Video games – Is it time for football to embrace technology?

Adidas had the “chip in the ball” ready in 2006 with minor teething troubles. Ever since 2008, that thing worked perfectly and no player could tell whether he was playing with a “chipped” ball or not. Unfair enough, FIFA put it down. Blame the Swiss.

1) Chip technology in the ball, as Bense suggested, is a must.
2) Goalmouth referees (as used this year in the UEFA Europa league), are a must.

Why not video technology? As you suggested Andy, the ball must go out of play to allow it. At the very least the 4th official would need 10 seconds to analyze what just happened, and if there is an instantaneous counter-attack that gives rise to all sorts of potential problems. Human error sucks, but we need people able to make a split-second decision in real-time, something which chip technology and goalmouth referees are able to provide.

That said, with digital technology, TiVo, or any other Digital Video Recorder, you can instantly rewind images by X seconds simply by pressing a button. If we can do at home on our own TVs, imagine how easy it would be with high-speed cameras filming the goal-line (for phantom goals) or the offside line. Some people often suggested the following: coaches should get the option to contest ONE refereeing decision with video technology per game. It would maybe delay the play 30 seconds for each team, i.e. 1 minute in total. Not the end of the world, and it would put an end to freak mistakes like today's.

Also thinking 10-20 years ahead, the technology will have progressed enough we'll finally be able to use microchip technology not only inside the ball, but also on players. Insert some kind of chip in each player's shirt, shorts, shinpads, shoes (basically any body part they are able to score with… use an headband for the head?), put sensors on the touchlines, and bam! Technology-assisted offside decisions. Problem? What if those chips get damaged during a rough tackle? Hence why in 10-20 years hopefully they will make chips or develop a material resistant enough for all this to be possible.

We are definitely not there yet, and as long as the likes of Sepp Blatter remain in charge of FIFA< football will remain this beautiful and humanly flawed game.

You know, if I were Neuer or Lahm or another one of the German players, I would put the ball in the back of my own net at 2-1 right after the disallowed goal and make it 2-2. This would be so awesome cuz:
1. The English would be even more shellshocked by such an act of chivalry (of which they themselves are entirely incapable, by the way) than by the disallowed goal itself, which would allow the Germans to…
2. Score even more goals against the crappy English, thus ending the game with maybe a 6-2 or 7-2. Yum.
3. It would provide an absolutely UNPRECEDENTED BIT OF HONESTY in the global sport, which is sadly lacking in honesty whatsoever. Perhaps, the example will be followed by other teams (i.e. Argentina doing the same vs. Mexico)
4. The English media wouldn't be looking for some stupid scapegoat, but would instead be blubbering all over the Germans as not only really really good at football but also incredible with their sportsmenship.

I dunno, it just seemed like the coolest thing to do at the time. I would've, but then again maybe that's why I'm not a professional football player. :(

Anyway, I think this is the better solution. If there is an especially egregious call, and a team knows it, then let that team do justice.

Don't forget the other most important technology called foot ball or in this case Jabulani. There needs to be a rule where the ball for World Cup must be introduced 2 years before the actual event so there will be no surprise at the 11th hour.

Agree with you Game, but that has nothing to do with the current topic.

Having “more” refs doesn't mean having more right calls. There would still be dissputes about whether or not the ball was over the line, and it would be the same with instant replay video evidences. Not in this particular case.

That's what the linesman should have spotted. In the end, I don't wanna wind up with two refs, two linesmen, two goal refs, a fourth official and a video referee. That would slow down the game so badly, it wouldn't be worth watching. Then, we could simply make football a play from scrimmage and play it with the hands… now wait, that sounds familiar ;-)

How about having 2 more “lines” men each positioned right behind each goal post. 90% of the questionable calls are made inside the box.

Putting the ball into their own net? Nobody except for Neuer could be absolutely sure at that point the ball went in definitely. Sure, it's a World Cup round of the last 16 match, let's have some tea, sandwiches and put the equalizer ball into our own net for fairness sake. Are you shitting me?!?!?! NO football player WOULD EVER do that in such a situation. Never fucking ever. At least not on this stage.

