5 ms·

Would it really kill soccer if we had video replay? Yes. Alot. Injuries already interrupt the flow of the game - and one thing Football is good at is flowing (

by ErrantX 16y ago

Would it really kill soccer if we had video replay? Yes. Alot. Injuries already interrupt the flow of the game - and one thing Football is good at is flowing (one reason I personally enjoy it). A good game is non-stop action (which is my only criticism of US sports - I usually get bored waiting for baseball for example :)) Match outcomes are routinely altered by erroneous ref. decisions, decisions which the whole world except the ref. knows are erroneous because we see the 1000FPS close up 30 seconds later. It's become so nonsensical that at the recent Brazil game, the brazilian players after a bad ref. decision to send off Kaka with a red card were begging the ref. to look up on the stadion screen to see the replay which clearly showed nothing happened, but he couldn't be bothered. This is the point of the game :) bad decisions aren't all that prevalent - you just notice them because people will yell (rightly) about them. Human error is what makes the sport so much fun. But more importantly stopping for 30s while replays are reviewed just delays the game - a game which is designed to flow. That would kill it for me!

_delirium 16y ago
One possibility would be to use after-the-game replays only to punish particularly egregious behavior, like blatant dives, with suspensions. Wouldn't interrupt the flow of the game, but would deter wrongdoing.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Yes, that's something I think they should do. The problem is ensuring the game is recorded fairly - they could use the existing cameras certainly but I suspect it's a non-trivial discussion to ensure that the camera coverage is fair for review purposes.
- zalew 16y ago
  it's already being done, but not to punish dives. it's used to analyze more serious situations such as brutal fouls (a player can get additional punishment by football associations after the game, even to a complete season dismiss) or alleged corruption. dives are stupid and I hate them, but I think they are far overrated in the US (assumption from what I see in internet discussions)
  - bukkake 16y ago
    I'll take it you meant "overblown" instead of "overrated". And no, that's not the case. We actually are incredibly offended by it. We see dives as part and parcel of corruption and as a "more serious situation".
    - ekanes 16y ago
      I love soccer and I'd love to see more of it in North America. All the diving to the ground and "oooh my ankle" crap makes it look to people here like a sport full of unnecessary drama. If disincentives were added so diving didn't pay, the game's reputation would be much better imho.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    On dives, I agree they're seen as a much bigger deal in the US than other places. I think many people not very familiar with soccer/football tend to assume that they're a much more serious offense than seems to be consensus within the sport. Essentially, people assume that they're a form of deliberate cheating, which in many sports is a kind of offense that would earn you a multi-game suspension on the first offense, and long-term bans on subsequent offenses (say, if you were caught using a corked bat in baseball).
    - zalew 16y ago
      It is deliberate cheating. On the other hand f.ex. tactical fouls are common in basketball, and nobody calls it cheating, just a common strategy. It's quite hard to get a technical foul or 5 fouls, so every end of an NBA game is 0:30 on the clock and till the end of the game you have foul after foul on both sides. I loved basket, but this one was really stupid and annoying. Different sports, different "tactics".
- thewileyone 16y ago
  FIFA already does this ... though there's a lot of bias involved.
Maro 16y ago
Yes. Alot. No. Not at all. Games are already being interrupted constantly by players diving, kicking each other. Video replays wouldn't add that much.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Of course they would. Your looking at 30s plus for a video replay. Plus then the restart recommended by the ref. A free kick or other call is a few seconds usually (unless it is tense, or important edge of the box stuff etc. which adds to the drama of the game).
  - Maro 16y ago
    The game stops for 30 seconds after debatable situations anyway. Also, the rule could be set up in such a way that the main ref. has the option to call for the video replay if he's not sure. That way, the ref. can keep the game smooth but ask the 5th ref. to examine the video replay before game changing decisions.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Time it next time this happens. Barring injury a game does not frequently stop for a full 30 seconds, even when contentious decisions happen. And in cases where it does I wouldn't want to see it stopped even longer. One of the attractions of the game is that the referee is the law; he makes a decision on his best judgement and that is the game. I see your point; and it has merit. But I think it really detracts from the spirit, the flow and the attraction of the game :)
      - yardie 16y ago
        Cheating (especially diving) already detracts from the game. On top of that you have refs given god-like powers to determine a game with their human shortcomings. Already, I can't take the world cup seriously. 2006, it was the Italians diving to get free penalty kicks. Now, I can't even trust the refs to make honest calls. I'll continue to watch the games until something better comes along.
paulsmith 16y ago
I suppose in some sense it flows but watching the World Cup I notice that there are constant little stoppages of play -- the ref is always blowing the whistle when two players collide going for a ball, any time there is a challenge (and an opportunity to mug and dive and generally lose dignity ;) Restarts happen quickly to be sure but the whistle stoppage seems to take some of the momentum out of the game. It would be better if the refs just let the players play and only blow the whistle for the most egregious fouls.
jules 16y ago
> Yes. Alot. Injuries already interrupt the flow of the game - and one thing Football is good at is flowing (one reason I personally enjoy it). Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 seconds. Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. > bad decisions aren't all that prevalent They are extremely prevalent, especially not punishing players who pretend to be injured.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 seconds. Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. Would it really? I don't think so at all - except in the most blatant cases. If contact is made, well, the player might be making a meal of it but the letter of the law is quite solid. And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P > Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all. > They are extremely prevalent, especially not punishing players who pretend to be injured. How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D). To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem.
  - jules 16y ago
    > And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P Ehm, obviously the players would pretend less if they get punished for it. That's the idea of a working ref system... > Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all. It's not like it all has to happen in sequence. You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who only after that decides what to do. The only difference is that instead of using the ref's eyes, you use super-eyes. A little bit slower but not significantly slower, and significantly more accurate. > How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D). Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video? On TV it's often very obvious that they are faking it. But of course judging this is hard sometimes, the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video. > To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem. It's fixing an obviously broken system.
megablast 16y ago
Simple way to avoid this, have a tribunal to review matches as they do in Aussie Rules football. If a player is caught deliberately diving, ban them for life. If everyone is wondering why the USA does not get into soccer, it is because the blatant cheating makes it a joke. It is not a real sport, and never will be, when one dive can win a game for a side, and have a player sent off. Americans have a sense of fair play, that will never accept this. Of course, this would never get through. South American, Italian, Spanish and Greek clubs have to much sway over FIFA.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Don't get me wrong; I disapprove of the diving and misconduct. But I am utterly unconvinced that in-game replays will make a difference. In fact the main problem is the culture of footballers. Go back a few years and things are a whole lot more brighter. Men were men :D and the rules were the law. You are right; strict punishment for cheating would help fix that. Setting limits for player wages and so forth as well would be an important idea.
- lenni 16y ago
  These are the countries where football is most popular. Why shouldn't they have the most influence? I don't know if there is such thing as a World American Football Association, but if there was, I'm sure Americans would call the shots.
  - megablast 16y ago
    There are other countries where soccer is also very popular, England, Germany, France, rest of western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia.
    - lenni 16y ago
      I am German and have lived in England and in neither country I have seen a lot of enthusiasm for video refs or more severe penalties. Generally, people enjoy the unpredictability of the game.
corruption 16y ago
No it wouldn't. Immediate red cards for "faking", determined by the video ref, would solve all the problems soccer has in an instant. The number of refereee interventions would go down, not up, and the number of games won by theatrics instead of skill would drastically decrease.

