Sunday's blown goal call in the Germany and England match needs to be a clarion call from this day forth: The World Cup must have instant replay for all goals or potential goals. In case you missed it, you can watch the goal scored by England's Frank Lampard by clicking here. England went on to lose the match 4-1, but Lampard's goal should have tied the game at 2. Anyone who watched this game, you and I included, immediately realized what a bungled call this was.
After the missed call the British would yield two more goals and march back into the ignominy of another failed World Cup. FIFA officials, who have dealt with blown goal calls the entire tournament, refused to comment upon the latest colossal blunder. Instead FIFA arrogantly relied upon the old tried and true statements once trotted out as weak excuses for why there would be no instant replay in American sports leagues. Namely, that instant replay would represent a slippery slope that would lead to too much review, would be difficult to implement, and make the game worse.
Officials missed Lampard's apparent equalizer
That argument is completely wrong. FIFA must have instant replay for the World Cup.
Now. I know we in America always get charged with cultural imperialism anytime we make suggestions about how to improve the game of soccer. But the obstacles offered to instant replay in the NFL, the NHL, and Major League Baseball, and college football are all the exact same obstacles being offered by FIFA officials today. The point is, as all of our pro leagues have illustrated by implementing instant replay, these objections don't really make sense.
FIFA's position is, essentially, that player and referee errors are a part of the game. That's true, but it's also idiotic. If you can eliminate some referee errors then you magnify the importance of the on-field performance of the players. Which, in the end, is the goal of all sports, right? Allowing the players to determine the outcome.
Just imagine what would have happened if England and Germany had been playing in the World Cup Final and England had lost after a missed goal like this.
Share
Would the World Cup ever recover in this modern YouTube sports era?
I don't think so.
That's because HD television has fundamentally altered the game of soccer just like it has altered every other sport. Fans sitting at home can make instantaneous decisions about the legitimacy of soccer calls. When the World Cup began there was no television, no microphones on the referees that allowed them to communicate with one another, and no Internet community that magnifies every error to the point where those errors overwhelm the majesty of the matches themselves. In 1930, when the World Cup began, only those in attendance could know if a call was missed.
Now, in a moment's notice, billions can post the errant video on Facebook, Twitter, or a blog.
A failure to allow instant replay isn't a protection of soccer's past, it's a bastardization of soccer's future.
And it isn't really that complicated.
In fact, I'll break down how it should work in five steps.
1. Immediately take all non-goal related decisions off the table for review in the midst of games.
That means the referees would maintain complete discretion to call fouls on the field and to issue penalty cards as they see fit on any plays that do not lead to goals. Examining, for instance, who the ball went off and whether a goal kick or a corner kick should be rewarded would remain entirely at the discretion of the referees.
Errors in these details, while unfortunate, would remain a part of the game. This would not be a system that would micromanage officiating.
Indeed, it would eliminate the need for replay in all but the most important of moments, that is when goals are scored. For 99% of soccer play there would be no stoppage for review.
2. Review every goal in real time.
The technology exists to make the entire goal light up as a ball crosses the line just as the goal lights up in the NHL when a puck enters the net. With chips in the soccer ball, the referee could see the goal light up the moment the ball passed the line and instant replay officials would immediately begin reviewing the footage even as the celebration continued.
For most goals, mere seconds would be all that was necessary.
A review would have shown Clint Dempsey was not offside when he scored against Algeria |
Determining a goal in the NHL is much more difficult than determining a goal in soccer, yet the NHL manages to implement its system just about flawlessly.
Using instant replay would have taken about ten seconds for England to be awarded the goal against Germany.
In my opinion, offside calls that negate goals should also be included in this review.
Why?
Because with HD television all of us can see the shading mechanism on the field that demonstrates whether a player was on or offside before a goal was scored. Using this format wouldn't have kept the United States third goal against Slovenia on the board -- which was waved off via a discretionary penalty call -- but it would have allowed Clint Dempsey's first half goal against Algeria.
Again, the trigger for instant replay review only occurs when the ball enters the net.
At no other time would bit be involved.
3. FIFA already permits wasted time during the game and has a mechanism to allow additional time at the end of halves.
Two minutes or so over the course of a game would be a small price to pay for determining the legitimacy of each goal.
If FIFA is truly concerned about stopping play, why don't they go after flopping and fake injuries aggressively? That adds at least six minutes or so to every match.
Reviewing every goal would add, at most, two minutes to your average soccer game, potentially less.
Isn't that worth it?
Of course it is.
4. FIFA officials would probably welcome the change.
This is the real irony here, allowing replay review often strengthens the public perception of officiating.
