MLS to try out video referees

[CapnBloodbeard]

http://you-are-the-ref.com/mls-to-trial-video-referees/

I'm all for video ref. Wrong approach though, IMO. If you're going to use it when there's a penalty kick, goal or red card (ie a stoppage), then all you may achieve is turning a decision into a non-decision. Ie a penalty into a drop ball. What about the missed penalty, the missed goal, or the missed red card?

So this is a one sided approach, thus not the best one.

And let's not forget that a video ref won't guarantee the correct decision. I'd be interested to see just how heavy a weighting they need to overturn a decision (ie would most just go back to 'Benefit of the Doubt to the Ref?'), and sometimes it will lead to the wrong decision, as the referee has a different view to every camera and sometimes none of those cameras have captured what the ref saw. Though I think on average, it should still lead to an increase in correct decision - if the right approach is taken.

 

[Yampy]

I've always been intrigued by NRL/Super League's use of the video ref and for long time, I felt as though the game's were complimented by the video ref. Increasingly though, I have become frustrated by the lack of decision made by the on field referee and his (sadly no female RL officials yet) reliance on the video technology. It seems as though one or two coaches have, too. Tony Smith at Warrington has voiced his disapproval recently. I'm starting to doubt if the technology is being use to compliment but to make decisions instead. To me that's wrong.
Rugby League has a flow to the game in which video refs can be utilised but I don't entirely believe football does. It has a more fluid, free flowing form whereas, RL is structured around the next set of 6 in either defence or attack. It has phases of play which have a clear definition and these don't exist in football.
I appreciate there's a benefit in technology but at the moment, I'm happy with goal line technology and don't think others add value to the game. The point about the 'two sides to every story' is valid and hasn't been thought through to give a balanced outlook. We've had a (lengthy) discussion recently on advantage so, what would happen in this hypothetical case?

• Attacker enters penalty area.
• Defender makes a tackle which on-field referee deems a foul tackle
• Ball falls to second attacker who slots home for a goal
• Meanwhile, you've blown for a PK and award accordingly. The whistle is blown and clearly heard before the ball crosses the goal line.
  
• Decision is refereed to the video ref who examines various camera angles and concludes it was a fair tackle and no PK.
• Attacking team have now been denied a penalty (correct decision) but also the advantage and subsequently a goal.
• How do you restart play?
• How do man-manage after that lot has happened?

(I don't think that's a convoluted example and there's undoubtedly others which could match both sides of the argument.)
Some aspects of video refereeing just don't fit the game of football - that's my personal opinion. Use the ones that do but the man in the middle is the decision maker. Don't use it just for the sake of it.

 

[OIREF!]

Given it's use and general acceptance in other sports, allied to media pressure, I see it as inevitable that video technology will be at least trialled in football before long. However, as David Sutton has pointed out, football is a more complex game that others like tennis, golf or even rugby. In these sports there are more natural breaks in play and decisions are more of a yes/no issue. In football decisions are open to more interpretation - hence the existence of this forum!

 

[PinnerPaul]

and offsides NOT given only can be corrected by video if you think about it.

How do you restart if video decides AR has wrongly raised flag?

 

[Yampy]

Sounds as though we have a situation where the IFB rewrite the laws to accommodate technology rather than technology being used to compliment the LOTG. And then will the LOTG be fit for purpose for everyone (youth, grassroots, contributory, supply)?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I don't see a problem with technology that the top levels can use but a Sunday morning parks match doesn't have access to. I don't believe that undermines the game at all, I simply don't believe that's a valid reason to not use technology.

With increasingly pretentious and absurd rulings FIFA are making such as the undershorts and sock tape rulings, I think it's clear that they've forgotten that football can be played outside of a stadium anyway.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

and offsides NOT given only can be corrected by video if you think about it.

How do you restart if video decides AR has wrongly raised flag?

It would have to be a drop ball.

(I don't think that's a convoluted example and there's undoubtedly others which could match both sides of the argument.)
Some aspects of video refereeing just don't fit the game of football - that's my personal opinion. Use the ones that do but the man in the middle is the decision maker. Don't use it just for the sake of it.

