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.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
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)