Oolite Bulletins

There was a (very) sensible suggestion on the radio this morning.

RFID tag like device inside the ball, RFID sensors mounted in goal posts and crossbar. Ball crosses line, sensors trigger alarm on referees wrist to indicate a goal was scored.

Backed up by Hawk-eye, if a 2nd referee is needed for absolute clarification, but the first part could be done, silently (vibration/electrical) so the referee wouldn't have to stop play in most cases, just for those where he and the machine/tech disagreed.

Given how much money rests on things like the English Premiership/The World Cup/Various Domestic and International competitions - doing anything else other than moving on now just seems ridiculous.

(And I don't even like football! But I despise unfairness (and cheating - but the French rapidly got their karma returned to them!))

DaddyHoggy wrote:

RFID tag like device inside the ball, RFID sensors mounted in goal posts and crossbar. Ball crosses line, sensors trigger alarm on referees wrist to indicate a goal was scored.

That would make a lot of sense. They could fit a similar device to John Terry, to tell the rest of his team that he's come galloping up into the opposition penalty box for no good reason when his team is only one goal down and there's still 25 minutes to go ... actually, being able to detect where John Terry is at any given moment would probably ease the minds of many of his team-mates. Or maybe not. It would at least put an end to the fear and suspicion.

Disembodied wrote:

DaddyHoggy wrote:

RFID tag like device inside the ball, RFID sensors mounted in goal posts and crossbar. Ball crosses line, sensors trigger alarm on referees wrist to indicate a goal was scored.

That would make a lot of sense. They could fit a similar device to John Terry, to tell the rest of his team that he's come galloping up into the opposition penalty box for no good reason

I reckon that they should wire up the referee and when a majority of people in the stadium disagrees with a decision, he would receive an electric shock! Or even better wire up John Terry also!

Disembodied wrote:

Smivs wrote:

They should take a lead from Cricket...have a 2nd referee off field (like the 3rd Umpire) who has instant access to the video and can be called upon to adjudicate in these situations. The on-field referee should be encouraged to use the services of the 2nd ref anytime something controversial happens, and perhaps the teams can be given a (very) limited number of 'rights to appeal' during a match.

Ah, now, see, this is where I disagree. Football can be a really fast-moving game. Take Germany's first goal, for example: probably no more than five or six seconds from Neuer booting it out of the German penalty area to it ending up in England's goal. You can't have the ref stopping the game every few minutes to check all the things he might not be 100% sure of; it would ruin the flow. It works in cricket, and tennis, and American Football too, because there are lots of in-built breaks in play, but it would be an intrusion in football. I think you'd have to restrict it to pretty much "did the ball cross the line?" incidents only, and even then you'd have to be careful. Which means there will always be controversial incidents – penalties that aren't given, say, or goals scored that are flagged offside even though a replay might show that the player was onside. You couldn't use video refereeing there, because defenders and goalkeepers might have reacted to the linesman's flag.

I think you'd have to restrict it to pretty much "did the ball cross the line?"

This is the way it happens in Ice-Hockey. Simple and working. In football you could extend this to checking iffy offside situations, especially situations like Tevez's first goal against Mexico...

Disembodied wrote:

Ah, now, see, this is where I disagree. Football can be a really fast-moving game. Take Germany's first goal, for example: probably no more than five or six seconds from Neuer booting it out of the German penalty area to it ending up in England's goal. You can't have the ref stopping the game every few minutes to check all the things he might not be 100% sure of; it would ruin the flow. It works in cricket, and tennis, and American Football too, because there are lots of in-built breaks in play, but it would be an intrusion in football. I think you'd have to restrict it to pretty much "did the ball cross the line?" incidents only, and even then you'd have to be careful. Which means there will always be controversial incidents – penalties that aren't given, say, or goals scored that are flagged offside even though a replay might show that the player was onside. You couldn't use video refereeing there, because defenders and goalkeepers might have reacted to the linesman's flag.

So fast game > accurate game?
We are a technical society can't we have both or is that greedy?

ClymAngus wrote:

So fast game > accurate game?
We are a technical society can't we have both or is that greedy?

