First, dear Irish people: lose the chip on your shoulder. It's old. Regarding their appeal for a World Cup Replay, Irish Justice Minister Ahern had this to say:
"They probably won't grant it as we are minnows in world football," Ahern said, "but let's put them on the spot anyway."
*YAWN*. You're Ireland. You have good players who start in Europe. I just got through watching US vs Denmark, where Dax McCarthy got midfield playing time. You want to talk about minnows.
That said: y'all got screwed. Badly. You will certainly not get a replay. But you could jump on the bandwagon and start supporting a different kind of replay.
Here's the clip, plus a Melissa Theriault style hot-French-reporter-lady:
PS: Dear Robbie Keane: YOU ARE THE BIGGEST WOMAN ON THE PLANET. After Barca beat Chelsea despite questionable calls in the latest CL seminfinals, John Terry went to the Barca lockerroom and congratulated them on a good game, and wished them luck. I'm confident that we'll have to listen to your whining until the next World Cup.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
(Extra) Extra Time for United
The Guardian shows off their statistical prowess with on this article describing how ManU gets more added time when they're not winning than when they're winning.
Here's my letter to The Guardian regarding their awesome, yet flawed article:
Dear Guardian Football Section,
Your recent article "Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it" provides a fascinating first cut at a very interesting problem. Mainly, is there systematic referee bias in favor of the big four clubs. I applaud you data collection effort and sincerely hope that you continue in these types of studies. The lack of parity in football is one of the most pressing issues in the sport today, and systematic referee bias is one potential facet that could need to be addressed.
That said, I think your argument suffers from several serious flaws.
First, consider this alternate explanation: when the big four are not winning, more added time is called for because of the tactics used by their opponent. If MUFC is losing, it's likely that the other team has found a goal somewhere (via United mistake, counter, etc.) and has promptly sat back to defend in the trenches. Obviously, this doesn't occur every time United aren't leading, but this is a frequent occurrence. Often, this "defending" involves constantly putting the ball out of play, rolling on the ground for several minutes after every single challenge, goalies who forget that they need to return the ball to play eventually, etc. The Big Four throw around the term "anti-football" (which honestly usually just comes across as whining). But with regards to extra time, these tactics warrant more extra time.
Second, a relevant question that the article omits is "United get more extra time compared to whom?" Fundamentally, the article is concerned with the ratio of "added time when not winning to added time when winning." But looking at this number for United alone doesn't tell us anything. We need to know what the rate is for every team in order to compare United's number to something relevant. If anything, the numbers for the other Big Four members suggest United gets less added time than their peers. What about home and away splits? Maybe home teams get more added time when not winning in general? In any study like yours, it's important to consider the relevant "counterfactual" to your argument.
Third, your study does not control for important ommitted variables like number of goals scored, number of cards awarded, etc. In econometrics, we call this "ommitted variable bias." Since you aren't considering all of the relevant information, it's possible that you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
Once again, I sincerely applaud your effort. As a suggestion for further research, I think it would be interesting to answer the question "Are referees more likely to award fouls/penalties to the Big Four than to other clubs?" We would need data on the number of challenges initiated against players and the number of times they're awarded a foul/penalty, so that we can tap into the probability that any challenge results in a foul, and then compare this across teams and players.
Here's my letter to The Guardian regarding their awesome, yet flawed article:
Dear Guardian Football Section,
Your recent article "Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it" provides a fascinating first cut at a very interesting problem. Mainly, is there systematic referee bias in favor of the big four clubs. I applaud you data collection effort and sincerely hope that you continue in these types of studies. The lack of parity in football is one of the most pressing issues in the sport today, and systematic referee bias is one potential facet that could need to be addressed.
That said, I think your argument suffers from several serious flaws.
First, consider this alternate explanation: when the big four are not winning, more added time is called for because of the tactics used by their opponent. If MUFC is losing, it's likely that the other team has found a goal somewhere (via United mistake, counter, etc.) and has promptly sat back to defend in the trenches. Obviously, this doesn't occur every time United aren't leading, but this is a frequent occurrence. Often, this "defending" involves constantly putting the ball out of play, rolling on the ground for several minutes after every single challenge, goalies who forget that they need to return the ball to play eventually, etc. The Big Four throw around the term "anti-football" (which honestly usually just comes across as whining). But with regards to extra time, these tactics warrant more extra time.