Be sure to stay with FanHouse for complete coverage from South Africa, as columnist Kevin Blackistone and soccer editor Brian Straus will be on location for the duration of the tournament.
How?
Because in super slow-motion HD, as often as we recognize missed calls, we more often than not realize an official made the correct call. We're only talking about a few missed calls here on goals or not-goals that have clouded the perception of the entire tournament.
Think of, for instance, the small percentage of NFL calls that are reversed. Using instant replay in the NFL hasn't demeaned confidence in officials, it's actually increased confidence.
The same would hold true in the World Cup.
What's more, knowing that they won't be castigated for an unintentional error that changes the outcome of a game often allows officials to relax and call a better game than they otherwise would.
My point: Instant replay doesn't undermine officials, it increase their authority.
5. The appearance of corruption is vastly diminished.
Let's be clear here, soccer officiating has a dirty connotation in much of the world. Part of that has to do with the global nature of World Cup officiating, there's a sense that petty feuds and dislikes can lead to borderline calls going against your country. Put it this way, the World Cup makes NBA officiating seem above board.
For an American soccer fan it always seems as if we're getting screwed somehow. Partly, that's fan perception. We tend to see things in the light most favorable to our teams interests. But is there some legitimacy to anti-Americanism in soccer?
I think so.
Putting the most important plays in soccer -- goals -- up for immediate review would go a long way towards cleansing the palate of the taste of corruption.
Ultimately, scoring a goal in the World Cup is one of the rarest feats in all of sports. Amazing skill, tremendous team play, the perfect pass, the glorious shot, everything must coalesce at an instant of full speed fury to manage a goal. That's why the transcendent joy that heralds the scoring of a goal is a moment like no other, you've just managed the most difficult feat in all of team sports.
Doesn't FIFA owe it to soccer fans across the world to make certain that we don't ever lose a single goal that should have counted?
Of course it does.
That's why the World Cup needs instant replay.
Immediately.
Comments (Page 1 of 5)
welcome to the club USA
Your club sucks.
No instant replay! I agree that at times it is unfair but why change? why should we implement technology when in reality this faults make this sport the best one in the world.
Wait until YOUR team gets jobbed on an effing bad call, then you'd be crying about how the official effed your team.
If you are going to get reamed, may as well drop trou, why ruin a good pair of pants.
No, it is not what makes this sport of soccer the best in the world it is what makes this sport of soccer the most controversial, biased, and tarnished sport in the world. FIFA proclaimed that this would be the 2010 World Cup of FIFA Fair Play but it has been the World Cup of missed calls, blown calls, bad calls, nullified goals, and wrong goals called fair. Therefore, what should make this sport great is that the better team always wins but the history of the FIFA World Cups has been many times the opportunity for the victory of the undeserving. I am quite sure that many people are familiar with Maradona’s infamous hand of god goal in the 1986 World Cup that ironically was committed in the finals against the England National team. He and his Argentine team went on to win the 1986 World Cup despite the fact that he had used his hand to help him score. And what do we have twenty four years later despite all the advances in technology that if implemented would make the game more fair, well we have another blown call made against another English National team. So, shame on you FIFA for your stubbornness not to want to innovate, not to want to accept change, and for not wanting to be completely fair in your own FIFA World Cup matches.
Yeah, your right........ and we should all still be riding horses too..
I will tell you why Lorena. You see...goals in soccer are very hard to come by to begin with. If you have blind unqualified referee's taling valid goals away from you then a team virtually has no chance. It does not matter how much better the other team is or not because if the nullified goal from England would have counted you then have a 2 - 2 tie and maybe the mind set of Germany changes. It took me and my family a total of 10 seconds or less to see in the replay that it was clearly a goal. Why not have a payed flunky on the side lines to use instant reply ONLY IN REGARDS TO QUESTIONABLE GOALS. Fouls and offsides I understand could not be reviewed as this would take too much time.
Well said pgjr44692. I totally agree with you
That is a complete joke of a comment. The comment about the faults making it the best sport in the world is ludicrous. It is a great sport, but England being behind 2-1 instead of being tied at 2-2 is a complete shift in momentum. Would Germany have still won? Probably, they were the better team and played much better. But you can truely believe that errors in officiating should lead to the differences in game outcomes? If you truely believe that...then I don't know why you would even watch a game with officials...you should just watch children playing in the park without a referee/umpire and have them argue over calls.
You cannot allow a goal after the referee blew a whistle, even if it was a bad offsides call. Just like in the NFL, if a whistle blows, the play is "dead". You could disallow a goal, like the one that happened to Mexico vs Argentina today, though.
