Is FIFA Football the "magic tea party" of sports?

[souran]

Ok, I am not a big fan of this sport so maybe some our wide world of commentators can help me.

While watching the world cup it has become appearent to me that the officiating of this sport is worse than even baseball, which is something I had previously thought impossible.

The officials in this game can totally change the momentum, and even the outcome of a game based on calls that they are not even required to explain what infraction has occured.

If we were playing a roleplaying game and the rules were whatever the DM decided at that moment and the DM refused to explain what was going on we would say that that game had traveled over into magic tea party land.

As Fifa World Cup football does both of these things in most of the games I have seen, how can I conclude anything except Fifa football is the magic tea party of sprots.

[setmonster]

OK, as an Englishman, let me tell you about football (or soccer as weirdo Yanks call it).

Football is the world game. It's played from the muddy fields of Hackney Marshes, London to the seething favelas of Sao Paulo, Brazil. This ubiquity is considered, by many, to be the Unique Selling Point of football.

What I mean by this is that, essentially, the officiating for a football match is the same at all levels of the sport. Whether it is Barcelona vs. Inter Milan in the Champions League Final or the King's Head vs. the George & Dragon in the Sevenoaks Benevolent League there is one referee, two assistants and a fourth official. There is no technology involved in the officiating of football games, at whatever level, by express fiat of FIFA itself.

FIFA do not care that, even in flagship matches, such as England vs. Germany in the World Cup Finals, England can score an obvious goal (witnessed in real time by millions of people all around the world) and the referee can simply pretend that it didn't happen.

So that is football for you. Yes, it is a 'magic tea party'. But those of us whose lives revolve around The Beautiful Game have a saying: "Dodgy refereeing decisions (of which there are legion) all even out over the course of a season". It's a lie, of course, but that's football for you.

[magnuskn]

Well, some of the decisions have been really egregious this time around. Although, as a German, I can say that we finally got revenge for '66.

But bad referee decisions are part of the game, only that it is seldom that there so many of them in a single tournament.

[setmonster]

Well, some of the decisions have been really egregious this time around. Although, as a German, I can say that we finally got revenge for '66.

But bad referee decisions are part of the game, only that it is seldom that there so many of them in a single tournament.

Bloody Germans.

[magnuskn]

Well, some of the decisions have been really egregious this time around. Although, as a German, I can say that we finally got revenge for '66.

But bad referee decisions are part of the game, only that it is seldom that there so many of them in a single tournament.

Bloody Germans.

Am I hearing a "mimimi"?

Ah, don't mind me. Argentina will be damn difficult. I wonder if we'll have to face every round a nation we lost some final to?

[setmonster]

Ah, don't mind me. Argentina will be damn difficult. I wonder if we'll have to face every round a nation we lost some final to?

I think your lot have a good chance against the Argies. Certainly, I hope that Germany can put paid to Maradona and his "Hand of God" (another ridiculous refereeing decision that went against England!)

[magnuskn]

I'll happily take your good wishes. Only thing I regret is that its not Klinsmann or Voeller as trainer anymore, which would have been an awesome throwback to 1990.

[CatharzGodfoot]

FIFA soccer is the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons of the sport world.

[Kaelik]

FYI: "No technology" is bullshit.

The refs have headphones and mics. There are eleven billion advanced cameras.

It's the same bullshit as instant replay in every other sport. The refs think that if they ever admit that any call ever is incorrect, they will lose authority and people will challenge every call they make all the time. Because they are stupid.

[souran]

What I mean by this is that, essentially, the officiating for a football match is the same at all levels of the sport. Whether it is Barcelona vs. Inter Milan in the Champions League Final or the King's Head vs. the George & Dragon in the Sevenoaks Benevolent League there is one referee, two assistants and a fourth official. There is no technology involved in the officiating of football games, at whatever level, by express fiat of FIFA itself.

FIFA do not care that, even in flagship matches, such as England vs. Germany in the World Cup Finals, England can score an obvious goal (witnessed in real time by millions of people all around the world) and the referee can simply pretend that it didn't happen.

So that is football for you. Yes, it is a 'magic tea party'. But those of us whose lives revolve around The Beautiful Game have a saying: "Dodgy refereeing decisions (of which there are legion) all even out over the course of a season". It's a lie, of course, but that's football for you.

But its a game and technology can assure that the side that actually wins on skill does not lose do to human judgment error.

I get that international sports are governed about as differently as possible from american professional sports. However, it would seem that FIFA would have centrally the same BIS (butts in seats) needs/goals as the owners/ownership groups of our leagues.

Quick example: Every living red-blooded american hates the overtime rules of professional american football. AFter much fan protest, the owners changed said rules for to experimental rules for post season play to be reevaluted in the future. That path to change may seem glacial but it exists.

