Refereeing and What To Do About It

by CarlosT on Nov 21, 2009 1:08 PM PST in Major League Soccer Comment 11 comments

Referees have once again made their way into the headlines and for once MLS has no apologies to make. In the second leg of a UEFA World Cup Qualification playoff, Thierry Henry made a vital assist, crossing across the face of goal to William Gallas' head to score the tying goal. The goal pulled France level in the match and ahead 2-1 on aggregate. There was a problem, though. See if you can spot it in this video.

You might have noticed the clear handball Henry commits to control the ball before his cross. If you did, you're a step ahead of the match officials, who never saw the offense and therefore allowed the goal to stand. Apparently, none of them had an angle that afforded a view of the incident captured by the cameras. Calls from Ireland and even Henry himself for a replay have been rejected by FIFA and probably rightly so. Referees will make errors and we can't set a precedent of replaying every game marred by such errors. It is clear, however, that something needs to be done. Refereeing mistakes may or may not be more common now than the past, but they certainly are more visible. Video technology allows us to see incidents in slow motion and often from multiple angles, and YouTube and other internet services allows those replays to circle the globe. So the importance of making the correct call has never been higher.

Various solutions have been proposed over the years, from video review during games to extra officials. One that's actually being tested right now in the Europa League is the addition of two extra match officials behind the goal lines. These officials are to function like a "human camera" giving the referee a head-on angle on the action, especially those crucial plays in the penalty area. Their close observation is also designed to act as a deterrent to diving and other forms of gamesmanship. They won't be making calls on their own, but instead will be providing the match referee with what they saw to help him in his decision. Would a goalline official have spotted Henry's handball? It's impossible to say, but it would have increased the chances, because had there been an Europa League style official in place, he would have been only a few feet away from Henry as the incident happened. It's now highly probable that we will see goalline officials at the World Cup.

So what does this mean for MLS? Credibility of officiating is crucial for MLS as it works to establish its reputation with soccer fans, and as we all know, refereeing in MLS has been abysmal at times. Unfortunately, the refereeing authorities at USSF aren't overly concerned. If one formed an opinion solely on the basis of the Week in Review reports they publish, one would believe that refereeing in this country is the standard to which all others around the world should aspire. After all, week after week, the USSF reviews and analyzes referee performances and always seems to conclude that the referees on the field got the call correct all along. While this may make USSF and the referees feel better about themselves, it stands in the way of improvement because no one works to fix a problem they don't believe exist. This is where Garber needs to step in and volunteer MLS as the first league to implement goalline officials for all its matches and to serve as a venue for training these new officials before they go to the World Cup. Because of the dire history of refereeing in MLS, it is the perfect league to test innovations designed to improve officiating, and the offset season means that goalline officials can get match experience for the World Cup without having to be introduced in the middle of a competition. Everyone wins, but the biggest winners of all would be MLS fans.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Goal line officials not a bad idea

Generally, I think that people overestimate the impact officials have on the game, and I certainly think that the reaction to this particular handball has been way overblown, with some people calling for Henry to be suspended for multiple games on an infraction that would at most have warranted a caution had it been caught in the first place. And watching the replay, I’m not exactly sure what the Irish defender (#13) was trying to do, either. It seems like he probably misjudged the ball on the way in or he wouldn’t have let the ball bounce to Henry in the first place.

Anyway, goal line officials could help get more calls right by providing the center ref with more information. It’s not a perfect solution—part of me thinks that it’s just going to give fans two more referees to complain about—but on the whole, it would probably help.

One thing that I don’t see happening is video replay. In countries like the US or Ireland or France, where matches are routinely televised, replay certainly seems tempting, but how many FIFA matches are played every year with no television equipment in sight? It seems like enacting video replay would either result in a situation where some matches are called differently than other matches, or where some federations would be saddled with footing the bill for costly replay equipment that would only make a marginal impact on the game.

by ubelmann on Nov 21, 2009 2:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Time is the other big factor against replay

I think most international “A” level matches are likely to be televised in some form or other, but you’re right that at lower levels it would be extremely difficult to implement consistently. But the time required also makes it an unacceptable solution. It feels like it takes a long time to review a play in football; in soccer it would be an eternity. Given that stoppage time is often between three to five minutes, adding two or three minutes to review a play would make it more like five to eight, which is a really long time. And that’s if there’s only one incident to review. Reviewing multiple incidents would drag things out even further.