I am a hockey referee and you seem to be misunderstanding a facet of the purpose of the whistle. The play may be dead, yes, the fact that the play up to the point when the whistle, that was directed toward the involved play, blows, is when everything involved in that play ends. BUT what happened (or actually happened) up to that point can/may be legitimate for review. CERTAIN occurances within those parameters under established rules, could have justification for reexamination. That said, points could be credited if a person (NFL), soccerball, puck, legally crosses the plane of the goal line after a whistle has blown.
The issue with allowing replay for goals that are called off due to offside calls is pretty legitimate. If you can reverse those onside calls, why can't you reverse the calls where perhaps the goal wasn't finished, but a score would have been likely? It's a sticky situation to make that so it's only reviewable in certain situations. It would be like saying you could review personal fouls in the NBA, but only if they resulted in 4 point plays.
This ain't rocket science. As the writer points out, the NHL already manages this quite well without any real controversy. It's way past time for soccer to fix the obvious. To say that these "faults" are what makes this the best game in the world is just wrong.
Hockey does not have goal line technology outside of video review. There is no "chip" that lights up the goal when the puck crosses the line.
They do have a goal judge. He is the one that sits right behind the goal and turns on the light if the puck crosses the line.
There was no offside call. There were three white shirts there and his flag never budged from his side, even after the ball was launched. He forgot that he has to hustle back to check the ball crossing the line. This fool never moved a muscle.
We don't need replay -- we need competent officiating and FIFA has to quit covering for them. (Perhaps two center officials?)
This is one of the reasons many people don't take the beautiful game seriously!
This is one reason why so many people don't take the beautiful game seriously
Technology has come so far that FIFA looks like a bunch of stodgy pompous old men who are complacent in their folly of errors. Referees have a damn tough job keeping peace and order from varying rival countries and their aggressions and making the right call goes a long way to insuring fairness. 2 controversial U.S.A. goals were bad then England gets screwed then the very same day Mexico. Two weeks ago I wouldn't have agreed with this writer but the time has come for FIFA (and Major League Baseball) to have an official up in the booth. Perhaps the 2011 Rules should state in televised international matches coaches can be given the privilege of contesting only 2 calls per game and then they must use them VERY wisely. For me and many others seeing the right call made in no way undermines the infallibility of the Referee but rather inforces their authority. Kudos to FIFA REPLAY!!!
Who is most people chuck, you speaking about most Americans, this is the favorite sport of the world. Not one or two countries like baseball or American football.
Two center officials with whistles is not really a good thing. I used to referee soccer, and depending on the level of high school play, you would have duals, with two officials on the field and no linesmen. The difficulty in this is what may be a foul to one referee is not a foul to another, or one referee may see an advantage and be in the process of giving it while the other referee is blowing the whistle.
One of the important jobs of the official referee is to be a goal judge. The AR is supposed to stay even with either the ball or the second to last defender, whichever is nearer the goal. Therefore, if the ball is on the goal line, the AR should be standing on the goal line. I was working as an AR when I saw a goal scored, which a defender headed out of the goal. It took me probably close to 30 - 45 seconds to get the center referee to notice that I was trying to signal that a goal had been scored. Several referees were sitting in the stands, and they all agreed that I made the right call. However, if we had instant replay as described in the article, I'm not quite sure how it would have worked in this case or in the England/Germany game as play did not stop. Maybe if technology lights up the goal, that will work in such cases, but because play in soccer does not stop, I think it would be extremely challenging to come up with a system in which play can be reviewed without destroying the fluid nature of the game. Although fans don't like to see legitimate goals denied, I don't think they would like play being stopped, the result not being changed, and then the question becomes how do you restart the game? Do you drop the ball near the goal? That's not very fair to the defense that made a good stop. Do you give a free kick, and if so, to which side? If the defense made a good counter attack, do you now rob them of that? If the ball rebounded to an attacker who had a good goal scoring opportunity, do you now take that away for a review which may be upheld? For Americans used to the constant stop and start of football and baseball, these questions may seem to be easy to answer, but for those used to the continuous play of soccer, these are challenging questions to answer.
Ima big soccer fan, mainly because i was born in europe. However, i agree that instant replay of goals should be allowed, nothing else though. Refs should remain in control of everything else except decisions on goals. These bad calls ruin the game. It is not and shouldn't be the refs decision of the outcome of a goal, and possibly the game because he couldnt see it clearly.
FIFA WE WANT CHANGE!
I apologize for my typo in my last sentence. I meant to say BEFORE the whistle has blown.