By contrast the view expressed by the FIFA representatives has been that crappy officialting is just something you have to learn to live with or worse possibly even part of the charm of the game!

To which it seems that the fanbase they care about (europeans) could quite rightly say bullshit! Shitty officiating is shitty officiating regardless of wether it is Barcelona vs. Inter Milan in the Champions League Final or the King's Head vs. the George & Dragon in the Sevenoaks Benevolent League. And that possibly such bad results could be eliminated by recording the game in crystal clear high definition on some sort of high defintion recording device and letting the officals review the action from numerous recorded angles and make sure that the right outcome is enforced.[/i]

[Crissa]

...And that's why they've decided to change the design of the ball every few years. What the hell?

-Crissa

[Murtak]

One good point that has been raised is that there are not many stops in many soccer games. Right after Lampard scored that goal Germany mounted an attack and might well have scored. Suppose they score. Video contradicts the referee. Do you count Lampard's goal? If so, do you also count the German goal? Keep in mind that a counterattack is far more likely to produce a goal than kicking off again from the middle.

Basically whatever decision-making process you use, it has to be close to instantaneous. Slow motion replays are right out. Additional goal-line-referees would probably work (and as far as I know are being considered), and chipped balls might also work, except the very second one of them malfunctions the whole concept is suspect. What I would definitely like to see though is a review process after games, where each card given and every dive that resulted in a free kick is reviewed and retroactively changed if needed. I am fine with referee decisions only being changed when it is absolutely crystal clear that the referee was wrong, and I can deal with a diver getting a free kick, but the referees just don't catch enough of them. And on the other hand, someone getting sent off because his opponent is a skilled actor is bad enough - not getting to play for several games should not happen on top it.

[souran]

One good point that has been raised is that there are not many stops in many soccer games. Right after Lampard scored that goal Germany mounted an attack and might well have scored. Suppose they score. Video contradicts the referee. Do you count Lampard's goal? If so, do you also count the German goal? Keep in mind that a counterattack is far more likely to produce a goal than kicking off again from the middle.

Yes, but there is still a stoppage, you don't have to have unlimited time to challenge a result.

If its that vital to completly minimize the stoppage of play then use a method like basketball where play continues and challenges are resolved after the fact.

Adding a ref who sits in a video room and has the ability to review say play during 30 seconds preecding a penalty call or goal. Players and coaches don't have to be able to lobby this individual.

Look at your example. It is impossible to come up with a situation where NOT counting a goal by one side and then the other side being in andvantages position with a good chance of scoring is more fair than any situation where you count the properly scored goal.

[Murtak]

Yes, but there is still a stoppage, you don't have to have unlimited time to challenge a result.

But that is my point - there is no stoppage. If the goal is not given play continues.

If its that vital to completly minimize the stoppage of play then use a method like basketball where play continues and challenges are resolved after the fact.

I also addressed this. Counterattacks are completely different from kick-offs. Depending on the exact situation, retroactively instead of immediately calling a goal for team A is damn close to awarding a penalty to team B.



At the very least, any review process has to be faster than a counterattack. Preferably a good deal faster than that. Now look at the very same game. Germany scored their first goal within 5 seconds of the ball leaving their goalie's hands. That is the window in which you can decide whether to call a goal or not. 2 seconds would be preferable. A referee watching a TV screen in radio contact with the main referee could work. So could a referee on the goal line. But 30 second reviews are right out.

[souran]

I also addressed this. Counterattacks are completely different from kick-offs. Depending on the exact situation, retroactively instead of immediately calling a goal for team A is damn close to awarding a penalty to team B.

It appears to me that The largest "penalty" that you can really possibly asses is the removal or disqualifcation of a rightly earned goal.

However, the point you are trying to stress is the flow of the game. Above you said that:

a counterattack is far more likely to produce a goal than kicking off again from the middle.

If this statement is true, then by not video reviewing a play you create the possibily of a two goal shift.

If you have retroactive video review by a dedicated video offical, then regardless of the outcome of the counterattack, the worst case is that team B gets/got the ball in a more favoriable manner than they should have.

Basically, it seems to me that you are arguing that what is avaialbe now, which seems to ALWAYS produce the worst possible result (earned goals discounted, Defending team getting the ball without a kickoff) is somehow a better result than the 3 possibilities with retroactive video that is takes place while play continues.

At the very least, any review process has to be faster than a counterattack. Preferably a good deal faster than that. Now look at the very same game. Germany scored their first goal within 5 seconds of the ball leaving their goalie's hands. That is the window in which you can decide whether to call a goal or not. 2 seconds would be preferable. A referee watching a TV screen in radio contact with the main referee could work. So could a referee on the goal line. But 30 second reviews are right out.