That would be exactly the same if the ref made that decision then changed it upon consultation with the AR. The exact same thing can already happen - and I don't think the occasional, extremely unlikely scenario is really a strong argument against video replays.

 

[Yampy]

It would have to be a drop ball.


That would be exactly the same if the ref made that decision then changed it upon consultation with the AR. The exact same thing can already happen - and I don't think the occasional, extremely unlikely scenario is really a strong argument against video replays.

I'm not against video technology, or technology in general, within football but I don't see that it's introduction will benefit the game globally and at all levels. It seems to me as though the LOTG would need to be rewritten to accommodate and there'll be two tiers of law - one for the haves and another for the have nots.
Also, I don't believe that even FIFA could ensure that their own competitions take place throughout the world on a 'level playing field'. Why should a FIFA World Cup qualifier between Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands be any different in law to England and Lithuania? There's many a federation in Europe which would see the introduction of video technology as a cost too much so I dread to think what Vanuatu think. The competition rules should be consistent throughout.

Sadly, the way football is going video technology will arrive and it will confirm my opinion of the product at the elite level. It's no longer football, a game for all to watch and play but, merely TV entertainment that requires a narrative even if there isn't one. So, if the media giants like Fox/Sky/ESPN/BTSport want technology, they'll get it because it's their money that supports the very structure these clubs now stand on. Anything below the elite level is ignored, it's amateur dramatics and they can do what they like. It's show business, baby!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I don't think law changes need to benefit the game at all levels - why should the top levels be restricted by the limitations of the lower levels? Why should a competition in Germany be limited by the budget of a competition in Vanuatu? Doesn't make any sense.

And personally I think introducing video referees will make it more about the football as it removes a random element from the decision making.

 

[lincs22]

I still think the biggest problem is who becomes the video referee.
Will it be old, experienced referees or young upcoming referees?
We know/see how the old experienced referees show their support for Select Group referees in the press now, so the money would have to be good to retain them.
Would a young referees say to the referee in the middle, you were wrong?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The video ref would have to be somebody capable at that level. So, somebody on that panel - and IMO it would have to be somebody reasonably experienced. Could you imagine if you had never had a real appointment at that level, but were the video referee, and had to judge on a penalty? A lot of refs would struggle to make an objective decision.

Even with an experienced ref it could be tough enough - how will it be perceived amongst referees if the ref is 'undermined' by the decision?

Maybe it should be the 4th official or the ref reviewing it - but how do you then deal with the fact that either the 4th official or the ref isn't dealing with the players losing their cool in the delay?

Retired referees would probably be the best way to go, IMO, or some of the more senior referees. The question has a different dynamic to rugby union / league referees ; there, the video ref comes in when the ref is unable to make a decision. Here, the video ref comes in to say whether the ref has made the correct decision. You'd probably have to look at other sports with a video ref with a similar dynamic to see how they've approached it and go from there.

 

[Yampy]

I don't think law changes need to benefit the game at all levels - why should the top levels be restricted by the limitations of the lower levels? Why should a competition in Germany be limited by the budget of a competition in Vanuatu? Doesn't make any sense.

And personally I think introducing video referees will make it more about the football as it removes a random element from the decision making.

I think you and I will remain on opposite sides of this debate. No drama, it's okay to disagree.
I was referring to Vanuatu in the global context that is the FIFA World Cup. Vanuatu v. American Samoa and England v. Lithuania are games under the same rules of the competition. Bayern Munich v. Wolfsburg is a Bundesliga game which may have different rules but the LOTG should be the same.
The Laws are the foundation on which the game is built, the rules of the competition are buildings on top of the foundation. If that competition wants to confuse or improve matters then let them. If the EPL, La Liga, the Bundesliga or the MLS want video technology, let 'em have it but the LOTG shouldn't change, the rules of the competition do. After all, they just TV productions thesedays. WWE in disguise?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Don't forget that there are already parts of the law that aren't feasible at all levels - 4th officials and AARs, for instance. Though not really significant parts of the game...

