Slashdot Mirror


Has Video Refereeing Ruined The World Cup? (npr.org)

An anonymous reader shares a report: This is the first time FIFA, soccer's governing body, has allowed video replay to be used to make penalty calls in a World Cup. And while fans of basketball and American football are used to the referees stopping the game to consult video footage, soccer purists say it's ruining everything. The major complaint is that it's making the matches much longer than the typical 90-minute games. Martin Rogers, a sports columnist for USA Today, says Video Assistant Referee (or VAR) is "slow, clunky and unpredictable." Over the phone from Russia, where he's reporting on the World Cup, he jokes, "I remember back in the day, when if a game kicked off at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, you'd be all wrapped up by 4:45."

Rogers says this type of technology works well for American football and basketball. "When you look at the calls that are used for replay, in basketball for example, it's normally factual. It's based on, 'Did a player get a shot off before the clock expired?' It's easy. You know. It's black and white." But soccer, Rogers says, is different. He's referring to one of the most hated and beloved qualities of the game: the endless drama. It's a thespian sport.

32 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.

    Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ^^^^ That one rule change would eliminate the great majority of the drama. I might even start watching games again.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.

      Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.

      Ryan Fenton

      Treat it the same way that American football treats concussions. The player should be removed from play and undergo and pass a series of tests and evaluations from an independent physician before they are allowed to return to the field.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped

    4. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped

      Exactly this. A dive should be treated as a red card offense- and it should be allowed to be awarded after the game too- so the player is banned from the next fixture. 3 dives in a season and you are banned for one calendar year.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on, that blatantly fake injury stuff is entertaining to watch. I feel it adds to the sport.

      If you like that, might I suggest WWE?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    6. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by hypertex · · Score: 2

      VAR is an attempt to put a halt to the drama. Goal-line technology not so much, but still needed. IMHO, if a match goes to extra time, the teams should be limited in some way to make a goal more likely; my pet idea is to have the keeper lose the ability to use 'his' hands. Perhaps one day there will be an honest discussion on this topic.

    7. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlike American football, soccer has only a limited number of allowed replacements. Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team or allowing for free replacements of injured players in which case they will start taking dives just for that

    8. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Wow, this thread got weird in a hurry.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by satcat · · Score: 2

      Here is analysis by the 538 statistics site, which explains roughly how the timing is supposed to work... and how they are always shortchanging the added time, regularly in excess of 10 minutes.

      https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

    10. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.

      The referee times the match. The displayed clock is not the official timing.

      The referee has the ability, and the responsibility, to add time when players are using up time just to use up time, or when there is a significant stoppage of play. E.g., during a substitution the departing player dawdles getting off the field. If the goalie dawdles in executing a goal kick. If a fight breaks out that stops play. If a player has an injury that requires transport off the pitch. One instance during a recent cup match was when one team was awarded a free kick and a member of the opposing team carried the ball away from the free kick location. (Many of these time-wasting tactics merit and get yellow cards.)

      It's called "stoppage time" because it is intended to make up for deliberate stoppage of play.

      Those delays can, and often do, occur during the stoppage time already added. If a team is ahead by a goal, they are going to try slowing things down as much as they can.

      It just seemed arbitrary.

      Many calls by a referee can seem arbitrary. What exactly merits an red card? How about a yellow? Penalty kick? It's all judgement calls, unless it is a truly egregious violation. Even "hand ball" is sometimes arbitrary. Referee judgement, was the arm or hand in a normal position and not a deliberate action?

      Shouldn't time mean TIME..and when it runs out, it is over?

      It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.

      IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?

      Because it's a different game. It doesn't operate under the same assumption that there must always be a winner of every match. In fact, the overall "winners" are determined by the overall performance during the season. The exception is the last rounds of the world cup where it is a head-to-head competition and the winner is based on the result of one match.

      Note that even US football has issues with time, but they are hidden because there is an official clock displayed on the scoreboard. The refs can and do add time to the clock, and the clock STOPS. What really really annoys me about US football is that the last "two minutes" of a game can run for 45 minutes. If that's not an issue with "time means TIME", then I don't know what is.

      And the guy in the summary who is unhappy that a match that starts at 3PM doesn't end at 4:45PM on the dot -- he's just an idiot. Stoppage time has been a thing for a very long time.

    11. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Many calls by a referee can seem arbitrary.

      It is very important that the team who loses can say "we woz robbed!" - it keeps up the spirits of the downhearted. it keeps supporters loyal to hopeless teams.

      Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill - also important given the chronic lack of skills possessed by some teams, and lack of team spirit in others. It is also great for the bookies.

