FIFA Says World Cup Referees Got it Right 96% of the Time

July 10th, 2010 | by: Daryl |

accuracy Referees have been unpopular as ever at World Cup 2010. It’s basically in the job description. Yet data released by FIFA today seems to suggest that World Cup referees’ decision making has been pretty close to that of the android lifeforms most want to see them replaced with:

Referees were right 96 percent of the time at the World Cup, according to a study by FIFA’s referees’ committee.
The study looked at key decisions such as free kicks, penalties and goal decisions but did not examine minor rulings such as throw-ins.
The data was collected by video examination carried out by referees committee members and FIFA instructors, Jose Maria Garcia-Aranda, head of refereeing for the sport’s governing body, told Reuters.

Does 96% sounds a tad optimistic? I’m thinking specifically about Maurice Edu’s mysteriously disallowed goal, Frank Lampard’s goal that no one noticed, the Carlos Tevez goal that should have been ruled out for offside, and the Wesley Sneijder goal in the semifinal that probably should have been too.

Maybe the FIFA calculation is accurate, and it’s just that the 96% figure sounds like a high success rate, when really it isn’t. Because if the FIFA group was only looking at key decisions (the above quoted free-kicks, penalties, goal decisions) then that means that 4% of big decisions were called incorrectly. Which might sound acceptable, but feels a lot less acceptable if you’re a USA, England, Mexico or Uruguay fan.

On the other hand, 4% error sounds about right for humans. So seems the only answer is android referees. I’m off to start work on a prototype, which I’ll have ready in time for Copa America 2011.
android referee sketch

Also read: Our World Cup Referees blog.

International Football News – World Cup Blog RSS Feed

brentonwalters

Does 96% sounds a tad optimistic? I’m thinking specifically about Maurice Edu’s mysteriously disallowed goal, Frank Lampard’s goal that no one noticed, the Carlos Tevez goal that should have been ruled out for offside, and the Wesley Sneijder goal in the semifinal that probably should have been too.

You have 4 examples of big mistakes (and the last one is questionable) over 62 games. The disallowed Italian goal against Slovakia could be included (also questionable), as could a few others. That's still only 10 calls, maybe, over 62 games. Not a bad rate of return.
epochVHS

That Sneijder goal was maximally 10cm offside on van Persie's left foot. I prefer to live in a world where the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.worldcupblog.org Daryl

The paragraph after the one you quoted makes that same point brentonwalters, but also argues that though 96% sounds good as a percentage, the reality is that getting 4% of big decisions wrong can have a major impact on teams like England, Mexico etc.
netsez

To get into MENSA, the genius club, you need to be in the top 2% Referees need to be 98% correct. Maybe hire only MENSA members as referees!
netsez

Italy has never had an offsides goal given, but they have had a ton taken away. 6 in 2006 alone!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Polak/1302777696 Michael Polak

I saw somewhere that deep drilled oil wells are over 99% without problems. I doubt anyone would say, “Jeez, I didn't know that. Now I feel much better!” if BP came out with that statistic to downplay recent events. For FIFA to brag about 96%, especially so soon after the p— poor calls we've all witnessed, strikes me as particularly ludicrous.
http://www.mcalcio.com Marco P.

Let's not forget 2002 either (vs. South Korea).
http://www.mcalcio.com Marco P.

Would be interesting to compare this percentile to that of previous World Cups, but all in all 96% isn't bad. Like Daryl said though, the remaining 4% usually has a tremendous impact on one single team.
Bense235

Then again, it's not such big news FIFA tends to making some doubtful statements…
LaurieInSeattle

Good thing FIFA doesn't hold the nuclear codes. “Hey, we didn't launch the warheads for no reason 96% of the time!”
TewDollars

I feel the refereeing was much better than it was in 2006.

However, the biggest calls that should've, or shouldn't have been called, weren't. We won't need to give the referee's slack, but give them better tools. This game is much faster now than when Blatter ever played.

btw – Daryl. Your android prototype looks so spittin' angry. lol
Butcher beware.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McAvena/1015676773 Patrick McAvena

I THINK THE PERCENTAGES ARE DEFINETLY FUDGED. BUT WHAT REALLY WOULD CHANGE THE GAME FOR THE BETTER BESIDES HAVING MORE REF'S AND VIDEO REPLAY IS TO NOT ALLOW ANY PLAYER TO ADDRESS HIM EXCEPT THE CAPTAIN. THIS WOULD CHANGE THE GAME FOR THE BETTER. IF I YELLED IN YOUR EAR ENOUGH I WILL SWAY YOUR OPINION NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS. IF ANYTHING THIS WOULD FORCE THE PLAYERS TO TREAT THE REF'S WITH MORE RESPECT. IT'S TOO BAD THAT THIS GAME IS SO RELIANT ON THE REF EVERY GAME THAT I HAVE SEEN IN THE WORLD CUP WAS DICTATED BY THE REF AND IF THEY DIDN'T LIKE YOUR TEAM (ENGLAND) YOU WILL ALWAYS BE GIVEN A DISADVANTAGE. WHY IS IT THAT WHEN inesta GOES DOWN WITHOUT BEING TOUCHED IT'S A PENALTY BUT WHEN MICHAEL OWEN DOES IT IT'S A DIVE. NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY THE GAME IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED AND IT NEEDS HELP
lakhesis

And I could come up with statistics to support 99% of opinions.

Why do I feel this is the start of trying to backpedal out of re-evaluating video/technological support? Suddenly the extra world cup focus is off them, so now they can go back to pushing their own philosophical agendas.