It's just difficult to do without mucking the whole thing up. Imagine the following:

Team A are attacking. A nifty through ball puts their striker through into the box. Two defenders crowd round him, he falls over and B's keeper belts the ball up the park. There's a great shout for a penalty but the ref isn't sure; it's not a stone-waller, anyway. While Team A's players expostulate and their fans chew the seats, team B's lone striker has latched on to the keeper's clearance, jinks past A's stretched defence and closes in on their goal. He shoots, beats the keeper ... ohhh, it's hit the post and come shooting back out again! Team B's midfield swarm towards the ball, Team A are scrambling to recover ... A win it back and launch another dangerous long ball into B's area ... etc. etc. I think there's a very real danger that all this could be damaged if, in the back of the players' minds, there's a nagging doubt that everything might be stopped and wound backwards and we have to go back for what has eventually been seen as a penalty ... maybe? No! no, it's not a penalty ... A's striker has been booked for diving and B get a free kick. How much further play can be allowed before the game has to stop and get reset to whatever it was we weren't sure about in the first place?

Cricket, tennis and so on have natural breaks. Think, for example, how intrusive a video umpire might be in a non-stop cricket match ...

Fact is that replays are available INSTANTLY thanks to the wonder of television. Referees are all cabled up with headsets nowadays. Why not have some guy on the other end of that headset in front of a Sky Plus box with instant rewind. Or even just watching the match. The coverage will show the replay again and again and again from different angles, so a decision would be made in seconds.

No disruption to play, maybe even less now that the manic protestations of the embittered overpaid "athletes" would be curtailed.

Selezen wrote:

Fact is that replays are available INSTANTLY thanks to the wonder of television. Referees are all cabled up with headsets nowadays. Why not have some guy on the other end of that headset in front of a Sky Plus box with instant rewind. Or even just watching the match. The coverage will show the replay again and again and again from different angles, so a decision would be made in seconds.

No disruption to play, maybe even less now that the manic protestations of the embittered overpaid "athletes" would be curtailed.

I seem to remember that Rugby and American football get 3 objections a match to ref decisions. If they are valid they keep them if not then they loose one, if they loose them all then they can't object in that game any more. Creating a system where by abuse cannot become endemic.

It seems that today Sepp Blatter has had a miraculous epiphany and has stated that video replays etc should now be actively discussed at the next FIFA meeting.
Not before time

Selezen wrote:

Fact is that replays are available INSTANTLY thanks to the wonder of television.

The replays are available instantly; the ability to make a firm decision on every single disputed event is not. Look at how long it can take a video ref in a Rugby League game to make a decision: you could be waiting up to 30 seconds for the video ref to find just the right angle (if it's available – what about Italy's did-it-or-didn't-it-cross-the-line incident in their game against Slovakia? Nobody is sure if it went over or not, despite endless replays from every available angle). In that time a game of football can turn itself upside down.

And I still have a romantic attachment to the idea that, from top to bottom, everyone is playing the same game. I'm not keen on the idea that they end up playing super-duper-video-replay-soccer in the top flights, and bog-standard football in the lower leagues. OK, there are instances – like Lampard's goal – where it seems perverse not to use the instantly available replays; but then there are others, like Martin Skrtel's goal-line clearance (or was it? No-one knows!) against Italy, where it's still impossible to tell.

I think that you have to be really careful when fiddling with the way football works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and if it's just a bit out of whack now and again, maybe think long and hard about poking around too much, for fear of unintended consequences. It would need a long and careful trial, in several countries, over several years, to find out just how these technologies would affect the game.

ClymAngus wrote:

I seem to remember that Rugby and American football get 3 objections a match to ref decisions. If they are valid they keep them if not then they loose one, if they loose them all then they can't object in that game any more. Creating a system where by abuse cannot become endemic.

That works OK in games where there are lots of breaks. Not all disputed decisions in football result in a stoppage of play, e.g. "Ref! Penalty! What do you mean, 'no it wasn't?' I demand that you stop the game, especially now that the opposition are haring towards our goal in numbers and our defence is AWOL, and we review that decision on the telly. Good. Right. Oh, OK then, you were right, my bad. Now, where were we? Ah, yes, with 11 men behind the ball, that's right, good stuff lads. And I've still got two more appeals."