It was neither Neuer's nor Germany's fault Germany got away with that. It was an abysmal mistake by both of the linesmen. If you are given an advantage like this, you're gladly taking it. I'm not speaking about two times blatant hand play and later lying about it whilst the goal would have stood nevertheless.

Sure, being noble is one thing. But you don't wanna be crucified upside down later on. Not in such a game, not in a World Cup and especially not in a Germany-England game. At that very moment, I believe many people were unsure whether it really went over the line – or not, including the reffing team. It was the sweet smell of redemption for Wembley '66 and giving fans stuff to brag about for years to come. What more could one expect from a football match?

We're not discussing this because we obviousely are on two different sides – the losing and the winning end, solely. But hopefully, we both agree that Germany would have won that match nevertheless.

Of course, some thought is required, but hopefully the case for video technology is made. The game of Soccer lost today. Shame on FIFA

Wow, usually German fans aren't this classless.

So are you suggesting, we keep tolerating this kind of game-changing bad calls forever.

The ball was inroduced in late 2008. Hundreds of sample balls have been sent to the national FA's by Adidas – free of charge – so it wasn't a matter of money, too. If they're not practising with them, it's not the ball's bad. If your league has a different ball sponsor, then well… that's that countries own problem, too.

that's exactly what I thought when it happened.. I saw this actually happened a few years ago in a match between two Japanese clubs.

But even if you are not a pro footballer, if you ever played the game competitively you should know that it takes a whole different culture to execute that chivalry at that moment during the game….

I'm not actually “trying” to be a bad winner on this. It's my opinion. Generalize as much as you want. But my opinion stands and it's just as much worthy as yours.

I wasn't going bonkers like “Ha Ha zees ztupid English zerves zem right”.

Goalmouth referees for now, with the soul purpose of calling goals if they crossed the line. (The National Hockey League has a gentleman sitting behind the net who turns on a flashing red light whenever the puck crosses the goal line). This would solve some of the problems without selling out to technology. Keep the game the way it has been for the last 500+/- years and for the next 500. It could define our human race one day for christs sake.

Simple, copy American Football.
Each coach gets 3 challenges. If he sees an infraction he throws a challange flag and play stops. The officials look at the video replay. If he is correct the call is reversed. If the coach is wrong the call stands and the coach loses a player substitution.

I would add my voice to those calling for video technology. I would suggest a pilot program at, for example, the Champions' League and let the fine tuning happen from there. Certainly there should be a limited amount of calls that can be made.

I really can't stand this notion that the human error factor is an intractable element of football, and that dealing with utterly insane ref calls is “just part of the game” — it feels like a knee-jerk conservative mindset at its most idiotic. If there's a major, persistent problem with the game of football, and a relatively easy way to fix it, why is it such a betrayal to consider making a small change to the game to do so?

Hell, for a long time, football matches were only held during the day, because the lighting technology didn't exist to hold them at night. Red and yellow cards are a relatively new invention. The number of points for a win and a draw have been changed. Stadiums and ticketing procedures have been totally changed to keep people from dying in stampedes. The offside and backpass rules have been altered just in the last 20 years. None of these changes have ruined, or even drastically altered the game of football, and all of these changes have been either a response to technology that enables things that were previously impossible, or as a solution to a persistent problem. Video-replay would be all of the above.

There are so many ways to ensure that the rhythm of the game remains the same while incorporating a “second opinion” on goals and offside calls (a great idea is the one above, in which each side would only have one replay challenge allowed — that would add two minutes to the match, tops, which is far less than players tend to waste arguing about calls as it is). And obviously there's no way to stamp out errors completely. But the fact that there's such resistance to the notion of even TRYING to improve things seems crazy to me. Does anyone actually enjoy seeing a disallowed goal that was totally legit? Do we all love endlessly arguing over whether a particular win was legitimate or not? Do we all want to see a new calciopoli-type situation repeated over and over since refs have the power to decide games, and can easily be corrupted? Isn't it worth a try?