Second, a relevant question that the article omits is "United get more extra time compared to whom?" Fundamentally, the article is concerned with the ratio of "added time when not winning to added time when winning." But looking at this number for United alone doesn't tell us anything. We need to know what the rate is for every team in order to compare United's number to something relevant. If anything, the numbers for the other Big Four members suggest United gets less added time than their peers. What about home and away splits? Maybe home teams get more added time when not winning in general? In any study like yours, it's important to consider the relevant "counterfactual" to your argument.
Third, your study does not control for important ommitted variables like number of goals scored, number of cards awarded, etc. In econometrics, we call this "ommitted variable bias." Since you aren't considering all of the relevant information, it's possible that you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
Once again, I sincerely applaud your effort. As a suggestion for further research, I think it would be interesting to answer the question "Are referees more likely to award fouls/penalties to the Big Four than to other clubs?" We would need data on the number of challenges initiated against players and the number of times they're awarded a foul/penalty, so that we can tap into the probability that any challenge results in a foul, and then compare this across teams and players.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Illegal Transfer Approaches and Bad Journalism
If you've read any soccer news outlet in the last week, you'll know that the outrage de jour is over illegal approaches by big clubs to steal younger talent from smaller clubs. Chelski and Man U have been targeted most prominently with these accusations.
As for whether or not Chelsea and Man U have been cheating, all I can say is: smoke... fire... probably cheating. But that's not for me to decide.
I decided to do extensive research in the FIFA/UEFA rules to provide you, the reader, with valuable pseudo-journalistic insight.
My conclusion: "Having a club that is wayyyyy better than your podunk, never gonna compete in Europe, allow me to sell 10,000,000 jerseys, bang a different model each night, so that the younger player signs with my good club instead of your crap club" is not a crime.
In the Pogba case against Chelsea, the allegations are that Chelsea offered Pogba's parents incentives to get Pogba to sign with Chelsea. This seems pretty illegal to me.
But with the slew of other allegations, we don't see anything like this.
Example, this rant on ESPN from Ken Bates where he accuses United of "baby farming." Other hyperbolic terms I've seen recently have included "child trafficking." First, what is this "Leeds" club of which you speak? For me, Leeds is like some relic of the 80's that you kinda remember, but not really: like slap bracelets. Second, "baby farming"? Really? (Where is all this hyperbole when it comes to diving!?!?!) Third, for me to care one iota about any of these accusations, I need the teeny clubs to say why the big clubs have cheated.
I also included "bad journalism" in this post because I blame the journalists. Instead of getting facts and reporting, they regurgitate hyperbolic spew from coaches. *YAWN*
Thank goodness the international week is almost over. Wake me when the US is done thrashing T&T.
As for whether or not Chelsea and Man U have been cheating, all I can say is: smoke... fire... probably cheating. But that's not for me to decide.
I decided to do extensive research in the FIFA/UEFA rules to provide you, the reader, with valuable pseudo-journalistic insight.
My conclusion: "Having a club that is wayyyyy better than your podunk, never gonna compete in Europe, allow me to sell 10,000,000 jerseys, bang a different model each night, so that the younger player signs with my good club instead of your crap club" is not a crime.
In the Pogba case against Chelsea, the allegations are that Chelsea offered Pogba's parents incentives to get Pogba to sign with Chelsea. This seems pretty illegal to me.
But with the slew of other allegations, we don't see anything like this.
Example, this rant on ESPN from Ken Bates where he accuses United of "baby farming." Other hyperbolic terms I've seen recently have included "child trafficking." First, what is this "Leeds" club of which you speak? For me, Leeds is like some relic of the 80's that you kinda remember, but not really: like slap bracelets. Second, "baby farming"? Really? (Where is all this hyperbole when it comes to diving!?!?!) Third, for me to care one iota about any of these accusations, I need the teeny clubs to say why the big clubs have cheated.