Even AR's, not really available at all levels but have a big impact upon the game. So differences are already in play.

Anyway, the LOTG would need to change to permit video referees.

 

[PinnerPaul]

It would have to be a drop ball.


That would be exactly the same if the ref made that decision then changed it upon consultation with the AR. The exact same thing can already happen - and I don't think the occasional, extremely unlikely scenario is really a strong argument against video replays.

So attacker through on goal, AR raises flag, everyone stops, video decides AR was wrong and its a drop ball - tad unfair on attacking side isn't it and do you get everyone to go back to positions they were in when flag was raised?

Closer to goal, AR raises flag,but attacker continues and scores very shortly after - again video shows AR wrong - drop ball? Goal?

Its not that simple whne you think about the different scenarios that would need to be covered

 

[RefereeingBooks]

I'm with David Sutton here. Not against technology as such but rather to help the referee in coming to a decision or, if necessary, reverse it, but technology should not take the place of the referee and thereby corrupt the basis of the game. A philosopher acquaintance of mine, also a keen football fan, dedicated a whole essay to it, which you can read here. It's a bit of a long read, but quite interesting.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

for what it's worth I appreciate this will always raise differing opinions. I'm enjoying the discussion

Don't buy the 'I like refereeing mistakes and I think we should keep them in the game' line either, and I think his notions of tech highlighting the referee's fallibility are sorely misplaced. Essentially, that article is just romanticising refereeing mistakes, and I think that's an unacceptable view. In terms of fallibility, I think he's failed to demonstrate the practical terms of what questioning that means and instead has chosen to maintain a purely esoteric perspective. That, and it's rather naive; the other argument of 'referees should just be better' is idealistic, but not based in reality. Nor does it preclude technology from picking up the gaps anyway.

The only problems with video refs are:
-Choosing a workable system that doesn't favour the defence or the attack, but is equally capable of turning a non-decision into a decision as it is a decision to a decision without adding artificial stoppages (I don't mind delaying stoppages, as the game is so heavily delayed by referee abuse anyway that I think it's laughably pretentious to pretend we're going to care about the flow of the game when it comes to actually making a decision. Utterly counterproductive, actually)
-In that system ensuring that the video ref won't feel a particular obligation to favour the referee for the sake of making the team look good (and given that assessors push hard the notion that it's far more important that the team looks consistent than actually gets a decision right, I think that video referee may be contradictory to how assessors approach the game. But then again, assessors and coaches tend to be a walking contradiction anyway, particularly as what we're taught at lower leagues is the perfect opposite of what they actually want from referees going through the ranks)
-The final problem - and how much of an issue this is will only be seen with experimentation - is that changing the decision once here may put the focus on the referee for the rest of the match, making decisions harder to sell and increasing controversy (as much as I'd love to see the divinity of the referee's decision taken down a peg or two, players are far from being mature enough to accept this, as we know. I have zero problem with the decision being 'undermined', it's just the impact on the game I'm raising the question of. But for me, that also is insufficient reason to deny improved decision making)

 

[PinnerPaul]

for what it's worth I appreciate this will always raise differing opinions. I'm enjoying the discussion

Don't buy the 'I like refereeing mistakes and I think we should keep them in the game' line either, and I think his notions of tech highlighting the referee's fallibility are sorely misplaced. Essentially, that article is just romanticising refereeing mistakes, and I think that's an unacceptable view. In terms of fallibility, I think he's failed to demonstrate the practical terms of what questioning that means and instead has chosen to maintain a purely esoteric perspective. That, and it's rather naive; the other argument of 'referees should just be better' is idealistic, but not based in reality. Nor does it preclude technology from picking up the gaps anyway.