English fans always have to have something to blame for their disappointment in the World Cup. For some time it was Eriksson and not the English players that were the reason England couldn’t score more than 1 goal a game in the World Cup. It was the Swede’s fault they went down on penalties, “England need an English coach,” was the popular catch phrase in 2002 and 2006. So they hired Steve McClaren, who was to be England’s home-grown savior. He became the blame for England’s failure to qualify for Euro 2008 (has since been successful at FC Twente), and Fabio Capello was hired to lead England into this World Cup.
Capello did a great job in qualifying, and it looked like Rooney had come out of his international slump, but those things didn’t carry over to South Africa. Now that England has lost and there is a controversial disallowed goal, this will be England’s scapegoat this World Cup; as it somehow makes people feel better to blame a bad call rather than face the facts that the last decade has shown England—things have to change at the core of English football if England hope to compete with the world elite.
Let’s look at something here, England again failed to score like they were hyped to in this World Cup. Capello did a good job of managing egos, but English football is lacking compared to that of Germany, Argentina, Brazil, and the world elite. Part of this can probably be attributed to the foreign investment in the premiership, and the lack of English players at the top flight clubs there, but it has to come down to the English youth system not producing like other countries. Germany clearly has a youthful team full of world-class talent. Spain’s youth programs are world class, and are responsible for some of Argentina’s success as well. Those teams that have been successful in S. Africa are mostly younger than those that crashed out. Italy, France, and England were filled with squads of World Cups past, and not enough youth to compete this year. They lacked pace, had too much ego, and too high of expectations. This has been the case for England squads as far as I can remember. England fans can complain about the referee all they want, and they have some right to, but that isn’t the reason England crashed out. The reason is that the focus of English football is, and has been wrong for years.
I don’t think replay technology is the answer here. It will slow down the game too much, and even limiting the use of the technology, by giving managers one use per game would give them one extra tactic for time wasting. I can see it being used to scrutinize an equalizing goal and finding one minor infraction to disallow an otherwise good goal. Chip technology is fine, if it is accurate, but it won’t solve the offside issue, and I don’t think it needs to. Let’s keep football relatively pure, and introduce the technologies that will improve the game and not hinder it.

Andy.

It seems to work without contestation in rugby, which has always been a much more conservative game than football. If you were to check into how they have used video technology so successfully, you would realize that most of the arguments you present are quite spurious.

You really think 2 challenges (1 per coach) in 90 mins will waste time? Arguements over blown calls waste time as well.

The referees generally handle the arguments pretty well. However, challenges will waste time. They will also be used as a tactic to try to break up an opposing team's run. At what point is play stopped for the challenge? Do they immediately halt it when the coach throws the flag, or do they wait until the ball is played out of bounds. What if the other team scores before play is halted is, then that good goal disallowed because the one before it was challenged and play was continued? If they halt it immediately, what is to stop the opposing coach from using the flag as a way to break a good run? Is the challenge limited only to goals, or is it available on a perceived foul? What are the limits you suggest, because I still see the potential for misuse.

This isn't American football, and I don't think a challenge system is appropriate here.

To me its simple. Video cameras or at the very least officials stationed on the goal line. Especially given the way the play developed today…where Germany were allowed to play the advantage. Let the advantage be played until a conclusive decision is made. It wouldnt take a minute if video cameras are used. If its a goal, then play is halted and restarted from the center. If its not a goal..let play continue.

Your arugent about wasting time is silly. I am sure most people would say wasting an extra 5 mins is worth it to get a goal call correct. Start with challenging ONLY goals. There are so few goals in most matches this will not be overused. Play stops as soon as the flag is tossed. You mean players don't fake injury to break a good run? TWO challenges per match to insure GAME CHANGING BAD GOALS are prevented seems worth it. And people, stop with the idea that if America does it that means soccer shouldn't.

How about this — a call for a replay can only be used when play is stopped (so no stopping a break to challenge the decision that lead to that break), and must be used on the very next break in play (so no deciding later on that you want to challenge a goal that was scored five minutes ago). This wouldn't be perfect, and it wouldn't catch everything, but it would give an option while still stacking everything in favor of allowing the game to flow.

