Has Video Refereeing Ruined The World Cup? (npr.org) 286
An anonymous reader shares a report: This is the first time FIFA, soccer's governing body, has allowed video replay to be used to make penalty calls in a World Cup. And while fans of basketball and American football are used to the referees stopping the game to consult video footage, soccer purists say it's ruining everything. The major complaint is that it's making the matches much longer than the typical 90-minute games. Martin Rogers, a sports columnist for USA Today, says Video Assistant Referee (or VAR) is "slow, clunky and unpredictable." Over the phone from Russia, where he's reporting on the World Cup, he jokes, "I remember back in the day, when if a game kicked off at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, you'd be all wrapped up by 4:45."
Rogers says this type of technology works well for American football and basketball. "When you look at the calls that are used for replay, in basketball for example, it's normally factual. It's based on, 'Did a player get a shot off before the clock expired?' It's easy. You know. It's black and white." But soccer, Rogers says, is different. He's referring to one of the most hated and beloved qualities of the game: the endless drama. It's a thespian sport.
Rogers says this type of technology works well for American football and basketball. "When you look at the calls that are used for replay, in basketball for example, it's normally factual. It's based on, 'Did a player get a shot off before the clock expired?' It's easy. You know. It's black and white." But soccer, Rogers says, is different. He's referring to one of the most hated and beloved qualities of the game: the endless drama. It's a thespian sport.
Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
^^^^ That one rule change would eliminate the great majority of the drama. I might even start watching games again.
Re: (Score:2)
Soccer games routinely end without a single point on either side. In cricket matches, sometimes more than a hundred runs are scored in a single at-bat.
Foreign sportsball is broken. I'll start watching when they get their shit together.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.
I've seen more than a couple of time, the clock run out...and they add more time...that ran out and they added more.
It just seemed arbitrary. First time I saw this, was a few years back when the US was in it, and I think they were leading in a game...and wi
Re: (Score:2)
Here is analysis by the 538 statistics site, which explains roughly how the timing is supposed to work... and how they are always shortchanging the added time, regularly in excess of 10 minutes.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.
The referee times the match. The displayed clock is not the official timing.
The referee has the ability, and the responsibility, to add time when players are using up time just to use up time, or when there is a significant stoppage of play. E.g., during a substitution the departing player dawdles getting off the field. If the goalie dawdles in executing a goal kick. If a fight breaks out that stops play. If a player has an injury that requires transport off the pitch. One instance during a recent cup match was when one team was awarded a free kick and a member of the opposing team carried the ball away from the free kick location. (Many of these time-wasting tactics merit and get yellow cards.)
It's called "stoppage time" because it is intended to make up for deliberate stoppage of play.
Those delays can, and often do, occur during the stoppage time already added. If a team is ahead by a goal, they are going to try slowing things down as much as they can.
It just seemed arbitrary.
Many calls by a referee can seem arbitrary. What exactly merits an red card? How about a yellow? Penalty kick? It's all judgement calls, unless it is a truly egregious violation. Even "hand ball" is sometimes arbitrary. Referee judgement, was the arm or hand in a normal position and not a deliberate action?
Shouldn't time mean TIME..and when it runs out, it is over?
It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.
IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?
Because it's a different game. It doesn't operate under the same assumption that there must always be a winner of every match. In fact, the overall "winners" are determined by the overall performance during the season. The exception is the last rounds of the world cup where it is a head-to-head competition and the winner is based on the result of one match.
Note that even US football has issues with time, but they are hidden because there is an official clock displayed on the scoreboard. The refs can and do add time to the clock, and the clock STOPS. What really really annoys me about US football is that the last "two minutes" of a game can run for 45 minutes. If that's not an issue with "time means TIME", then I don't know what is.
And the guy in the summary who is unhappy that a match that starts at 3PM doesn't end at 4:45PM on the dot -- he's just an idiot. Stoppage time has been a thing for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit, that one change they could make that would be VERY helpful for viewers, and I'd guess the folks in the stadiums too, would be to do something to MAKE the displayed time clock on tv and the stadium BE the official time. Maybe hook the officials watch to the time displayed, etc?
Seems something that would be straightforward and helpful to game viewers, and wouldn't significantly change the game in any way.
I have to figure out what the "card" thing is...I know its a penalty of s
Re: (Score:2)
Seems something that would be straightforward and helpful to game viewers, and wouldn't significantly change the game in any way.