      Soccer is not about playing the game, its about belonging to a group.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    12. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Spoken like someone who has never played football in his life. Football is a very physical sport,

      If football is very physical then Rugby should be governed by the Geneva Convention.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill

      People who fundamentally don't understand the game often come to that conclusion. There is very little luck involved. A typically goal keeper may directly defend upwards of 20 shots at the goal. It may seem like like luck of the draw if it gets passed him, but ultimately he doesn't have a big area to defend. He can get to pretty much any part of goal to defend providing he's not outnumbered.

      And that's where the skill comes in. If you're relying on "luck" of a goalkeeper you've already displayed a lack of skills needed to win the game, which is done by defending your side of the field.

      Saw a rugby match this week that was 6 to 12. Does the fact that they count faster mean it is less lucky by your definition?

    14. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team

      In order for that to be relevant someone needs to actually be injured. Punishing the teams in question sounds like a great idea. How many times have we see Neymar with an "injury" so severe that they brought a stretcher on the field, only for the ref to not award a card and him to jump up and sprint back into play.

      Punish the player, and punish the team. Bonus points if you also punish the coach somehow.

      The number of injured players who actually come off the game are incredibly small.

  2. not by a long shot. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whats ruined the world cup? A few things about FIFA soccer in general should have been coffin nails for the agency..
    1. fixed matches and corruption. FIFA has a long, long history of total corruption as it pertains to the sport. Despots have chaired it with impunity and most of the executives could easily mistake a trombone for a four star hotel.
    2. Racism. turning the live coverage black and white is a novel idea to give viewers at home a sense of when racism is taking place in stadiums, but its a hollow gesture designed to punish the many for the actions of the few. Something I might add which is illegal under the Geneva conventions. Instead of cleaning up racist actors and venues, FIFA has decided the saturation knob is good enough.
    3. Cowards.: plain and simple. Mediocre "superstar" players paid millions that feign injury and agony at the slightest encounter with even a slightly more qualified opponent. Youre representing an entire country. Act like it.
    4. Riots.: Riots and rioters are something FIFA has decided must remain a cost socialized to the general public. Instead of stripping teams of wins or removing them from future play, FIFA stares at its collective shoes and does nothing. Disclosure: My Citroen burned like a fucking candle during the Glasgow riots, so i might not be impartial to this point.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  3. No by campuscodi · · Score: 2

    No. It made it tons better.

  4. Video Refereeing Certainly Changes the Game by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    A big part of soccer is that there should be minimal interruptions so that the team that is well coordinated with the most fit players are going to have an advantage. The extra time needed to review calls gives the players a chance for a breather as well as consult/plan going forwards. This means that you will get a different game than if there wasn't video refereeing.

    Other games (baseball, football, hockey) that use video refereeing tend to have longer and more natural breaks so the flow of the game isn't as affected as soccer.

    I don't know if video refereeing "ruins" the game (I'm not enough of a fan to have a strong opinion) but I'm sure purists would.

    1. Re:Video Refereeing Certainly Changes the Game by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Informative

      While there are increased delays, there were already delays. An extra 30ish seconds after the goal already went into the net, to see if it should be cancelled is not appreciably different than the arguing that is normal when a controversial call or non-call happens. At least now a ref can say shut up and I am going to look at the video with my own eyes.

      As for real game stopping delays for reviewing general non-calls, they do not stop play for that. Rather the video is reviewed an the ref on the field is consulted once the next throw in or whatever break happens.

  5. So it was a citroenella candle? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Disclosure: My Citroen burned like a fucking candle

    Maybe someone was trying to keep the bugs away and got.confused.

    https://www.homedepot.com/b/Ou...

  6. Not sure this is /. material by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not sure this is /. material, but I'll bite, as I occasionally watch football (sic), mostly national games like in the world cup or big CL games etc.
    In any case, I thought that VAR should have come much sooner, as the unavailability of a replay is the excuse referees always had for bad result-altering decisions. In fact, on this world cup I saw that the problem was the opposite: currently the referree has to ASK for VAR. In one match for example, Sweden's attacker Berg should have won a penalty, but the referree was adamant it was not end did not ask for VAR. Well, he was wrong, and the procedure should have been such that the VAR room people should have told him themselves "eh, you know, don't be so sure about that". I am not a Sweeden fan, just one occasion I remember, there were a few more but not many. I'd also want video review to punish players who flop. Because maybe then they would stop flopping, which would lead to a much better game (they often stop trying to score a goal just to fake a foul/penalty).
    Overall VAR helped deliver some tough calls and lead to a much more fair sport and it added a couple of minutes to the duration of each match, which is a completely idiotic reason to complain about. And there are many black/white calls in football (ball passing lines, offsides etc) and hopefully those will be the first to be handed off to some good AI/Machine Vision system to call, but harder things like penalty calls will take more time for that and VAR is not a perfect, but the best solution so far.