Again, as long as the video offical can change the games results while play continues it doesn't matter if he takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes. Play continues on the field based on the head officials immediate ruling, but the video offical can award goals that were discounted due to bad calls or depending on how much power the league wants to give the video offical let him review ALL penalty calls and even "unbook" a player. This information could be communicated to the on field officals and coaching staffs at a more natural stoppage in play such as after a goal or before a penalty or corner kick or something like that.


However, look I realize that people that care far more than me have probably considered how to set up a video challenge/instant replay system for FIFA soccer. What is silly is to act like somehow this game is impenatrable to technology and that there is no other game that has faced similar issues that such a system for soccer would face.

[Murtak]

Basically, it seems to me that you are arguing that what is avaialbe now, which seems to ALWAYS produce the worst possible result (earned goals discounted, Defending team getting the ball without a kickoff) is somehow a better result than the 3 possibilities with retroactive video that is takes place while play continues.

I am saying that video review is not necessary. Additional spotters should suffice for 99% of even the close calls and work without disrupting game flow at all.

Again, as long as the video offical can change the games results while play continues it doesn't matter if he takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes.

But 5 minutes of "we are behind and desperately need to score" are quite different from five minutes of "we want another goal but should be careful not to get scored on". If you introduce the additional uncertainty of having to wait a couple of minutes after each close call I can see that as being worse than the status quo.

However, look I realize that people that care far more than me have probably considered how to set up a video challenge/instant replay system for FIFA soccer. What is silly is to act like somehow this game is impenatrable to technology and that there is no other game that has faced similar issues that such a system for soccer would face.

Why even bother with technology? Additional spotters, sure, at least for the world cup. But an elaborate and mostly useless system of video reviews? Why? The Wembley goal is infamous for a reason: they are rare. Diving and offside decisions are much harder and influence the sport much more.

I just don't see the point in a solution that can not be implemented with simple means, which is needlessly convoluted and hems the flow of the game for so rare an occurance. I fully support video review after the game for diving (or unbooking). I fully support spotters. I am ok with instant video review and chipped balls. But I am not convinced that slow motion video reviews do more good than harm.

[hogarth]

Again, as long as the video offical can change the games results while play continues it doesn't matter if he takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes.

But 5 minutes of "we are behind and desperately need to score" are quite different from five minutes of "we want another goal but should be careful not to get scored on". If you introduce the additional uncertainty of having to wait a couple of minutes after each close call I can see that as being worse than the status quo.

I'm confused -- don't goals get called back from time to time in football, for instance due to the offside rule?

[Username17]

Why even bother with technology? Additional spotters, sure, at least for the world cup. But an elaborate and mostly useless system of video reviews? Why? The Wembley goal is infamous for a reason: they are rare. Diving and offside decisions are much harder and influence the sport much more.

But they aren't rare. The United States was in 4 games this world cup and had goals called back without explanation in two of them. One of them cost the US a win.

FIFA officiating is a fucking joke.

With total scores for both teams in all four games combined standing at 10 goals, having an extra 2 goals more or less because of fucking ridiculous officiating is not acceptable. If soccer wants to be taken seriously, they need to start taking goal cams seriously. This bullshit is bullshit.

-Username17

[Murtak]

I'm confused -- don't goals get called back from time to time in football, for instance due to the offside rule?

They generally get called after the play, before a shot at the goal is even taken. Of course some do get called after the goal, but no more than a second or two. The line ref is supposed to instantly indicate when a play is offside, but the main referee only calls it when the offside player actually participates in the play (usually by going after the ball).

But they aren't rare. The United States was in 4 games this world cup and had goals called back without explanation in two of them. One of them cost the US a win.
FIFA officiating is a fucking joke.

In world cups in general and this one in particular, yes. In leagues, much less so, as far as I know.

[setmonster]

If soccer wants to be taken seriously, they need to start taking goal cams seriously. This bullshit is bullshit.

-Username17

Mate, I'll think you'll find "soccer" is already taken pretty seriously across the entire known world - poor officiating, or not. Just because the Yanks don't like the system doesn't mean the rest of us don't. I mean, your lot can just go back to playing your armoured rugby and slightly more-complicated rounders and we'll get back to playing football (which has worked pretty well as it is for, like, the past 150 years.)

[hogarth]

Mate, I'll think you'll find "soccer" is already taken pretty seriously across the entire known world - poor officiating, or not.

In fact, the poor officiating is taken very seriously sometimes. To the point where death threats against the official are fairly common.

[Username17]

Mate, I'll think you'll find "soccer" is already taken pretty seriously across the entire known world - poor officiating, or not. Just because the Yanks don't like the system doesn't mean the rest of us don't. I mean, your lot can just go back to playing your armoured rugby and slightly more-complicated rounders and we'll get back to playing football (which has worked pretty well as it is for, like, the past 150 years.)