I also included "bad journalism" in this post because I blame the journalists. Instead of getting facts and reporting, they regurgitate hyperbolic spew from coaches. *YAWN*
Thank goodness the international week is almost over. Wake me when the US is done thrashing T&T.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
European Apathy = Bad Soccer
I'd like to now make a deliberately inflammatory generalization about millions of people based on one anectdote:
Europeans are apathetic about the effects of their ridiculous diving antics and judicial incompetence on the game of soccer.
Example, this quote in The Times from a Slovenian midfielder after his team was screwed out of a World Cup Qualifier point because of Wayne "Who me? I never dive!" Rooney.
Hamidovic’s complaints were echoed by Nejc Pecnik, the midfield player. “It didn’t look like a penalty to me, but we must accept it,” he said. “Rooney went down far too easily and because he is a big name it made it easier for the referee to make a decision.
"Lots of people dive in football, that’s sport, and if the referee whistles, it’s a penalty. Maybe he fell, but I don’t know. When Rooney went down he kicked Cesar and he’s twisted his ankle. We were very unlucky — our player was injured and somehow England got a penalty.”
HOW IS THIS OK?
No, Mr. Pechnjaiskjdik, just because the referee blows his whistle, it is NOT a penalty. Oftentimes, the referee just blows.
Why isn't there outrage, rioting in the streets? (Continentals/Frogs, I'm looking your direction since you do it for everything else...)
In basketball, the commish Stern has come out pretty strongly against flopping, even though flopping isn't anywhere near the main problem in basketball. (That, of course would be the lack of respect for Ron Artest's right hook). But you just don't see it in soccer. The general attitude is "Oh well, my team got totally jobbed by a bad call in this crucial game... that's soccer."
On a more reality-based note: I think it's time people actually found out if certain teams are more frequently being awarded penalties. This would be pretty easy data to collect, especially since you know who refereed each match. Does referee X give Arsenal penalties at a higher rate than to Boro? My hunch is that certain things could be shown to effect the probability that you get a penalty:
(Let's table the myriad endogeneity problems for now)
1) Home/Away: I bet the home team gets more penalties awarded, and not just because they attack more (potential endogeneity problem)
2) Size of club: I bet big name clubs get awarded penalties more often, even controlling for similar endogeneity problems.
3) Referee heterogeneity: I bet some referees give penalties at different rates overall.
Etc.
UEFA, as soon as you start reading my blog, send me a large check and I'll do this research for you. Or I'll do the research for free if Drogba and Kaka agree to sing "Ebony and Ivory" at the next FIFA awards banquet.
Europeans are apathetic about the effects of their ridiculous diving antics and judicial incompetence on the game of soccer.
Example, this quote in The Times from a Slovenian midfielder after his team was screwed out of a World Cup Qualifier point because of Wayne "Who me? I never dive!" Rooney.
Hamidovic’s complaints were echoed by Nejc Pecnik, the midfield player. “It didn’t look like a penalty to me, but we must accept it,” he said. “Rooney went down far too easily and because he is a big name it made it easier for the referee to make a decision.
"Lots of people dive in football, that’s sport, and if the referee whistles, it’s a penalty. Maybe he fell, but I don’t know. When Rooney went down he kicked Cesar and he’s twisted his ankle. We were very unlucky — our player was injured and somehow England got a penalty.”
HOW IS THIS OK?
No, Mr. Pechnjaiskjdik, just because the referee blows his whistle, it is NOT a penalty. Oftentimes, the referee just blows.
Why isn't there outrage, rioting in the streets? (Continentals/Frogs, I'm looking your direction since you do it for everything else...)
In basketball, the commish Stern has come out pretty strongly against flopping, even though flopping isn't anywhere near the main problem in basketball. (That, of course would be the lack of respect for Ron Artest's right hook). But you just don't see it in soccer. The general attitude is "Oh well, my team got totally jobbed by a bad call in this crucial game... that's soccer."