by ErrantX 16y ago

_delirium 16y ago

One possibility would be to use after-the-game replays only to punish particularly egregious behavior, like blatant dives, with suspensions. Wouldn't interrupt the flow of the game, but would deter wrongdoing.

ErrantX 16y ago
Yes, that's something I think they should do. The problem is ensuring the game is recorded fairly - they could use the existing cameras certainly but I suspect it's a non-trivial discussion to ensure that the camera coverage is fair for review purposes.
zalew 16y ago
it's already being done, but not to punish dives. it's used to analyze more serious situations such as brutal fouls (a player can get additional punishment by football associations after the game, even to a complete season dismiss) or alleged corruption. dives are stupid and I hate them, but I think they are far overrated in the US (assumption from what I see in internet discussions)
- bukkake 16y ago
  I'll take it you meant "overblown" instead of "overrated". And no, that's not the case. We actually are incredibly offended by it. We see dives as part and parcel of corruption and as a "more serious situation".
  - ekanes 16y ago
    I love soccer and I'd love to see more of it in North America. All the diving to the ground and "oooh my ankle" crap makes it look to people here like a sport full of unnecessary drama. If disincentives were added so diving didn't pay, the game's reputation would be much better imho.
- _delirium 16y ago
  On dives, I agree they're seen as a much bigger deal in the US than other places. I think many people not very familiar with soccer/football tend to assume that they're a much more serious offense than seems to be consensus within the sport. Essentially, people assume that they're a form of deliberate cheating, which in many sports is a kind of offense that would earn you a multi-game suspension on the first offense, and long-term bans on subsequent offenses (say, if you were caught using a corked bat in baseball).
  - zalew 16y ago
    It is deliberate cheating. On the other hand f.ex. tactical fouls are common in basketball, and nobody calls it cheating, just a common strategy. It's quite hard to get a technical foul or 5 fouls, so every end of an NBA game is 0:30 on the clock and till the end of the game you have foul after foul on both sides. I loved basket, but this one was really stupid and annoying. Different sports, different "tactics".
thewileyone 16y ago
FIFA already does this ... though there's a lot of bias involved.