Or, as another idea, how about an “eye-in-the-sky” type official watching the video monitors who could be cued-in to the ref's earpiece and could make suggestions on offside and goal decisions? (It would be up to the ref to go along with the call or trust his own on-the-pitch judgment.) That wouldn't even be a “replay” — because play wouldn't actually stop to consult the monitors — so much as “an extra linesman with a better view.” I feel like a number of bad offside calls could be cancelled out this way, or things like the Kaka red card, where the ref clearly just didn't see the foul in question and was forced to guess based on the aftermath.

I would say my argument is just fine. I am not demeaning your point any by stating my opinion. The fact is that your idea isn't bad, but it needs to have all the details if you want to convince someone–something you failed to lay out in your initial response. I don't want to see everything challenged, and I don't want to see challenges implemented into strategy. I don't even want to see them implemented. Bad calls exist in every sport, and even the NFL gets it wrong sometimes AFTER they watched the replay. It doesn't always prevent bad calls or avoid controversy, and many “bad” calls are subject to the opinions of the supporter. I am not against it because it is from American football, I am against it because I feel it will impact the flow of the game too much.

The argument isn't silly, implementing a plan will need to be thought out thoroughly to ensure it doesn't damage other aspects of the game. However, you seem to attack anyone who opposes your idea, which is in itself a poor way to prove your point.

Drew it isn't a bad plan. I like your explanation of how it would work. The eye-in-the-sky official would have less impact on the game, which could prevent flow problems. I'd rather not see challenges implemented at all, but to have an official at hand that can officially review a play (with a time limit) for the on-field referee could work. I would be interested to see it tested, as the extra officials in Europa league proved to be no better at getting calls correct.

I said the time wasting argument was silly, not your full argument. Even if just ONE WC game is saved by replay it is worth it. I say limit the delay to 5 mins. After 5 mins the referee MUST make a call. Some calls would require much less. If you think a max of 10 mins out of 90 is too much time “wasted” then I say that is silly.

Rugby is quite a different sport than football in regards to how the play flows. Rugby doesn't have scenarios like the England-Germany game, where play continues even after a potential score. Regardless of whether a try is good or the guy stepped out/was held up, the play is over. The same thing for penalties called. Those key decisions that require a referee judgment, or provide opportunity for video review, occur when the game is stopped naturally. Not so, where a team could enjoy a spell of possession pinning the other team in their own box following an advantage gained via offside.

You also have some teams whose tactics are based on riding that grey area between foul and legal play – the Italian tactic of furbizia for example, which relies on deception and gamesmanship to gain advantage. Adding more rules adds complexity to the game adds opportunities for more cynical play from the players.

I think the bigger issue is that players and us as fans need to accept that life isn't fair, and that success should not be dependent on having the perfect pitch, perfect weather, and everything to be called perfectly. But that it should be as a result of an ability to overcome adversity and outplay, outwit, outlast, outclass your opponent (depending on your footballing philosophy).

Eye in the sky would probably be the most satisfactory. In the case of both, the guy in the booth would have seen a couple of replays within the space of 15 seconds. If something is questionable, the head ref can always radio up and check. But the discretion to do so must remain with the head ref.

On a side note – Kaka's yellow was warranted. He intentionally elbowed the guy. The only error was that the diver wasn't booked as well.

And we have the obligitory Italian bashing comment! This thread is now complete ;)

If FIFA do not do video replay, then they have to add more assistants. In layman's terms they would have a goal judge, but I would want enough assistants to cover all sides of the field. I am talking 2 on each side line, 2 on each end line, plus the 4th official and the referee. The 4th official could not give opinions.

The additional officials would make players think twice about grabbing on free kicks and corner kicks in the box, let alone hand balls. If the ball is on one side of the field, the near assistant can focus on the fouls and if the ball goes out of play, while the far side can focus on offside. On corner kicks and free kicks, one side on the end is in charge of the goal line, the other watching for fouls.

I would also like the clock to stop on goals scored, substitutions and when the stretcher is brought onto the field. Additionally, if a player touches the ball out of bounds, they have 10 seconds to throw it in and 20 seconds on a corner or goal kick. If a player falls down to waste time, play shall continue if the opponent has the ball. If you cannot get off the field, you are not injured. I don't care if it not sporting, faking an injury is not sporting.