On a more reality-based note: I think it's time people actually found out if certain teams are more frequently being awarded penalties. This would be pretty easy data to collect, especially since you know who refereed each match. Does referee X give Arsenal penalties at a higher rate than to Boro? My hunch is that certain things could be shown to effect the probability that you get a penalty:
(Let's table the myriad endogeneity problems for now)
1) Home/Away: I bet the home team gets more penalties awarded, and not just because they attack more (potential endogeneity problem)
2) Size of club: I bet big name clubs get awarded penalties more often, even controlling for similar endogeneity problems.
3) Referee heterogeneity: I bet some referees give penalties at different rates overall.
Etc.
UEFA, as soon as you start reading my blog, send me a large check and I'll do this research for you. Or I'll do the research for free if Drogba and Kaka agree to sing "Ebony and Ivory" at the next FIFA awards banquet.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Fergie Weighs in On Eduardo and Replay
Fergie Quote article #1:
Fergie: UEFA right to punish Arsenal star Eduardo
Fergie Quote article #2:
Ferguson agrees with Wenger on Eduardo
If your immediate reaction was "???" then you were not alone.
When you read the actual Fergie quotes inside, you see that Fergie's argument is actually pretty reasonable. He says "Eduardo dove and should be punished." AND "That UEFA should be consistent in their rulings."
The soccer media (esp the English) has a penchant for cherry picking select quotes from high profile managers, flagrantly omitting any context, and basically misrepresenting their opinions with the sole intention of stoking controversy. Shame on you for dishonest journalism.
I'll omit a rant about the hypocrisy of Fergie's "No manager ever wants to win by diving" sermonizing. The folks at arsenal-mania.com do a better job than me about this.
But the main point is this: The high profile managers WANT consistent replay usage. They DO NOT disagree over this, in principle, even if they disagree over specific incidents. Actual examination of their opinions shows that the opinion in favor of anti-diving replay is growing, despite the facade of disagreement that the media displays.
I hope UEFA and FIFA take note. The revolution is coming.
Fergie: UEFA right to punish Arsenal star Eduardo
Fergie Quote article #2:
Ferguson agrees with Wenger on Eduardo
If your immediate reaction was "???" then you were not alone.
When you read the actual Fergie quotes inside, you see that Fergie's argument is actually pretty reasonable. He says "Eduardo dove and should be punished." AND "That UEFA should be consistent in their rulings."
The soccer media (esp the English) has a penchant for cherry picking select quotes from high profile managers, flagrantly omitting any context, and basically misrepresenting their opinions with the sole intention of stoking controversy. Shame on you for dishonest journalism.
I'll omit a rant about the hypocrisy of Fergie's "No manager ever wants to win by diving" sermonizing. The folks at arsenal-mania.com do a better job than me about this.
But the main point is this: The high profile managers WANT consistent replay usage. They DO NOT disagree over this, in principle, even if they disagree over specific incidents. Actual examination of their opinions shows that the opinion in favor of anti-diving replay is growing, despite the facade of disagreement that the media displays.
I hope UEFA and FIFA take note. The revolution is coming.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
New Anti-Replay Argument Added to "To Do" List
UEFA (read: Michel "Complete Former and Current Pansy" Platini) opposes video review of diving because it would "undermine the authority of the referee."
Wow, this one's gonna need a whole post. Forthcoming.
Arsene Wenger anger at dive verdict likely to grow;
No plans to use video evidence on regular basis
Wow, this one's gonna need a whole post. Forthcoming.
Arsene Wenger anger at dive verdict likely to grow;
No plans to use video evidence on regular basis
Wayne Rooney: Constipated or Diving?
Wayne Rooney, AKA Diving Shrek, Claims He's Not a Diver - Times Online
Monsieur Rooney, regardless of whether or not you're a diver, you are an idiot:
From the Times Online:
"Rather than rely on television evidence, Rooney feels the referee is the best person to deal with such issues, even if there are instances when he might get it wrong.
