 95 its over. It would add to excitement and also stop blatant time wasting, nothing worse than 5 mins been added on and a team make a sub, he milks it for 2 minutes and the ref adds on 15 seconds if anything at the end.

Maybe the ball has to go out of play for the match to end once the added time is over too, thats just an added extra though.

Julez

What about a dedicated video ref that's trained in how to quickly look at replays and he can just tell the ref in his ear piece? After watching an incident once or twice you normally know, if you can't get it that quick its not obvious enough to give the decision. Stoppages would be minimal.

Agent Coulson

J. Marston wrote: »

Video of the incident...

https://streamable.com/yafb

This will be introduced and there will be ad breaks before the decision, I guarantee it.

Mane scored a hat trick that was quicker than it took to make that.

Jelle1880

There's already so much falling over and faking injuries that I don't get this 'it will slow the game down' argument.

eagle eye

The NFL have it and everybody is happy about it. Rugby has it and everybody is happy about it. Nearly all the major professional sports have it and seem happy to have it so why not have it in soccer. How is it a bad thing when video can ensure that a bad decision is overturned?

FatherTed

eagle eye wrote: »

Well for me the most important thing is that the game should continue until the ball goes out of play.
Then the replay should take place and if it's found that the decision has to be changed then the clock should be reset to the time it happened at and the game continues on from there.

I'm all for video replay btw.

Also what happens if play continues and the other team goes down the field and scores a goal? Is that goal awarded and then a penalty awarded? Or if the other team goes down the field and earns a penalty, is there two penalties award then?

bucketybuck

eagle eye wrote: »

Rugby has it and everybody is happy about it.

Thats not necessarily true, I think Rugby is a mess of extended stoppages with refs querying far too many decisions just because they can, so again and again you have games stopped for minutes at a time waiting for a decision to be made.

Considering how marginal most decisions are in soccer you will just have every game stopped repeatedly waiting on a decision that half the people watching won't agree with anyway. And thats supposed to be better?

dfx-

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats not necessarily true, I think Rugby is a mess of extended stoppages with refs querying far too many decisions just because they can, so again and again you have games stopped for minutes at a time waiting for a decision to be made.

Considering how marginal most decisions are in soccer you will just have every game stopped repeatedly waiting on a decision that half the people watching won't agree with anyway. And thats supposed to be better?

I agree 100%.

enzo roco wrote: »

Nonsense. Refs need help. There is so much money involved in the sport. The technology is there, use it...
A timeout happens many times during a matches anyway. An injury (real or fake)... Substitutions that take ages, when a player is wasting time and has to shake hands with 10 teammates before he gets to the sideline.
Sure there is only about 67 mins of playing time in the average match.
The timeout argument doesn't make sense to me. Works perfectly in other sports, and they are still entertaining

Who cares what other sports are doing? They're different sports that use a racket or a bat or pick the ball up with their hands. I'd again argue it does not work very well in rugby and cricket is redressing the balance giving the umpire's original decision as much protection as possible (and NFL too).

None of those breaks or timeouts you list are adding to the game either, we could do with less of them, not more.

Richard Hillman

All goals should be reviewable for up to 5 or 10 seconds up to the goal and each team gets 2 challenges, of which the challenge must be made 5 or 10 seconds after the incident.

Plus off the ball violent conduct should be constantly reviewed. Only red card incidents should be brought to the refs attention and the game reset to the moment of the incident.

Dirty Dingus McGee

I'm not really for it to be honest.This is going to be brought in everywhere though for the advertising opportunities it will create.

As we have seen on numerous occassions even when replays are shown it can still be unclear whether a foul has occurred and the rules are open to interpretation in soccer.

No problem with it for goal line technology and maybe for offside decisions but pretty much every other decision in soccer can be debatable.

Richard Hillman

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not really for it to be honest.This is going to be brought in everywhere though for the advertising opportunities it will create.

As we have seen on numerous occassions even when replays are shown it can still be unclear whether a foul has occurred and the rules are open to interpretation in soccer.

No problem with it for goal line technology and maybe for offside decisions but pretty much every other decision in soccer can be debatable.

In American football, things that are down to interpretation like holds or pass interference are not reviewable.

The only things that are slightly debatable are judging if a player maintained the ball for a catch. Although there are very rare* catch or no catch debates after the decision is made.


*Dez Caught It.

bucketybuck

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No problem with it for goal line technology and maybe for offside decisions but pretty much every other decision in soccer can be debatable.

There are few things more debatable in soccer than offside decisions though, some people even think Pogba was offside last night for example. And then you get into "non-interfering" players becoming active again and in the keepers eyeline and all that bollocks.

Arghus

I would have been strongly in favour of technology being utilised in order to help the referee make the correct decisions on the field. But, these days I'm not so sure anymore.

Goal line technology has been a complete success and actually improves the flow of the game, rather than slowing it down. But it's a pretty clear cut question in 99% of cases - did it cross the line, yes or no? Technology is perfect for answering that question and it's great that it's being finally used.