Part of the game is the unsure ending. This is especially true if a team is ahead and wants to run out the clock. Telling them you need to stay in control for 47 more seconds is different than "you have the ball, the game will end 'soon' ..." The leading team stays in control for 46 seconds, does the other team have a chance to score or are they 1 second from losing?
I have to figure out what the "card" thing is...I know its a penalty of some sort, but not sure what card means what infraction.
There are two cards. Yellow is for "minor" infractions, compared to "red". It doesn't matter what the minor infraction is, it's a yellow. Time
Re: (Score:2)
Ok thank you!!
Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is very important that the team who loses can say "we woz robbed!" - it keeps up the spirits of the downhearted. it keeps supporters loyal to hopeless teams.
Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill - also important given the chronic lack of skills possessed by some teams, and lack of team spirit in others. It is also great for the bookies.
Soccer is not about playing the game, its about belonging to a group.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill
People who fundamentally don't understand the game often come to that conclusion. There is very little luck involved. A typically goal keeper may directly defend upwards of 20 shots at the goal. It may seem like like luck of the draw if it gets passed him, but ultimately he doesn't have a big area to defend. He can get to pretty much any part of goal to defend providing he's not outnumbered.
And that's where the skill comes in. If you're relying on "luck" of a goalkeeper you've already displayed a lack of sk
Re: (Score:2)
That's not hand-egg. That's rugby football.
And if you're a country of weirdos, you change all the rules to make it stupid and play American/Canadian rugby football.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, this thread got weird in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
Football is called football because its played on foot, not because its played with your feet.
I especially love the US football where there are nine men out in a field with a pitcher, catcher, outfielders, etc. And the football where a bowler hurls a chunk at a batsman protecting his wicket. And the football where a guy rolls a heavy ball at 10 pins...
Lots of sports are played on foot, but they aren't called football.
Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
Ryan Fenton
Treat it the same way that American football treats concussions. The player should be removed from play and undergo and pass a series of tests and evaluations from an independent physician before they are allowed to return to the field.
Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, the sport has minimal contact, minimal injuries, and they're almost always faking.
Faked injuries are an order of magnitude more prevalent than real injuries.
How is it even a "sport" when the most important tactic is, "I can't do it, I can't do it!"
Re: (Score:3)
Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team
In order for that to be relevant someone needs to actually be injured. Punishing the teams in question sounds like a great idea. How many times have we see Neymar with an "injury" so severe that they brought a stretcher on the field, only for the ref to not award a card and him to jump up and sprint back into play.
Punish the player, and punish the team. Bonus points if you also punish the coach somehow.
The number of injured players who actually come off the game are incredibly small.
Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:2)
What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped
Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:5, Interesting)
What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped
Exactly this. A dive should be treated as a red card offense- and it should be allowed to be awarded after the game too- so the player is banned from the next fixture. 3 dives in a season and you are banned for one calendar year.
Re: (Score:2)
What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped
Exactly this. A dive should be treated as a red card offense- and it should be allowed to be awarded after the game too- so the player is banned from the next fixture. 3 dives in a season and you are banned for one calendar year.
They should institute caning. After 3 dives, a player could elect to receive 12 strokes to regain eligibility. Alternatively, they could find a new job.
Re: (Score:2)
VAR is an attempt to put a halt to the drama. Goal-line technology not so much, but still needed. IMHO, if a match goes to extra time, the teams should be limited in some way to make a goal more likely; my pet idea is to have the keeper lose the ability to use 'his' hands. Perhaps one day there will be an honest discussion on this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is already true that if a player requires medical treatment, the player will be taken off the field. And there are rules for when they can get back on, which is not usually a long time.
Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:2)
Come on, that blatantly fake injury stuff is entertaining to watch. I feel it adds to the sport.
Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, that blatantly fake injury stuff is entertaining to watch. I feel it adds to the sport.
If you like that, might I suggest WWE?
Re: (Score:2)
Found the Neymar fan....
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time they are having their feet stepped on by cleats or banging fast moving legs together. There have also been quite a few hard body collisions in the tourney.
Most anyone would writhe around in pain for 20-30 seconds until the initial wave of pain recedes. And the team can play down for a bit, happens all the time.