'It is difficult to prove,' he said. 'You see some that should not have been penalties but get given and others that are clear and do not. The decisions are down to the referee. It is a difficult job but they do the best they can.'"
Here's the actual conversation:Interviewer: So what are you're feelings on diving and instant replay?
Rooney (nervously fidgeting with simian-shaped ears): Errrmmm, since I'm from United, Fergie is real strict about what we say about this in the media, since, uhhhh, you know (leaning in and whispering) *we're a bunch of huge diving pansies*.
Interviewer (cleaning spit out of ear): I won't tell. Do you think there should be instant replay?
Rooney (whistling at female intern who has just delivered coffee): Well, it's really hard to tell who's diving. So we should stick with the referees even though they're worse at telling who's diving and who isn't. They're trying their best. I mean, they only make game altering mistakes *some* of the time.
Interviewer: You're an idiot.
Rooney punches interviewer in the face.
PS: You're also a F***ing liar.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Eduardo Diving Farse
UEFA bans Eduardo for 2 Champions League matches - Soccer - SI.com
Some initial thoughts:
1) He dove. For real. Like seriously dove.
2) I do not buy Arsene Wenger's "he broke his leg so he's avoiding contact" argument. Eduardo fears contact because of a bad past experience like I fear putting 10 tablespoons of Sriracha hot sauce on my late-night drunk-food veggie burger. No matter how many times I get burned in the morning, come next Friday, we all know I'll be right back at it.
3) I DO buy AW's argument about consistency in application of the rules.
Was Eduardo's dive worse than all the other dives in ECL matches this year?
It wasn't.
Does UEFA think that this will deter diving?
It won't.
Is UEFA going to revisit things like Messi's headbutt (AW's example) or, say... Cristiano Ronaldo's career?
They won't.
That said, an enemy of my enemy is friend, I suppose. So here's to you Scottish FA, for arguing in favor of video review of diving. Your gritty and inelegant style of football, which warms this American's heart, would benefit greatly from de-pansy-fication of soccer.
Finally, will the Scottish FA continue this noble crusade, proving that this wasn't a one-time political maneuver to give sniffling Celtic a consolation prize after getting stormed by the Gunners? (They got stormed. Like seriously stormed.)
They won't.
***Update:
The times posts a great article about just how silly UEFA has been on the Eduardo situation. While the journalist likes UEFA's "two more referees plan," which is -50 life points, he does present some good arguments and advance this debate.
Eduardo ban the worst case of Uefa bungling, says Patrick Barclay
Some initial thoughts:
1) He dove. For real. Like seriously dove.
2) I do not buy Arsene Wenger's "he broke his leg so he's avoiding contact" argument. Eduardo fears contact because of a bad past experience like I fear putting 10 tablespoons of Sriracha hot sauce on my late-night drunk-food veggie burger. No matter how many times I get burned in the morning, come next Friday, we all know I'll be right back at it.
3) I DO buy AW's argument about consistency in application of the rules.
Was Eduardo's dive worse than all the other dives in ECL matches this year?
It wasn't.
Does UEFA think that this will deter diving?
It won't.
Is UEFA going to revisit things like Messi's headbutt (AW's example) or, say... Cristiano Ronaldo's career?
They won't.
That said, an enemy of my enemy is friend, I suppose. So here's to you Scottish FA, for arguing in favor of video review of diving. Your gritty and inelegant style of football, which warms this American's heart, would benefit greatly from de-pansy-fication of soccer.
Finally, will the Scottish FA continue this noble crusade, proving that this wasn't a one-time political maneuver to give sniffling Celtic a consolation prize after getting stormed by the Gunners? (They got stormed. Like seriously stormed.)
They won't.
***Update:
The times posts a great article about just how silly UEFA has been on the Eduardo situation. While the journalist likes UEFA's "two more referees plan," which is -50 life points, he does present some good arguments and advance this debate.
Eduardo ban the worst case of Uefa bungling, says Patrick Barclay
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Future Anti Box Replay Arguments
This is a list of arguments that I have heard against replays in soccer, that'll I'll be responding to in the future. Add any ones that you believe or can think of.