Just allow video evidence for goal issues, like Lampard's. Everything else (fouls, corner/goal kick, offside) leave it as it is. Simples!

Disembodied wrote:

ClymAngus wrote:

I seem to remember that Rugby and American football get 3 objections a match to ref decisions. If they are valid they keep them if not then they loose one, if they loose them all then they can't object in that game any more. Creating a system where by abuse cannot become endemic.

That works OK in games where there are lots of breaks. Not all disputed decisions in football result in a stoppage of play, e.g. "Ref! Penalty! What do you mean, 'no it wasn't?' I demand that you stop the game, especially now that the opposition are haring towards our goal in numbers and our defence is AWOL, and we review that decision on the telly. Good. Right. Oh, OK then, you were right, my bad. Now, where were we? Ah, yes, with 11 men behind the ball, that's right, good stuff lads. And I've still got two more appeals."

Different kind of tactics, but still tactics none the less. The other side can do the same. The case is simple; pick the situation up transfer it to the last 2 minutes of play with a 1-0 score to Germany.

If you can say with your hand on your heart that you would support the refs in the interest of the speed of the game. Then god love you and I'll take the vid whilst you explain this heart felt conviction to a selection of the firm.

If you can't then hey, room for improvement. As a side point I'm surprised you of all people should be open to innovative solutions . Give humanity a chance to surprise you, maybe they will.

Steve wrote:

Just allow video evidence for goal issues, like Lampard's. Everything else (fouls, corner/goal kick, offside) leave it as it is. Simples!

There will still be issues that are unresolvable, like Italy's goal-or-maybe-not against Slovakia, but generally this is probably the best option. But you'd have to allow the game to go on while a panel of video referees pored over the footage and tried to make up their minds. You couldn't stop the game to let them decide, because football doesn't work like that. You'd probably have to impose a time-limit on them, too, so they don't end up saying 15 minutes later, "OK, that was a goal back then. So everything that's happened since – cards, substitutions, other goals – is now deemed not to have happened. Places, people!"

Better still, I think, would be to use some sort of in-goal sensor: hawkeye cameras set into the posts or something. Although even then I suspect there will still be goalmouth stramashes where it's not clear one way or the other.

ClymAngus wrote:

Different kind of tactics, but still tactics none the less. The other side can do the same. The case is simple; pick the situation up transfer it to the last 2 minutes of play with a 1-0 score to Germany.

But I want to watch a game of football, played by the footballers on the pitch. There are enough managerial shenanigans going on already, with timewasting substitutions and phoney injuries. I don't see the need to add to that arsenal.

ClymAngus wrote:

If you can say with your hand on your heart that you would support the refs in the interest of the speed of the game. Then god love you and I'll take the vid whilst you explain this heart felt conviction to a selection of the firm.

Honestly, I would. Luck is part of any football match: the rub of the green and all that. Sometimes it's better (or worse) than others. Humanity, and football, have survived this collectively thus far. It's even helped England win a World Cup.

ClymAngus wrote:

If you can't then hey, room for improvement. As a side point I'm surprised you of all people should be open to innovative solutions . Give humanity a chance to surprise you, maybe they will.

Times and technology change, right enough. It's highly likely that some form of refereeing assistance will come into operation eventually (although what's wrong with having another couple of officials on either side of each goal, I don't know: technology's all very well but it's still going to need a human being to make the final decision). I just think that – given the highly refined state of near-perfection of the game of football – any alterations should be carried out very, very carefully, with lots of testing.

Games are delicate things, and fiddling with them can have odd side-effects. The point and purpose of football is to entertain: what might be gained in a quest to eliminate really quite unusual events might be lost in terms of entertainment. I'd rather watch footballers kicking the ball around, than watch a manager issue sometimes-spurious demands for video reviews. And, still, there is the risk of creating one game played by the masses and another, different game that's played on the telly.