These are the highest level players, they can determine if their injury is significant enough to leave play, except for:
I would agree with you with regards to hard head contact, a r
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Key & Peele Soccer Diving Clip. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
Spoken like someone who has never played football in his life. Football is a very physical sport, and tackles, even legal ones, can fucking hurt and will have you writhing on the ground in pain for a while, even if there is no serious injury. You can compare it to stubbing your toe, it's not a serious injury but you are going to need a few moments to catch your breath.
To give you an idea, here [twimg.com] is a picture of Mandzukic' ankle after Pickford (legally) challenged him for the ball in Wednesday's semi-final. He
Re: (Score:3)
If football is very physical then Rugby should be governed by the Geneva Convention.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
You just eliminated all sport. And pretty much all life, except for the fact that we don't usually refer to "players" in life.
If you've never been hurt in a game then you might not realize that pain can be temporary, and that playing through the pain is part of sport. For example, if you step on my foot it will hurt like hell. For a bit. If there is no permanent damage it will stop hurting, or it may reduce to an ache.
Should I be thrown out of the game because YOU stepped on my foot? Wow. Imagine how quic
Re: (Score:2)
I don't fucking roll around in agony, screaming bloody murder, if you step on my foot.
Let me step on your foot with my cleats, when you're wearing soccer shoes that are designed to be as light (and thus thin) as possible, and we'll see if you roll around in agony or not. You won't be limping "for a sec", you'll be on the ground. Or let me scrape your shin with my cleats ... or knock heads with you.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
So it was a citroenella candle? (Score:5, Funny)
> Disclosure: My Citroen burned like a fucking candle
Maybe someone was trying to keep the bugs away and got.confused.
https://www.homedepot.com/b/Ou... [homedepot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the one thing FIFA has done well is reduce the amount of rioting.
Football is nothing like it was in the 80's anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And after France a few years back where state-supported (or at least tolerated) Russian hooligans brutalized hundreds of fans, Russia even clamped down. We'll see what happens after the world cup is done, however. It's clear that they didn't want blood in their streets. It's unclear whether or not they will lift the ban and oppression on their home-grown hooligans once the danger to their reputation has passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Whats ruined the world cup?
According to the article a 2minute wait on a 90minute game which may run into 120 minutes or longer like many of the world cup games have. Think about the 2 minutes. OMG SLOW!
Re: (Score:2)
“coverage black and white” can’t find anything on google about that.
No (Score:3)
Dinosaurs (Score:2)
Video Refereeing Certainly Changes the Game (Score:3)
A big part of soccer is that there should be minimal interruptions so that the team that is well coordinated with the most fit players are going to have an advantage. The extra time needed to review calls gives the players a chance for a breather as well as consult/plan going forwards. This means that you will get a different game than if there wasn't video refereeing.
Other games (baseball, football, hockey) that use video refereeing tend to have longer and more natural breaks so the flow of the game isn't as affected as soccer.
I don't know if video refereeing "ruins" the game (I'm not enough of a fan to have a strong opinion) but I'm sure purists would.
Re:Video Refereeing Certainly Changes the Game (Score:5, Informative)
While there are increased delays, there were already delays. An extra 30ish seconds after the goal already went into the net, to see if it should be cancelled is not appreciably different than the arguing that is normal when a controversial call or non-call happens. At least now a ref can say shut up and I am going to look at the video with my own eyes.
As for real game stopping delays for reviewing general non-calls, they do not stop play for that. Rather the video is reviewed an the ref on the field is consulted once the next throw in or whatever break happens.
It's not a fitness competition (Score:2)
A big part of soccer is that there should be minimal interruptions so that the team that is well coordinated with the most fit players are going to have an advantage.
Soccer isn't a game of who can outrun the other guy. Sometimes conditioning plays a role but other factors generally determine the outcome - ball handling, teamwork, game tactics, etc. At the World Cup level there aren't going to be massive differences in conditioning. Everyone playing is a well conditioned professional.
The extra time needed to review calls gives the players a chance for a breather as well as consult/plan going forwards.
Fine but that's not adequate justification for permitting bad refereeing to occur and the conditions of the game remain the same for both teams. If you are the better team you should be
Not sure this is /. material (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure this is /. material, but I'll bite, as I occasionally watch football (sic), mostly national games like in the world cup or big CL games etc.
