Soccer = corruption as long as replay can't be officially used

[Godfather]

Hi,

I can't believe how on 21st century Blatter keeps winning against the introduction of replay on the field.

Soccer (biggest sport in the world) will always remain a corrupted sport as long as this happen. Disgusting!

In Italy we are collecting signatures via one of our main sport newspapers to introduce the replay during important matches as evidence. Any other initiative?

 

[Firefly]

Any other initiative?

I think soccer needs more goals. Nothing worse that watching a team 2-1 up playing defense for 35 minutes...yawn. Reduce the players to 9

 

[VOR]

I don't think FIFA will change until the sponsors or the big nations kick up a stink. That's why what has happened to the FA is the best chance we have of getting a rule change. And from Blatter's comments this morning he said they will review goal-line incidents only. That would not have helped the US, Italy or Mexico who, in this WC, have suffered from off-side errors.
As great as hawk-eye would be I don't think it would remove more than 5% of the contentious decisions.

I would like to see 2 or possibly 3 "reviews" for each team during a televised match. And lets face it most matches are televised any more.
Just like in NFL (the American version) a manager could decide to review a decision such as corner, handball, goal line clearance, offside, goal line bounce. Basically anything involving the ball.
I don't know if I would go so far as to allow the review of free kicks and penalties awarded for fouls. I think that might be going too far.

 

[TarfHead]

.. And lets face it most matches are televised any more.

All matches of significance are televised, i.e. if the match is not worth live television coverage, it plays under the rules that currently exist.

Local tennis clubs don't have Hawkeye, AIL club rugby games don't have a TMO, the world hasn't ended.

 

[Godfather]

I started losing some interest in soccer some time ago but what recently happened is moving my interest more and more down. What do the people agaist replay have as justifications? Pls not the old one like "soccer is too quick game too many interruptions would happen because otherwise certain players-actors would need to be sent off within seconds from start"

 

[Sunny]

I started losing some interest in soccer some time ago but what recently happened is moving my interest more and more down. What do the people agaist replay have as justifications? Pls not the old one like "soccer is too quick game too many interruptions would happen because otherwise certain players-actors would need to be sent off within seconds from start"

Goal line technology I don't have a problem with. Offside, penalty decisions etc I do.

 

[VOR]

Goal line technology I don't have a problem with. Offside, penalty decisions etc I do.

That's a little bit more restrictive than I would like it as I would include off sides. I would say many people would agree with you Sunny and leave it at goal-line technology only...for the moment. So therein lies the fear for FIFA. I suppose they fear this whole thing could snowball. And as the FIFA people are not used to technology I can understand their reluctance.

FIFA has always said that football is the same whether it is in the Phoenix park or Wembley i.e. same size pitch and goals, same ball and same kit. These people do not want to see a two-tiered game. That's the argument anyway. Personally, I disagree.

I want to see technology in the game but I don't think it will happen quickly. FIFA need to be pushed in to making the change as they will not do it themselves.

You can also look across the water to the US. Baseball is a game where millimeteres count. The decision to call a ball or a strike is decided by an umpire and an umpire only. Although you are looking for an imaginary box ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_zone ) there is no technology used by the umpire to determine the call. Please note there is technology there to determine his "call" success rate. In other words, they have the technology but don't use it.
Furthermore, it is only in the last 2/3 years that they have allowed post-game reviews of plays which are determined by the baseball commission. This rarely happens. See the umpire's call against Armando Galarraga's perfect game only 2 weeks ago. Human error cost Galarraga a place in the history books.
The only instant replay review allowed in a ball park is the "fair/foul" call to see if a hit is inside or outside the post. That has only come in to the game in the last couple of years too.

Now if baseball is slow to take on instant replays in a country where reviewing a call is accepted and expected, then perhaps we should understand where FIFA is coming from. Tiny steps. Tiny, tiny steps...

 

[allthedoyles]

The GAA may be backward , but at least they have umpires , standing behind the goal , and they have a decent record in confirming a goal / point .

Surely FIFA could afford to use umpires as well as linesmen

 

[csirl]

I would like to see 2 or possibly 3 "reviews" for each team during a televised match. And lets face it most matches are televised any more.
Just like in NFL (the American version) a manager could decide to review a decision such as corner, handball, goal line clearance, offside, goal line bounce. Basically anything involving the ball.

+1

Off side is the biggest issue in soccer. I'm in two minds as to whether or not technology can help here e.g. if the linesman flags and everyone stops playing, its not possible to turn back the clock if the call is incorrect. Would it be better to change the offside rule to something that is easier to judge?