I just wonder if turning more to video replay based decision making and the like is truly workable. So many issues of controversy on the field - was that a foul; was that handball deliberate; was that a dive, etc, etc - are open to interpretation and can still be far from clear, even after watching numerous replays from the comfort of your own couch. I feel like the current system of a referee making a decision there and then, based on what they think isn't perfect, but it works best for the game. Flow is important in football, I think it's actually more important than every single decision being correct, especially if that outcome can only be reached by way of extra stoppages and challenges. There isn't a lot wrong with the game really and I'd hate to see it's dynamics partially ruined by trying to fix it.

764dak

Arghus wrote: »

I would have been strongly in favour of technology being utilised in order to help the referee make the correct decisions on the field. But, these days I'm not so sure anymore.

Goal line technology has been a complete success and actually improves the flow of the game, rather than slowing it down. But it's a pretty clear cut question in 99% of cases - did it cross the line, yes or no? Technology is perfect for answering that question and it's great that it's being finally used.

I just wonder if turning more to video replay based decision making and the like is truly workable. So many issues of controversy on the field - was that a foul; was that handball deliberate; was that a dive, etc, etc - are open to interpretation and can still be far from clear, even after watching numerous replays from the comfort of your own couch. I feel like the current system of a referee making a decision there and then, based on what they think isn't perfect, but it works best for the game. Flow is important in football, I think it's actually more important than every single decision being correct, especially if that outcome can only be reached by way of extra stoppages and challenges. There isn't a lot wrong with the game really and I'd hate to see it's dynamics partially ruined by trying to fix it.

Refs have admitted to making mistakes after seeing replays afterwards. So less mistakes and less guilt.

Dirty Dingus McGee

It's 2-2 in the World Club Cup final with 7 minutes to go.

Kashima Antlers didn't even qualify for the event properly they're only there because Japan are hosting the competition.

Sand

I think people may be over-hyping whats implemented. The video refs are only supposed to draw the refs attentions to 'match changing' situations where the ref has clearly missed something or where the ref themselves wants more information. Not every offside, every throw in or free kick. In that Club World Cup tournament its only been used twice - once to award a penalty for an incident the ref missed, and once to verify a goal scored was onside when the ref was unsure.

For example, in the WBA game last night - the ref clearly missed Rondon slapping Rojo in the face. That's an instant red card if the ref sees it and he clearly did not. That's a match changing situation where the video ref might get involved. The play was already stopped by the two teams surrounding the ref so no additional delay.

The offside called against WBA in the second half when their winger was getting to the byeline to cross, not so much.

I don't think the video assistant ref is even necessary for offsides - The Hawk Eye company already have technology based on the successful goaline technology which can reliably call offside in less than 5 seconds.

ArmaniJeanss

Sand wrote: »

I don't think the video assistant ref is even necessary for offsides - The Hawk Eye company already have technology based on the successful goaline technology which can reliably call offside in less than 5 seconds.

I don't think this can be even close to true under the current rules of the game.
As long as there is a 'in the opinion of' clause in a rule then hawkeye technology can't be used as it attempts to deal in certainties (within margin of error). Offside has all sub-rules about phases, interfering with play, down injured which can't work with technology.

It may well be able to tell us if attacker is ahead of second last defender when ball is played (though how it would do this I'm not sure), but regardless that's not telling us enough to know if its offside.

Sand

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't think this can be even close to true under the current rules of the game.
As long as there is a 'in the opinion of' clause in a rule then hawkeye technology can't be used as it attempts to deal in certainties (within margin of error). Offside has all sub-rules about phases, interfering with play, down injured which can't work with technology.

It may well be able to tell us if attacker is ahead of second last defender when ball is played (though how it would do this I'm not sure), but regardless that's not telling us enough to know if its offside.

Law 11 doesn't make any reference to to 'in the opinion of' anymore, which helps. I think that was removed with the 2016/17 laws when they were making an effort to simplify the rules and remove ambiguity. Which then helps with putting a rule set together for refereeing aids.

Its only trial technology but it does it the same way it signals the ref when the ball has crossed the line - high speed cameras, identifying the ball on the image by what it looks like and mapping its position on the pitch. It can do the same to identify and track the players (just another, slower set of pixels to track) and signal when a player is in an offside position relative to the others and the ball.

That's different to it being an offence, that's the refs call in the same way it is the ref's decision to call a goal, with the technology being an aid not a replacement.

dfx-

good to hear Modric come out and not welcome it a few days ago.

loyatemu

Rugby system seems fine - a video referee, & the pitch ref can see the screen and consult. They'd want to restrict the circumstances under which it can be used though, as it's used far too often in some Rugby games. Give teams a couple of challenges, only for penalties, goals and red cards maybe, and the video ref can also notify the pitch ref if he's missed something (like the linesmen).

Sand

dfx- wrote: »

good to hear Modric come out and not welcome it a few days ago.

Yeah he said he didn't understand the system. And he didn't listen at the briefing the players were given so they could understand it.