In any case, I thought that VAR should have come much sooner, as the unavailability of a replay is the excuse referees always had for bad result-altering decisions. In fact, on this world cup I saw that the problem was the opposite: currently the referree has to ASK for VAR. In one match for example, Sweden's attacker Berg should have won a penalty, but the referree was adamant it was not end did not ask for VAR. Well, he was wrong, and the procedure should have been such that the VAR room people should have told him themselves "eh, you know, don't be so sure about that". I am not a Sweeden fan, just one occasion I remember, there were a few more but not many. I'd also want video review to punish players who flop. Because maybe then they would stop flopping, which would lead to a much better game (they often stop trying to score a goal just to fake a foul/penalty).
Overall VAR helped deliver some tough calls and lead to a much more fair sport and it added a couple of minutes to the duration of each match, which is a completely idiotic reason to complain about. And there are many black/white calls in football (ball passing lines, offsides etc) and hopefully those will be the first to be handed off to some good AI/Machine Vision system to call, but harder things like penalty calls will take more time for that and VAR is not a perfect, but the best solution so far.
Why am I debating VAR on /. again? :)
PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball), and they weren't even in the world cup. Yeah, OK, you might say it is not fair since he is an American reporter so what can he do, but then think about that he reports on the world cup and is bothered by the fact that the games don't finish in 1h 45m - Newsflash: THEY NEVER DID, we always had an unpredictable number of extra minutes which was never less than about 3-4 per game and sometimes went to over 10, way beyond the time VAR took (for most games it was like a minute).
Re: (Score:2)
PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)
Na, we here in the US know other countries call it football. We call it soccer here. It's not that complicated. Football is a word we use for another sport (a sport where every drive ends with a kick by design).
types of football (Score:2)
Other countries besides the US fefer to the game (where you kick the round ball) as soccer, to distinguish it from sports where you run with an oval ball.
For example in Australia they play 3 different types of football, not including soccer
Rugby Union, Rugby League, and Aussie Rules
In fact I was going to complain about the headline:
World Cup of what?
Since there are many sports that have a World Cup
Re: (Score:3)
PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)
Na, we here in the US know other countries call it football. We call it soccer here. It's not that complicated. Football is a word we use for another sport (a sport where every drive ends with a kick by design).
The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself. It would be like calling all American football "NFL" even if it was played in Cuba... by kids in the street. Or saying high school kids in Italy are playing in the NBA if they play rounders at lunch.
My problem is not that you have a different name for football- my problem is that the name is... well, wrong and inaccurate.
MLS in the US is not part of the English "Football asSOCiation"
Re:Not sure this is /. material (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The "association" of "association football" comes from "Football Association", and is to distinguish it from the football games which were idiosyncratic to a single public (i.e. non-state) school such as, most famously, Rugby football.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.
Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse. [theatlantic.com]
I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.
Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse. [theatlantic.com]
I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).
I never said Americans invented the term- it is common knowledge that it began in Britain to refer to football that was administered by the football association. What I said is it is incorrect to refer to football as being administered by the British Football Association when it isn't. I
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? It's been called soccer in the US long before MLS existed. MLS was founded in 1993. There are at least a couple of varieties of soccer played in the US, both of which predate MLS.
Yes, and none of those leagues were run by the Football Association so shouldn't have been called "soccer".
Re: (Score:2)
what about an real clock not this stoppage time (Score:3)
what about an real clock not this stoppage time
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously do not get this at all. It's s no longer the 1800s, we can put up a clock that everyone can see that stops and starts when the ref hits the button. I mean, come on.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Tradition.
2. Football (soccer for you) was never about "down-to-the-second" time precision like it is for basketball or hockey, where exact timing adds to the drama and one lucky throw/shot could traverse the field in seconds and score a goal. In football (soccer for you) that is damn near impossible and certainly never a viable strategy.
3. The referee does have power indeed. Maybe more than needed but still plenty. He gets to decide extra time based on a variety of factors that can't really be automated
referees are players too (Score:2)
The sport is an exercise in humanity, fallibility in anyone on the field is a part of it.
It is not the point to eradicate judgement failures and create the "perfect" game. The Referees can have good or bad games, it's part of the sport because they are participants too, we should not relegate them to being robots or defer to an off-pitch panel of judges. It's the officials' job to be engaged on the field and not simply wait for an outcry and rush to a monitor to see what happened.
Re: (Score:3)
What you describe works very well for 95% of the regular season games, so that is probably good enough.
