Following my last post, these are a few ideas that I think football (or soccer, depending on where you are) could borrow from a few other sports. Hopefully they would make the game more dynamic, and decrease the annoying number of refereeing mistakes we've seen lately.
- Time (clock) should be shown to the public, and stopped every time the ball goes offside. A referee table (which doesn't need to be a table per se, but they could sit up in the stadium along with the commentators) would control that (like in basketball). That would get rid of players making time by simulating injuries, taking a long time to throw the ball in, etc. Goalies would also be timed to put the ball back in play. That would also stop discussions about how much stoppage time should be added to the clock.
- All refereeing power wouldn't be delegated to one man (or woman), as it is today. A couple more referees sitting on the table would have access to replays, from which they could have better calls on the different plays. Judgement calls (e.g. red cards, penalty kicks, etc) would need the majority vote, and would be aided by the different camera angles and replays.
- Offsides and other calls such as if the ball went out of the field or inside the goal could be aided by computational technology. That would certainly be less prone to error and faster than human decisions (e.g. when the puck goes in the net in hockey). People spend thousands of dollars to come up with a ball that the majority of players don't like, so I'm sure there's some money left to improve refereeing in the game.
A cheaper approach would be to do everything in software. Identifying the players in each team, where the ball is, etc is easily done by computer software. Then, the offside is a very simple if-then algorithm. If the ball crosses a line can also be easily be done by computer software using data from cameras centered in the goal (or field) lines.
One can get a bit more fancy by having chips in the player's shoes, and several on the ball, and offside could be determined that way too. Having sensors on the ball and goalposts (as well as corner flags) would also help identifying when the ball crosses the lines.
For now, while the technology is still being developed (and trust me, it wouldn't take long, it's not new technology, it's just old stuff being applied to soccer), the referee table could be in charge of such calls, using the replays and things like what have been done in this world cup, with the shaded field, etc.
- one could introduce something similar to (american) football, where the coaches get to ask for the re-call of a certain number of plays too.
- because the game clock would be stopped frequently, such stops to review plays (either by the ref table or by the coaches' request) wouldn't affect the game dynamic that much.
Of course it could be expensive to try these things, so starting it in a smaller tournament (e.g. confederations cup), or even MLS (because the US might have the technology and be adventurous enough to do it) would be a nice idea. Certainly many countries (or amateur leagues) won't have the money to make all these changes, but FIFA sponsored ones should. And there is always the current approach as a fallback, which seems to be good enough for many people.
So, fire away. Which ones do you like? Which ones should never be part of this sport we all love? What else would you do?
Best,
Gus
How about this: a 4th ref upstairs who has is in constant contact with the main ref via radio headset. For easy things like offsides, the 4th ref can simply tell the main ref, who makes the call without too much delay. At any point, either ref can call for a replay review -- the main ref stops play and uses some sort of signal to let the players know that there is a review going on, while the upstairs ref reviews the play for up to 1 or 2 minutes. This system would minimize the game stoppage while still taking full advantage of the video capability available.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think it the benefit of having a stoppable game clock (so the players and fans know exactly when the half ends) is worth the hassle of running such a system. Unlike basketball, soccer is not a game that is defined by tenths of seconds, or even whole seconds. Plays typically take ten, twenty seconds or more to unfold. A good ref will allow the current play to play itself out before calling the end of the half, so that a team can work at getting a good shot rather than being forced to attempt an off-balance, left-footed shot from outside the penalty area because that's all time allowed for. As for players delaying the game, make it a penalizable offense (after a warning) and award the other team the ball at the same spot (goal kicks would turn into corner kicks). That should put an end to those tactics very quickly.
Derek,
ReplyDeleteGood hearing from you! I like the idea of the 4th ref, but I think that should be the bare minimum, and hopefully it will be discussed in the upcoming FIFA meeting (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/sports/soccer/30ref.html).
I see your point about the difference between the importance of time in basketball and soccer, but I'm not sure if just being more severe against players that do such thing would do it. It's certainly a good start, though. But if you time any game lately (I've timed a few of the world cup), in a 45min + stoppage time half there's only about 25min of actual soccer being player. And those weren't games the players were using those tactics... It just doesn't seem OK that almost half of 45min are spent with players lying on the ground, discussion with the ref, subs, etc.
I guess I'm not too concerned about the amount of actual game being played, as I don't think it's out of line with other sports. Especially football, where 1 hour of game time contains about 20 minutes of action and takes 3 hours to broadcast. I certainly wouldn't mind more action, but I think getting the calls right is a higher priority. FIFA doesn't seem like the sort of organization that's quick to make changes.
ReplyDelete