    Why am I debating VAR on /. again? :)

    PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball), and they weren't even in the world cup. Yeah, OK, you might say it is not fair since he is an American reporter so what can he do, but then think about that he reports on the world cup and is bothered by the fact that the games don't finish in 1h 45m - Newsflash: THEY NEVER DID, we always had an unpredictable number of extra minutes which was never less than about 3-4 per game and sometimes went to over 10, way beyond the time VAR took (for most games it was like a minute).

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)

      Na, we here in the US know other countries call it football. We call it soccer here. It's not that complicated. Football is a word we use for another sport (a sport where every drive ends with a kick by design).

      The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself. It would be like calling all American football "NFL" even if it was played in Cuba... by kids in the street. Or saying high school kids in Italy are playing in the NBA if they play rounders at lunch.

      My problem is not that you have a different name for football- my problem is that the name is... well, wrong and inaccurate.

      MLS in the US is not part of the English "Football asSOCiation" (what the name originally came from) any more than kids playing rounders in school are part of MLB. It's not that the name is different- it's that it is technically WRONG.

      I live with it, I mean, I understand that's what Americans call it now- but I feel like there should really be a better name for it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Not sure this is /. material by jetkust · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With a quick google search the term soccer is from the original name of the sport itself, "association football" and not from "Football Association", the governing body. So I don't see how either term is "wrong".

  7. what about an real clock not this stoppage time by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    what about an real clock not this stoppage time

  8. Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Soccer (football) is a decent sport. However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed. This way an attacker can be waiting down towards the goal, receive a kick and score. Also, there wouldn't be these stupid calls where the person was offside by six inches and they take a free kick.

    Still - planning on going to France for the Women's World Cup next year. At least they don't fall to the ground as much as the men.

    1. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which just shows that you know nothing about football. In schoolyards all over Europe, children play informal football games without referees, where the offside rule is never enforced. The end result is all too often for the children to stay bunched up in front of their respective goals - i.e. a game in which nothing much happens. The offside rule is one the fundamental rules of football.

    2. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed./quote?

      No it would be a fundamentally different game if offside rules were removed. You should try playing at social clubs sometime. There's a wide variety out there with many rules across both indoor and outdoor. There is nothing "improved" by removing offside rules. You just end up playing a completely different game with different strategies, player positioning, and the result is very different to watch too often turning into a lobbing game.

    3. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Straif · · Score: 2

      Being Canadian I've always preferred the hockey style offside rule which is zone based as opposed to defending player position based. Basically the field would just have to be split into 3 zones, a zone for each team and a neutral zone. An attacking player could not enter the defenders zone unless they are in possession of the ball or the ball has already entered first. After that point all play is considered onside unless the ball exits the zone.

      This prevents long range goal camping, as you can't enter the defending zone without the ball already being there, but doesn't require attackers to have to stay behind the defense once in the defending zone so they can be a little more aggressive in their play.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  9. Re:referees are players too by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

    What you describe works very well for 95% of the regular season games, so that is probably good enough.

    But it very clearly often fails for "big games" where players are strongly incentivized to game the referee. Then it is 1 vs 22 on the field, and the ARs offer very little help.

    In big games, clearly there are players who do not care who gets injured and do not care about anything the referee has to say about that purposeful foul, other than a yellow card. The normal tools for persuading players do not work. In fact, the higher profile means the referees feel greater pressure to err on the side of not enforcing the rules, because they will always be criticized for an ejection in an important match even when it is 100% justified.

  10. Team games are just RNGs by devslash0 · · Score: 2

    Team sports have too much entropy for me to enjoy them. If I need a pseudorandom value I simply go and get it instantly from /dev/random. If your algorithm needs 90-odd minutes to generate a sample of two positive integers then perhaps you should consider choosing a different career path.

  11. VAR has reversed some bad calls by Kwelstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My overall feeling in this cup is that VAR has been a well overdue positive innovation. I've seen some bad calls, included penalties, reversed because of VAR. There is nothing worst than losing a game on a bad penalty call by the ref. I am glad this is finally happening.

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
  12. Will take time to get right. by John+Allsup · · Score: 2

    This is the first time out with VAR. We should not expect them to have it perfect yet.

    --
    John_Chalisque