Maro 16y ago

Yes. Alot. No. Not at all. Games are already being interrupted constantly by players diving, kicking each other. Video replays wouldn't add that much.

ErrantX 16y ago
Of course they would. Your looking at 30s plus for a video replay. Plus then the restart recommended by the ref. A free kick or other call is a few seconds usually (unless it is tense, or important edge of the box stuff etc. which adds to the drama of the game).
- Maro 16y ago
  The game stops for 30 seconds after debatable situations anyway. Also, the rule could be set up in such a way that the main ref. has the option to call for the video replay if he's not sure. That way, the ref. can keep the game smooth but ask the 5th ref. to examine the video replay before game changing decisions.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Time it next time this happens. Barring injury a game does not frequently stop for a full 30 seconds, even when contentious decisions happen. And in cases where it does I wouldn't want to see it stopped even longer. One of the attractions of the game is that the referee is the law; he makes a decision on his best judgement and that is the game. I see your point; and it has merit. But I think it really detracts from the spirit, the flow and the attraction of the game :)
    - yardie 16y ago
      Cheating (especially diving) already detracts from the game. On top of that you have refs given god-like powers to determine a game with their human shortcomings. Already, I can't take the world cup seriously. 2006, it was the Italians diving to get free penalty kicks. Now, I can't even trust the refs to make honest calls. I'll continue to watch the games until something better comes along.

paulsmith 16y ago

I suppose in some sense it flows but watching the World Cup I notice that there are constant little stoppages of play -- the ref is always blowing the whistle when two players collide going for a ball, any time there is a challenge (and an opportunity to mug and dive and generally lose dignity ;) Restarts happen quickly to be sure but the whistle stoppage seems to take some of the momentum out of the game. It would be better if the refs just let the players play and only blow the whistle for the most egregious fouls.

jules 16y ago

> Yes. Alot. Injuries already interrupt the flow of the game - and one thing Football is good at is flowing (one reason I personally enjoy it). Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 seconds. Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. > bad decisions aren't all that prevalent They are extremely prevalent, especially not punishing players who pretend to be injured.

ErrantX 16y ago
> Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 seconds. Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. Would it really? I don't think so at all - except in the most blatant cases. If contact is made, well, the player might be making a meal of it but the letter of the law is quite solid. And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P > Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up. Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all. > They are extremely prevalent, especially not punishing players who pretend to be injured. How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D). To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem.
- jules 16y ago
  > And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P Ehm, obviously the players would pretend less if they get punished for it. That's the idea of a working ref system... > Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all. It's not like it all has to happen in sequence. You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who only after that decides what to do. The only difference is that instead of using the ref's eyes, you use super-eyes. A little bit slower but not significantly slower, and significantly more accurate. > How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D). Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video? On TV it's often very obvious that they are faking it. But of course judging this is hard sometimes, the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video. > To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem. It's fixing an obviously broken system.

megablast 16y ago

Simple way to avoid this, have a tribunal to review matches as they do in Aussie Rules football. If a player is caught deliberately diving, ban them for life. If everyone is wondering why the USA does not get into soccer, it is because the blatant cheating makes it a joke. It is not a real sport, and never will be, when one dive can win a game for a side, and have a player sent off. Americans have a sense of fair play, that will never accept this. Of course, this would never get through. South American, Italian, Spanish and Greek clubs have to much sway over FIFA.

ErrantX 16y ago
Don't get me wrong; I disapprove of the diving and misconduct. But I am utterly unconvinced that in-game replays will make a difference. In fact the main problem is the culture of footballers. Go back a few years and things are a whole lot more brighter. Men were men :D and the rules were the law. You are right; strict punishment for cheating would help fix that. Setting limits for player wages and so forth as well would be an important idea.
lenni 16y ago
These are the countries where football is most popular. Why shouldn't they have the most influence? I don't know if there is such thing as a World American Football Association, but if there was, I'm sure Americans would call the shots.
- megablast 16y ago
  There are other countries where soccer is also very popular, England, Germany, France, rest of western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia.
  - lenni 16y ago
    I am German and have lived in England and in neither country I have seen a lot of enthusiasm for video refs or more severe penalties. Generally, people enjoy the unpredictability of the game.

corruption 16y ago

No it wouldn't. Immediate red cards for "faking", determined by the video ref, would solve all the problems soccer has in an instant. The number of refereee interventions would go down, not up, and the number of games won by theatrics instead of skill would drastically decrease.