The only problems with video refs are:
-Choosing a workable system that doesn't favour the defence or the attack, but is equally capable of turning a non-decision into a decision as it is a decision to a decision without adding artificial stoppages (I don't mind delaying stoppages, as the game is so heavily delayed by referee abuse anyway that I think it's laughably pretentious to pretend we're going to care about the flow of the game when it comes to actually making a decision. Utterly counterproductive, actually)
-In that system ensuring that the video ref won't feel a particular obligation to favour the referee for the sake of making the team look good (and given that assessors push hard the notion that it's far more important that the team looks consistent than actually gets a decision right, I think that video referee may be contradictory to how assessors approach the game. But then again, assessors and coaches tend to be a walking contradiction anyway, particularly as what we're taught at lower leagues is the perfect opposite of what they actually want from referees going through the ranks)
-The final problem - and how much of an issue this is will only be seen with experimentation - is that changing the decision once here may put the focus on the referee for the rest of the match, making decisions harder to sell and increasing controversy (as much as I'd love to see the divinity of the referee's decision taken down a peg or two, players are far from being mature enough to accept this, as we know. I have zero problem with the decision being 'undermined', it's just the impact on the game I'm raising the question of. But for me, that also is insufficient reason to deny improved decision making)

Fair summary, just think your correct summary of what's needed in point 1 is more problematic to work through than you might think.

 

[RefereeingBooks]

for what it's worth I appreciate this will always raise differing opinions. I'm enjoying the discussion

Don't buy the 'I like refereeing mistakes and I think we should keep them in the game' line either, and I think his notions of tech highlighting the referee's fallibility are sorely misplaced. Essentially, that article is just romanticising refereeing mistakes, and I think that's an unacceptable view. In terms of fallibility, I think he's failed to demonstrate the practical terms of what questioning that means and instead has chosen to maintain a purely esoteric perspective. That, and it's rather naive; the other argument of 'referees should just be better' is idealistic, but not based in reality. Nor does it preclude technology from picking up the gaps anyway.

The only problems with video refs are:
-Choosing a workable system that doesn't favour the defence or the attack, but is equally capable of turning a non-decision into a decision as it is a decision to a decision without adding artificial stoppages (I don't mind delaying stoppages, as the game is so heavily delayed by referee abuse anyway that I think it's laughably pretentious to pretend we're going to care about the flow of the game when it comes to actually making a decision. Utterly counterproductive, actually)
-In that system ensuring that the video ref won't feel a particular obligation to favour the referee for the sake of making the team look good (and given that assessors push hard the notion that it's far more important that the team looks consistent than actually gets a decision right, I think that video referee may be contradictory to how assessors approach the game. But then again, assessors and coaches tend to be a walking contradiction anyway, particularly as what we're taught at lower leagues is the perfect opposite of what they actually want from referees going through the ranks)
-The final problem - and how much of an issue this is will only be seen with experimentation - is that changing the decision once here may put the focus on the referee for the rest of the match, making decisions harder to sell and increasing controversy (as much as I'd love to see the divinity of the referee's decision taken down a peg or two, players are far from being mature enough to accept this, as we know. I have zero problem with the decision being 'undermined', it's just the impact on the game I'm raising the question of. But for me, that also is insufficient reason to deny improved decision making)

CapnBloodbeard, would you mind adding your post to the comments section on my site? Jan values a healthy debate as much as anyone, and I'm sure he would appreciate your comments. Thank you.

 

[RefereeingBooks]

The issue of video refereeing was discussed as early as 2004 in Sharon Colwell's dissertation, which I've also posted on my blog: Sharon Colwell. At the bottom of this review there's a link to the dissertation. Upon opening, please browse to page 303 for an introduction and page 315 et seq. for her views on the issue, which, though over 10 years old, are still valid.
By the way, did you know that as early as in 1932 there were calls for the introduction of technological means to settle controversial calls? The contested Joe Allen goal (ball in or out?) in the FA Cup Final of that year gave rise to the debate. And here we are, thinking we are so modern

 

[Scotty Ref]

The idea of video referees seems to work well both in Rugby and NFL.

The problem being in these sports there are lots of natural stoppages which doesn't always replicate into the footballing world. In these sports the video referees decide on matters of fact and generally there are only 2 possible options.

However in football if we are talking about using videos for fouls and cards then at times these are matters of opinion rather than fact and that makes the use of video more difficult.

Maybe a coach challenge type system as used in NFL would be best way forward in football