 

[VOR]

Would it be better to change the offside rule to something that is easier to judge?

Perhaps extend the penalty area line (the one on the "D") all the way to the sidelines. That would mean a line running parallel to the goal line at a distance of about 19M out. Then slap a hawkeye on to it. If you are outside of the line you cannot be offside.
I hate it when a ball is played diagonally or over the top and a player is called offside while he is 40 metres from the goals.

Mind you, that would still not have helped the US who had a perfectly good goal inside the small rectangle ruled offside against the Algerians.

 

[Sunny]

Personally I would get rid of offside altogether but it is never going to happen. Imagine the space it would create, encourage proper defending and allow teams to be much more creative with team formations etc.

 

[DB74]

Getting rid of offside would merely encourage the long-ball game as teams would be able to put a big man on the edge of the penalty area at all times and lump the ball up to him

 

[MrMan]

Personally I would get rid of offside altogether but it is never going to happen. Imagine the space it would create, encourage proper defending and allow teams to be much more creative with team formations etc.

Proper defenders can use the off side and proper strikers can exploit it. It's not about making the game easier, it should be about making the players better. would we be in as much awe of Messi if we made it easier for all strikers by tampering with a tried and tested off side rule?
The game should remain as it is, but for top tier games should as a WC tournament extra umpires should be in place to ease the pressure on the match officials.

 

[Sunny]

Getting rid of offside would merely encourage the long-ball game as teams would be able to put a big man on the edge of the penalty area at all times and lump the ball up to him

Teams do that at the moment with offside. Those tactics are easy to defend (unless you are England). Remove offside and you encourage and reward good forward movement rather than static lumps of players looking to nod the ball down.
I admit it is drastic but the game improved when they brought in the forward only had to be level with the last defender.

 

[Sunny]

Proper defenders can use the off side and proper strikers can exploit it. It's not about making the game easier, it should be about making the players better. would we be in as much awe of Messi if we made it easier for all strikers by tampering with a tried and tested off side rule?
The game should remain as it is, but for top tier games should as a WC tournament extra umpires should be in place to ease the pressure on the match officials.

Got nothing to do with making the game easier. It would actually make the game harder to play but easier to officiate.

BTW, I will settle for a compromise with the introduction of a 25m line that you can only be offiside in! The half way line is too far.

 

[MrMan]

Got nothing to do with making the game easier. It would actually make the game harder to play but easier to officiate.

BTW, I will settle for a compromise with the introduction of a 25m line that you can only be offiside in! The half way line is too far.

Any defender that plays the offside to the half way line is only asking for trouble. I just think the game is fine as it is. Watching teams like Mexico and even the USA in the WC was great entertainment so if it aint broke...

 

[Latrade]

In my opinion the "crossing the line" issues are not that common, at most a couple a season. It's the penalty area stuff that needs video technology, offsides, handballs, fouls, etc. It can be easily managed and the replays can be brought up more or less instantly. Consider the time wasted while players surround the ref after a "controversial" issue. In some cases a minute is wasted, you could have had the replay and decision in that time.

Obviously some will not be clear even after the replay, take the Skrtel goal line clearance for example. 7 different camera angles and still not clear, but that shouldn't stand in the way of the ones that are such as the Lampard goal, the Tevez offside, the Brazilian handball, Henry handball, etc.

The last point is that the governing bodies use replays after the event to punish players. So they're fine with using it where it can punish a team and assist the refs that way. So on the one hand, when it comes to mistakes by the ref that affect a team and a game, the stance of governing bodies is that human error is part of the game, but if a ref misses a foul or other such issue, that human error is scrutinised and a player punished after the event.

 

[Sunny]

I would only limit it to when goals have been scored. I would do as Rugby Union does and the ref should ask if there is any reason why he can't allow the goal. I wouldn't like it for penalty decisions, foul play etc.

 

[csirl]

The game should remain as it is, but for top tier games should as a WC tournament extra umpires should be in place to ease the pressure on the match officials.

The extra officials in the Europa League were poorly used. It is not possible to judge if the ball crosses the goal line or end line in marginal situation unless you are standing on the line. Putting them 5yds off the pitch is a waste of time.

 

[MrMan]

The extra officials in the Europa League were poorly used. It is not possible to judge if the ball crosses the goal line or end line in marginal situation unless you are standing on the line. Putting them 5yds off the pitch is a waste of time.

I don't see the problem in placing them close to the line though. The UEFA experiment was slightly weird as i remember the extra linesmen used to come onto the pitch when the ball was away from the goal (that could have been my imagination though).