But it very clearly often fails for "big games" where players are strongly incentivized to game the referee. Then it is 1 vs 22 on the field, and the ARs offer very little help.
In big games, clearly there are players who do not care who gets injured and do not care about anything the referee has to say about that purposeful foul, other than a yellow card. The normal tools for persuading players do not wo
Re: (Score:2)
> where players are strongly incentivized to game the referee
Curious. Care to share more details on how this happens? TIA.
Re: (Score:2)
#1: flopping.
#2: covertly injuring an opponent when the referee isn't looking
#3: provoking an opponent (through swearing, racist calls, spitting, offensive gestures) when the referee isn't looking
etc.
The problem with this game is that it is so much about the money now that fair play has completely disappeared. Virtually ALL players are cheaters now, andd they receive intensive training on how to cheat better, especially when the match stakes are high.
It's no longer about winning a tournament or a cup, it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Referees can have good or bad games, it's part of the sport because they are participants too, we should not relegate them to being robots or defer to an off-pitch panel of judges.
NO. They most definitely should be relegated to being robots. The only reason it wasn't always like that is because we didn't have video when we invented spherical things soft enough to kick. Refs are not part of the game, they were only there due to the limitations of technology at the time and a game definitely should not be decided on if the ref is having a bad day.
Video replay and unnatural sufaces and venues have (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The imperfection of officiating has always been a part of sports and the shift to video replay of almost every call has made the games barely watchable. Another factor is removing weather, sun, wind as game influencing factors by moving outdoor games inside. If the game was originally designed to be played outside it should still be played outside. Couple all of this with weird (ie non natural surfaces) and you end up with games that barely resemble what they looked like 50 years ago. Baseball has probably done the best job of not straying too far afield other than the few teams that play in domes (and shouldnâ(TM)t.) I would love to see baseball, football, soccer, tennis and hockey all stay outdoors where they belong.
Hockey was only played outdoors by kids. Since the early era of professional hockey, it was played in indoor arenas (the NHL is 50 years old). However, the goaltenders need to be forced to go back to skinnier pads. Between the goaltenders getting bigger and the large pads that they wear, the only spot left to score goals are the upper corners. Reducing the goalie pads would fix this.
Re: (Score:2)
NHL Centennial [nhl.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Outdoor playing only fucks up matches for certain sports.
Also, 50 years ago a football player had up to 5 seconds between receiving the ball and being attacked by an opponent, giving him plenty of time to figure out what the fuck should he do with it (keep, pass, advance, dribble, shoot, etc). today, that timeframe has reduced to an average of 0.5 seconds. That's what changed the game, not wherever the hell it's being played.
Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. (Score:4, Insightful)
Still - planning on going to France for the Women's World Cup next year. At least they don't fall to the ground as much as the men.
Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed./quote?
No it would be a fundamentally different game if offside rules were removed. You should try playing at social clubs sometime. There's a wide variety out there with many rules across both indoor and outdoor. There is nothing "improved" by removing offside rules. You just end up playing a completely different game with different strategies, player positioning, and the result is very different to watch too often turning into a lobbing game.
Re: (Score:2)
No offside rule would turn the game from a team-based passing game into a sprinter's game and would be pretty lame to watch.
The offside rule changes it from a kicker's game in which there is scoring to a runner's game in which there is not. I fail to see how that is a benefit. People like to see goals scored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want more goals - and I would like more goals - the best way would be to scale the size of the goal in proportion to how the players are taller than they were when the rules were set 200 years ago - when most players were probably 5' 2". However, that would mean that the best team wins - and the bookies would certainly cry foul at the prospect of
Re: (Score:3)
Being Canadian I've always preferred the hockey style offside rule which is zone based as opposed to defending player position based. Basically the field would just have to be split into 3 zones, a zone for each team and a neutral zone. An attacking player could not enter the defenders zone unless they are in possession of the ball or the ball has already entered first. After that point all play is considered onside unless the ball exits the zone.
This prevents long range goal camping, as you can't enter t
Football's governing body (Score:2)
It is about credibility (Score:2)
The refs have to have "good enough" credibility, even if this will always be imperfect. Like it or not, fans in the stands and assistant coaches are looking at these replays on their phones, 15 seconds after the event. Those referees are being judged in a context that includes those video replays. They need to gain the advantages of this technology in some fashion. Whether what they are doing with VAR is the best way is open to debate. Doing nothing only erodes the credibility of the ref on the field a
Slippery slope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much longer? (Score:2)
Why is extra time a secret? (Score:2)
If the teams just switch from the above to playing keep away in the backfield institute a over-and-back rule at the half-way line.