Dude, 150 years ago, Football was nothing like it is today. In 1863 the Blackheath Football Club withdrew from the Football Association in protest over the removal of the rule allowing you to run with the ball in one hand and the rule allowing you to kick other players in the shins. They went on to found the Blackheath Rugby Club. Because back then, Football (Soccer), Football (Rugby), and Football (American) were all the same sport. Just played with slightly different rules depending on who you talked to - like Calvin Ball.

"Football" just means that it is a ball game played on foot. As opposed to "Horseball" which is a ball game played a-horse.

-Username17

[setmonster]

Mate, I'll think you'll find "soccer" is already taken pretty seriously across the entire known world - poor officiating, or not. Just because the Yanks don't like the system doesn't mean the rest of us don't. I mean, your lot can just go back to playing your armoured rugby and slightly more-complicated rounders and we'll get back to playing football (which has worked pretty well as it is for, like, the past 150 years.)

Dude, 150 years ago, Football was nothing like it is today. In 1863 the Blackheath Football Club withdrew from the Football Association in protest over the removal of the rule allowing you to run with the ball in one hand and the rule allowing you to kick other players in the shins. They went on to found the Blackheath Rugby Club. Because back then, Football (Soccer), Football (Rugby), and Football (American) were all the same sport. Just played with slightly different rules depending on who you talked to - like Calvin Ball.

"Football" just means that it is a ball game played on foot. As opposed to "Horseball" which is a ball game played a-horse.


-Username17

That's all true, but I was making the point that when the rules for the game which we call Football (or Association Football to be accurate) were codified in 1863, the game then was played with mostly the same rules and same technologies as are employed now. Obviously there have been some changes: the offside rule, substitutions, "Jubulani" balls and the like, but the game is still the same.

And I think it is that old Victorian "play up and play the game" spirit that FIFA is attempting to keep with its rejection of video technology. And that's my second point. Americans might not like it and might think it's primitive but I think much of the rest of the world likes it that America does not take football seriously and refuses to engage with the game on any meaningful level. If it takes the preservation of weird idiosyncrasies like draws and bad refereeing decisions to keep America out of it, well, that might be acceptable to some people.

Also, on a slightly different subject, FIFA is not a particularly relevant organisation. It's actually a myth that the World Cup is the most prestigious tournament in football. It isn't, not by a long shot. The real powerhouses of world football are La Liga, Seria A and the Premier League, which are the top national leagues in Spain, Italy and England respectiely. These three competions (and by extension the Champions League, which is run by UEFA, the European Football Association) are the ones, I believe, who will force FIFA to modernise its policies on officiating.

[Kaelik]

And I think it is that old Victorian "play up and play the game" spirit that FIFA is attempting to keep with its rejection of video technology. And that's my second point. Americans might not like it and might think it's primitive but I think much of the rest of the world likes it that America does not take football seriously and refuses to engage with the game on any meaningful level. If it takes the preservation of weird idiosyncrasies like draws and bad refereeing decisions to keep America out of it, well, that might be acceptable to some people.

I think you are completely retarded if you think referee's deciding games instead of players ability is acceptable to anyone anywhere.

No one likes the idea of not having their goal count because the referee turned around and covered his eyes. Draws and offsides are things that Americans accept in all their sports, so no, those don't scare the big bad Americans away, but if you think England the country accepts that they just lose to Germany because the refs are blind and stupid, you haven't ever watched a sport ever.

[setmonster]

And I think it is that old Victorian "play up and play the game" spirit that FIFA is attempting to keep with its rejection of video technology. And that's my second point. Americans might not like it and might think it's primitive but I think much of the rest of the world likes it that America does not take football seriously and refuses to engage with the game on any meaningful level. If it takes the preservation of weird idiosyncrasies like draws and bad refereeing decisions to keep America out of it, well, that might be acceptable to some people.

I think you are completely retarded if you think referee's deciding games instead of players ability is acceptable to anyone anywhere.

No one likes the idea of not having their goal count because the referee turned around and covered his eyes. Draws and offsides are things that Americans accept in all their sports, so no, those don't scare the big bad Americans away, but if you think England the country accepts that they just lose to Germany because the refs are blind and stupid, you haven't ever watched a sport ever.

Well, first of all, I watch Arsenal Football Club play every game a season (usually 60+), either on telly or at their home of the Emirates Stadium. (I also occasionally go to watch Arsenal's Reserve team). Secondly, few people in England believe that the Germans didn't deserve to win 4-1. Check the BBC Sports Website, if you don't believe me. Anyone with half a brain realises England were shit - we were lucky not to get beat by 5, 6 or even 7 goals. A single disallowed goal is meaningless in the context of that game. And as usual, the best team won.

Thirdly, as I said, the World Cup is largely irrelevant. The real draw in football is club football, in particular the league. The Premier League is 38 games long. Whilst your club is likely to get a few bad decisions it will also get a few good/lucky ones over a season. It always balances out in the end. And the best team always wins the league. Always.