What do you think?

Today was a shameful day, video would have solved two mistakes that changed the course of two very important matches, I don't thinl there should be much to change, there is no need to change rules like the decision of the referee to add any time he thinks is needed it doesn't matter how much time was actually lost, Football has never been a game in wich the 90 minutes have to be played like in american football.
You give the fourth referee a tv screen, and when he sees something like the two actions of today he simply warns the first official using the radios they already use, there is no time lost, the fourth official could only act when the mistakes are as clear as they were today, for more close decision then video would only be used if it is requested by the affected team, to avoid the abuse of this resource you only give each time the right to ask for a revision just once during a match, that way they would only request the revision if they are actually sure about the mistake, in this case the first referee would go to the bench and he would check the video, his decission would be final, it would probably be a hard decission and we would still have all the fun of the debate eliminating the many terrible mistakes that have been made recently (appart from today there is Henry's and Luis Fabiano's hands just to name two)

Ah interesting. I didn't know the Italian word “furbizia”, which actually means “cleverness/shrewdness”, had become a full-fledged football tactic. A tactic of course used by Italians to gain an unfair advantage over their opponents.

I guess we owe it to you sir, for illuminating us so. Thank you sir. Thank you oh so much.

Time wasting is hardly an issue, as we could see in the Argentina-Mexico game, the referee was allready taking his time arguing with the linesman (who probably saw he made a big mistake on the big screen above his head, and therefore didnt know what to do). There has to be a way to implement technology to stop, in my oppinion game ruining event such as those that occured today.

I dont think we should be aguing about where to stop neither, if a chip can answer simple questions whether its a goal or not, then put a chip in the damn ball, thats atleast one problem sorted.

and put them chips in their shoes as well, offside solved.

I don't enjoy watching football games anymore because of the way to many referees mistakes. Pretty soon I’ll stop watching soccer all together unless FIFA does something about this. NBA is using cameras to make difficult decisions, FIFA can do it to, and when in doubt the referee can watch the replay, instead of losing time arguing. + it would be the right decision.

Nobody seriously wants video replays for offside, fouls etc – only goal-line decisions which are 100% black and white.

Coming to soccer as a once-every-four-years watcher, I grow increasingly amazed by the FIFA's medieval approach to refereeing every time I watch another world cup. The referees deserve vastly better support than they're getting from FIFA, and technological support is definitely one part of it.

The English invisible goal is probably the worst case scenario for interrupting flow. Because of the missed call, there wasn't a natural stoppage so a video correction would've been unnatural. But is 30-60s of lost play, that can be made up for in injury time, honestly preferable to having a game which ends up purely defined by it's mistake? Cos the rest of that game will be forgotten in 10 years, but the mistake of the invisible goal won't be.

Sensible use of video footage won't slow down matches. Most decisions would obviously involve offsides or informing the ref about carding/diving incidents outside his field of vision. Neither would substantially slow the match & a light hand approach would just clean the quality of play up.

The other key use of video refing would be post match. A post match re-evaluation of cards, dives & general player (mis)conduct via video footage would do a lot to clean up the game. 'Furbizia' is not good play, and the fact there's even a word for it is embarrassing.. having a video review afterwards would go a long way towards cleaning up diving & protect those who're unjustly sent off (Kaka immediately comes to mind..)

If FIFAs approach to video refereeing was attempted in any other football code, they'd be laughed out of town. Many of the concerns regarding speed are legitimate, however in practice misguided. There really are other codes that move just as fast as soccer & don't always have appropriate break-points either. Unfortunately until appropriate video refereeing is put in play you simply won't be able to see why those of us who're used to higher standards in other codes are shaking our heads in bemused dismay.

That kind of thing happens from time to time, and we had the bad luck that happened twice today. Football must stays the way it is, because is what makes it fun, 22 human beings competing and 4 other human beings refereeing. As long as the referee is fair for both teams, he has a right to make mistakes, after all he is human.