Re: (Score:2)
Team games are just RNGs (Score:2)
Complaining about the refs is part of the game (Score:2)
The purists complain about it because complaining about the refereeing is part of the post game rituals. If the refs were infallible and omniscient, it would remove this social aspect of the game. You can't go into work the next day and say something like, "did you see that ludicrous display last night?" and then spend the next couple of hours discussing the art of flopping and the fine subtleties of the rules if the refs don't mess up all the time.
VAR has reversed some bad calls (Score:5, Insightful)
Will take time to get right. (Score:3)
This is the first time out with VAR. We should not expect them to have it perfect yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you make that claim, list the downsides or failures. As far as I can see it has been nothing but an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
The main failure I've seen has been not using it. E.g. in the England-Croatia game England missed out on two corners because the referee and assistants on the pitch didn't see them and didn't consult VAR.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a tricky one on authority. Most VAR implementations still leave authority with the ref and allow referees to request something to be checked. I can imagine the overruling aspect may be a bit of a problem on the game.
NO! (Score:2)
Really? You go to a 90 minute game, 120 minute if you're drawn in a knockout round, potentially longer if you're in penalties, and you're worried about the less than 1 minuted the VAR adds to the sport?
Want your minute back, penalise players who argue with the referrer, or worse, that despicable behavior of intimidating the ref in groups (Columbia looking at you!). Penalise players who roll around so much that the medical team can't even get to him, everyone knows who I'm talking about here.
VAR finally brin
Re: (Score:2)
It is already happening.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the problem with being able to review a decision so you make the right call?
Nothing, so long as the game clock continues to tick while all that mess goes on. I guess for people who bothered to attend the game it would still suck since it's that much less game they get to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
This is retarded.
The game result must be based on correct decisions rather than finish on time. What does "on time" mean, anyway? Most sports out there don't even have limited play time; for example, all games where the winner is the one who reaches X points (field- and table-tennis, chess, volleyball, etc). Time-based games often have a bracket phase where a winner must be chosen out of the two opponents, which means that if the score is equal, the match goes into overtime, and there's your duration expect
Re: (Score:2)
Ice hockey recently introduced video review. There's no right and wrong, you're trading off flow of the game versus correctness.
Personally, I'd prefer having a time limit on the review. The refs get 60 seconds to review then must make a call, right or wrong. It's sort of like American elections: if there's a dispute (like the 2000 Presidential election), part of the legal logic behind the process is to quickly reach a conclusion and not let it drag on.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what extra/injury/delay time is for. If you've ever played futbol(soccer) getting kicked in the shins or knee, or taking an elbow to the head hurts like a mofo for a few minutes then subsides to a dull ache. Twisting a knee can result in a sharp pain that goes away quickly or a torn ligament/tendon and it often takes a moment or two to determine which.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ever watch field tennis, then. Ever.
(FYI there was a Wimbledon match the other day: 4h 48m, take THAT you dirty american sports columnist!)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noez, they should do something about it, this is preposterous, tip a sports columnist or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed! Another way to address flopping would be to have the first 5 minutes of the game be a highlight reel of recent flops by anybody playing in today's match.
Bonus point if you add zany clown music, comical sound effects, and a laugh track.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why soccer can't just add an extra referee, so that there are 2 sets of eyes on each play, and the ref isn't always so far behind the play.
Soccer already has four officials, three of which are always watching the play. They use radio to keep in contact.
* More substitutions, more exciting.
Nope. Knowing that you can replace just three people during a match makes it a better game. It's not just "throw a fresh set of legs into the game" every ten minutes.
* Reduce the number of players in overtime, so games are less likely to go to penalties.
Nope. Get rid of penalties and play until someone wins, IF it is important that someone actually wins. Normal season games -- no need.
* This thing called the stopwatch was invented. Maybe use it.
The ref has the watch.
* Zero-tolerance on holding.
Grabbing a jersey is a yellow-card offense.
* Short-term hockey-style penalties. You can trip a guy and all that happens is he gets the ball back??
No, he gets a free kick. It's