1) Finances: Replay is expensive, and it will create a divide between clubs that can afford it and those that cannot.
2) Tradition: Diving is a part of soccer, and there is a lot of skill involved in doing it correctly.
3) Legends: Replay means that we won't have legendary incidents like at Wembley and Maradona's Hand of God Goal.
4) Bias/More contraversy: There will just be more contraversy about whether or not the referee should have reviewed an incident. Some might be biased in their decisions to review or not.
5) Replays still aren't perfect.
6) Look at American football- it's sooo slow.
To be continued.
1) Finances: Replay is expensive, and it will create a divide between clubs that can afford it and those that cannot.
2) Tradition: Diving is a part of soccer, and there is a lot of skill involved in doing it correctly.
3) Legends: Replay means that we won't have legendary incidents like at Wembley and Maradona's Hand of God Goal.
4) Bias/More contraversy: There will just be more contraversy about whether or not the referee should have reviewed an incident. Some might be biased in their decisions to review or not.
5) Replays still aren't perfect.
6) Look at American football- it's sooo slow.
To be continued.
Anti Box Replay Argument #1: "It Will Slow the Game Down"
This is probably the most popular argument against having replays for box-penalty replays. The argument goes like this: "If you have replay, it will slow the game down, and decrease the fluid/dynamic/free-flowing nature of the game. Soccer will become like American football."
First, let me say that I love the continuous, free flowing nature of soccer. But there are several reasons why my proposal would not slow the game down, and indeed several reasons why my proposal would actually speed the game up!
Reasons why replay will NOT slow the game down:
1) What happens after potential penalty incidents?
90% of the time, the ball goes out of play. Most often, the ball rolls out the back for a goal/corner kick, because the offensive player is unable to continue his run. Another frequent occurrence is that the ball is hastily cleared by a defender to the sidelines. Either way, PLAY HAS ALREADY STOPPED. If the 4th official jumps up and reviews the play, there will be a minimal amount of added delay.
Note: we need actual statistics about what happens after "incidents" but I'm pretty sure they'll tell the story I want them to.
-Potential rebuttal from my friend Mareike: "But quick/smart players want to take those goal kicks and throw in's quickly to counter."
--- I think this is a reasonable argument, but we have to weigh costs and benefits. How many quick counters really start after these incidents? If the offense gets a corner, this argument is moot. If it's a goal kick, this argument is moot because goal kicks aren't really the ignition points of quick counters... If the offense gets a throw in, they can attack and nothing has changed. I don't consider the cases where the defender gets a throw in because, how could that really happen? An offensive player is fouled, and somehow, it's a throw in on the side for the defense? I don't think this is very likely.
Let's also not forget the other thing that usually happens after penalty incidents... a big shouting match between the players and the referees. If this doesn't count as "slowing the game down" then I don't know what does.
For an example, let's look at how quickly Michael Ballack countered/resumed attacking after the contraversial non-call on a potential handball during the 08-09 Champions League semifinals vs Barcelona:
Really? We're worried that we'd have to sit through a replay timeout instead of watching this?
2) Replay would not happen that often. There aren't that many "reviewable incidents" in any one game. I'd be interested to see the statistics on this, but my hunch is that there would be an average of about 2. Keep in mind my argument that players will police themselves- if they don't get penalties for diving, then they won't put the ref in tough positions by diving. Also keep in mind that under my proposal, reviews are going on as play continues (booth review/4th official).
3) Replay would not add that much time- look at American football. Before you jump up and say "but American football is much slower now!" keep in mind that in American football, a lot of that is due to coaches' challenges, which I'm not proposing for soccer. Also keep in mind how many "reviewable" plays there are in football as opposed to in soccer. In football, pretty much every play is reviewable, if for nothing more than to determine the correct spot of the ball.
Please, post rebuttals or rebuttals to rebuttals or any other thoughts.
As the blog goes on, I'll pick some of the other "anti box replay" arguments and respond to them as well.
First, let me say that I love the continuous, free flowing nature of soccer. But there are several reasons why my proposal would not slow the game down, and indeed several reasons why my proposal would actually speed the game up!