You just need an extra official watching the game on a tv screen and give the referee useful information in almost real time (just as the linesmen do btw). No stopping the game, no overruling the ref; just extra information. Wouldn't affect doubtful decisions (disallowed goal from USA against Slovenia for example) but surely VERY clear mistakes such as… you know.

I agree with this – tennis has 6 line judges and an umpire for a smaller court and only two players. Expecting that four refs can possibly see everything on a football pitch is crazy. So before introducing expensive technology that will certainly have unintended consequences, add more refs to the field – one at each goal line, one on each side to follow the ball, and one at each side to monitor off-side.
So seven refs in total – surely that is doable at this level of play?

There's no reason why FIFA can't implement a range of officiating arrangements and technologies suited to the various levels of the game. Keep the status quo where money is an issue. Next step is adding up to 4 more linesmen to cover entire perimeter of pitch. For the big TV leagues you can add goal line sensors and instant replay for goal-related action. One size does not have to fit all. There is nothing more human than adapting to local conditions. It's what we do and it's what FIFA should do.

As a referee I think the one thing that should be done is the addition of goal line technology to assist the decision in high profile games because the linesman will be with the last defender not the goal line on outside shots. In regards to offside that is a judgement call on the part of the officials, being in a offside position is not an infringement of the rules unless the offending player affects play. To add more technology would slow the game and not add to the end result. There will always be controversial calls since many in the game are a judgement by the officials based on their interpretation of what happened. An end of game video review is always a useful tool to help the officials improve their understanding of what may have actually transpired.

STOP CALLING IT THAT!!!

Are people forgetting that FIFA did try goal line technology using specially made balls with sensors and microchips placed all around the ball to notify the referee when the ball completely crossed the goal line? I believe that was the U21 tournament in Brazil. And that technology failed miserably. The technology called goal when only a part of the ball crossed the line, and it even flat out missed a call when the ball ended up in the back of the net. People scream for technology but from my point of view technology isn't at a point to help. Only cause more problems.

The biggest problem with refereeing in this World Cup is not that the referee's don't know the rules it is that they aren't in the right position. The speed of the players and the speed of play are always increasing but the referee's aren't 22 year old super athletes. FIFA needs to find a way to have referee's be in better positions to make the calls. This might mean adding another referee in the middle of the field.

goal line technology, chips in balls etc is crap, for international games and big tournements they should use the tv replay option at the referees dicretion as in rugby, a big plus of this would be players thinking twice before throwing themselves on the ground trying to have an oponent booked or sent off unfairly, i think the referees would welcome it to as it would stop all these donkeys ganging up on them and trying to intimadate them when they make a decision that goes against them, it would go a long way to weeding out the cheats, and clearing up the dodgy decisions ie, offside, hand balls, diving,goals or not, so when the donkeys get used to it it will actually improve the speed and quality of the game.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? 1) 2 extra officials on the goal lines, watching for goals, goal kicks, corner kicks, fouls and dives. 2) Video replay on the sideline with the fourth official who will immediately inform the referee via wireless if a call was missed/incorrect. It doesn't matter if play has continued. If a call was missed and the fourth official alerts the ref, the ref simply stops play and awards the goal. Play on.

I am baffled at the argument that this will take credibility away from the referee. It can only empower him to make the correct decisions by using all of the eyes of his “team” of officials.

I also like the idea of each team being given two opportunities to contest a call. If they feel a call was missed or incorrect, they can only challenge it twice, through the fourth official.

This issue of technology has been in contention for ages now, I don't see this scenario changing much. FIFA could make up their minds in approving the use of technology if they wanted to, but it's pretty obvious that they don't. And that makes sense. Looking at other sports, we have to ask ourselves: why aren't these as popular as soccer in the world today? I think it's because tech- aids would have an adverse effect on the excitement of the game today. Andy also has a point here, stating that “teams might just appeal anyway even if there appears to be no infringement on the offchance that there was an offense they hadn’t noticed.” I could already see this happening. Use extra officials, fine, but the introduction of technology would do us any good!

This would only mean that the focus of soccer would shift from the players and the game to the referees, number of call challenges left, etc. That's no fun to me. I love soccer, and I see technology changing so many aspects of that. 'Extra officials' is fine, technology, not so much.