Reasons why replay will NOT slow the game down:
1) What happens after potential penalty incidents?
90% of the time, the ball goes out of play. Most often, the ball rolls out the back for a goal/corner kick, because the offensive player is unable to continue his run. Another frequent occurrence is that the ball is hastily cleared by a defender to the sidelines. Either way, PLAY HAS ALREADY STOPPED. If the 4th official jumps up and reviews the play, there will be a minimal amount of added delay.
Note: we need actual statistics about what happens after "incidents" but I'm pretty sure they'll tell the story I want them to.
-Potential rebuttal from my friend Mareike: "But quick/smart players want to take those goal kicks and throw in's quickly to counter."
--- I think this is a reasonable argument, but we have to weigh costs and benefits. How many quick counters really start after these incidents? If the offense gets a corner, this argument is moot. If it's a goal kick, this argument is moot because goal kicks aren't really the ignition points of quick counters... If the offense gets a throw in, they can attack and nothing has changed. I don't consider the cases where the defender gets a throw in because, how could that really happen? An offensive player is fouled, and somehow, it's a throw in on the side for the defense? I don't think this is very likely.
Let's also not forget the other thing that usually happens after penalty incidents... a big shouting match between the players and the referees. If this doesn't count as "slowing the game down" then I don't know what does.
For an example, let's look at how quickly Michael Ballack countered/resumed attacking after the contraversial non-call on a potential handball during the 08-09 Champions League semifinals vs Barcelona:
Really? We're worried that we'd have to sit through a replay timeout instead of watching this?
2) Replay would not happen that often. There aren't that many "reviewable incidents" in any one game. I'd be interested to see the statistics on this, but my hunch is that there would be an average of about 2. Keep in mind my argument that players will police themselves- if they don't get penalties for diving, then they won't put the ref in tough positions by diving. Also keep in mind that under my proposal, reviews are going on as play continues (booth review/4th official).
3) Replay would not add that much time- look at American football. Before you jump up and say "but American football is much slower now!" keep in mind that in American football, a lot of that is due to coaches' challenges, which I'm not proposing for soccer. Also keep in mind how many "reviewable" plays there are in football as opposed to in soccer. In football, pretty much every play is reviewable, if for nothing more than to determine the correct spot of the ball.
Please, post rebuttals or rebuttals to rebuttals or any other thoughts.
As the blog goes on, I'll pick some of the other "anti box replay" arguments and respond to them as well.
The Proposal and Its Benfits (In the box penalties)
Review of in-the-box penalty decisions:
How would this work? Whenever there is "contact" in the box, where the referee is unsure of whether or not there was a penalty, there would be instant replay review. This could be done by the 4th official, much like "booth review" in American football. Looking at the replays, if there is a penalty, then one is awarded. If not, then the ball goes where it belongs. If the ball went out the back after the play, it's a goal kick. If cleared to the sides, it's a throw in. If the ball is still in play, then the players can play on.
There are two major pro's to this proposal:
- The referees will get decisions right. I don't think this pro can be overstated or emphasized strongly enough. The worst part of soccer is watching your team get screwed by a bad penalty decision.
I'm an Arsenal fan, and I still cringed when I watched the replays of Eduardo's "penalty" vs Celtic:
Soccer is the beautiful sport because of the skill involved, not because of the acting or incorrect referee decisions. Let's emphasize skill and athleticism rather than diving and inconsistency.
- This proposal would significantly decrease diving. If you are on the attack in the box and there is any amount of contact, you currently have huge incentives to go to ground, regardless of the amount of contact. (I'll leave it to the reader to watch any of the 10,000 YouTube videos titled "best dives ever.") Under my proposal, you now have two options after you experience contact: go to ground or fight on and continue to try and score. If you choose the first option, your acting will be dismissed after replays show you weren't fouled, and you may get a card for simulation. If you choose the second option, you have a chance to score. A significant amount of "penalties" in the box are soft challenges that the offensive player could easily "ride" or avoid.
--Note, that if you take away the incentives to dive in the box, THEPLAYERS WILL POLICE THEMSELVES, which makes the referee's decisions even easier. If you know that you won't get a penalty for diving, then you'll only go to ground when there actually is a large enough amount of contact. This means that instead of making decisions about every little borderline incident in the box, the players will ensure that there are only two types of incidents: actual penalties that the referee can call or VERY borderline cases, which is when replay will be used.
--Note also, that if you decrease the amount of diving in soccer, the spectators win. Instead of seeing players flop, we'll be seeing the best athletes in the world demonstrate the balance and coordination needed to score despite bumps.
--Note finally that if you decrease the amount of diving in soccer, its popularity, especially in America will rise even further. Apart from "we're just not good enough to make it worthwhile," I'd say the number one reason Americans don't like soccer more is because they loathe the degree of pansiness and flopping that goes on.
How would this work? Whenever there is "contact" in the box, where the referee is unsure of whether or not there was a penalty, there would be instant replay review. This could be done by the 4th official, much like "booth review" in American football. Looking at the replays, if there is a penalty, then one is awarded. If not, then the ball goes where it belongs. If the ball went out the back after the play, it's a goal kick. If cleared to the sides, it's a throw in. If the ball is still in play, then the players can play on.
There are two major pro's to this proposal:
- The referees will get decisions right. I don't think this pro can be overstated or emphasized strongly enough. The worst part of soccer is watching your team get screwed by a bad penalty decision.
I'm an Arsenal fan, and I still cringed when I watched the replays of Eduardo's "penalty" vs Celtic:
Soccer is the beautiful sport because of the skill involved, not because of the acting or incorrect referee decisions. Let's emphasize skill and athleticism rather than diving and inconsistency.
- This proposal would significantly decrease diving. If you are on the attack in the box and there is any amount of contact, you currently have huge incentives to go to ground, regardless of the amount of contact. (I'll leave it to the reader to watch any of the 10,000 YouTube videos titled "best dives ever.") Under my proposal, you now have two options after you experience contact: go to ground or fight on and continue to try and score. If you choose the first option, your acting will be dismissed after replays show you weren't fouled, and you may get a card for simulation. If you choose the second option, you have a chance to score. A significant amount of "penalties" in the box are soft challenges that the offensive player could easily "ride" or avoid.
--Note, that if you take away the incentives to dive in the box, THEPLAYERS WILL POLICE THEMSELVES, which makes the referee's decisions even easier. If you know that you won't get a penalty for diving, then you'll only go to ground when there actually is a large enough amount of contact. This means that instead of making decisions about every little borderline incident in the box, the players will ensure that there are only two types of incidents: actual penalties that the referee can call or VERY borderline cases, which is when replay will be used.
--Note also, that if you decrease the amount of diving in soccer, the spectators win. Instead of seeing players flop, we'll be seeing the best athletes in the world demonstrate the balance and coordination needed to score despite bumps.
--Note finally that if you decrease the amount of diving in soccer, its popularity, especially in America will rise even further. Apart from "we're just not good enough to make it worthwhile," I'd say the number one reason Americans don't like soccer more is because they loathe the degree of pansiness and flopping that goes on.
Proposal
There are three reasons for this blog (in order of importance):
1) To argue in favor of instant replay for in-the-box penalty decisions in soccer. For some of the reasons why this is a good idea, read post #2 "The Proposal and Its Benefits."
2) To respond to the arguments against instant replay in soccer. They are numerous. They are unpersuasive.
3) To keep people updated on news events related to instant replay in soccer.
Comments are welcome and encouraged. This is after all, a debate. However, let's keep it friendly.
1) To argue in favor of instant replay for in-the-box penalty decisions in soccer. For some of the reasons why this is a good idea, read post #2 "The Proposal and Its Benefits."
2) To respond to the arguments against instant replay in soccer. They are numerous. They are unpersuasive.
3) To keep people updated on news events related to instant replay in soccer.
Comments are welcome and encouraged. This is after all, a debate. However, let's keep it friendly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)