I think the extra officials are the best compromise. They can provide their opinions instantly and not break up the flow of play. Referees are still going to get things wrong, that’s a given until we get purpose-built cyborg refs, but positioning an official to focus on the most crucial area of the field is an idea whose time has come.

by CarlosT on Nov 21, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Officiating report from Summit Conference and Prost Amerika event

Officiating was a big topic at both the Supporters Conference Summit and Amerika’s Pros Amerika events today. The Supporters Conference featured a 90 minute presention and discussion from the MLS officiating/disciplinary organization. The Prost Amerika event discussion included FIFA ref evaluator Sandy Hunt. A few interesting – in my opinion – bits of info:

MLS indicated that they had done some experiments with more refs on the field and that these had negatively impacted the game. (These experiments involved additional active refs not goalline observers)
FIFA rules do put limitations on what can and cannot be done. Specifically mentioned were officiating training which had to be under the auspices of FIFA and post game red card review. I definitely got the impression that any experimentation had to be done within FIFA limitations. Sandy Hunt mentioned new concerns regarding above the shoulder fouls which led to a tightening up of red cards.
There are 4 full time refs. All the other are part time. From the MLS description it sounded like that for part time refs it was a significant time/money burden
Sandy Hunt indicated that it training a ref is a long, difficult process (12 years) and it was difficult to retain them (few stayed more than 5 years). Attempts to get retired players to ref completely failed.
Sandy Hunt’s biggest frustration seemed to be the reliance on part-time rather than full time refs.
Sandy Hunt indicated that in the Montero/Onstad altercation that she would have given a yellow to Onstad, no card to Montero.

I came away from the discussion slightly more sympathetic to the official line on officiating. Officiating is difficult and the angle in which a play is seen makes a huge difference(MLS presentation showed several interesting examples). Innovation seems to be somewhat constrained by FIFA rules/oversight.

At the same time, what I didn’t here was the following:
1) Are the officials (MLS/FIFA) satisifed with the officiating and if not what are they going to do about it?
2) Why aren’t all regular officials full-time, paid professionals?

by snesbitt on Nov 21, 2009 6:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Great report

I really appreciate your posting this and it gives a lot of food for thought. My first impression here is that the league’s investment in securing full-time refs (~$30,000/year?) would come back in spades in the quality of refereeing. If nothing else, it would signal an appreciation for the problem and go a long ways towards addressing fan concerns. Where else would the money go that would give the league a similar boost in credibility with its most die-hard fans?

by brokejumper on Nov 22, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How do we attract more and better officials?

I like the goal line referees idea better than video. One thing is clear. We need to be able to attract more full time referees. It’s just going to take more money to make qualified people want to do it. I have no idea what kind of money they make. I do think though that as player salaries rise, so should referees. Perhaps they should be paid a set percentage of what the average player makes.
The only time video should be considered is to determine goal or no goal (cross the line or not and Maradonna/Henry type goals) There would need to be a time limit. Perhaps a video official who alerts the referee as he is running back to mid field.
I can live with no video, but not with the inconsistency that we are seeing now.

by Arjaylee on Nov 22, 2009 7:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

My two cents

Replay works well in rugby, right? It took less 20 seconds for the entire world to know that Henry handled the ball and less than a minute to determine it significantly changed the path of the ball and directly led to the goal. If you limit replays to goals and red cards then I don’t think the game will drag out. The problem with goal line linesmen is that they still can miss things that one referee in a video room with multiple camera views can see right away.

I’d actually be in favor of MLS trying to be different and implementing a replay system on a trial basis next year. I wouldn’t jump straight in to where football is now, basically where every play is up for grabs and every foul double-checked, but it could be a relatively quick and easy way to ensure the games go as they should.

by johnnycougar on Nov 23, 2009 5:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree, but football is perhaps the sport that likes tradition more than any other sport.

Personally, I agree that instant replay camera’s near the goal along with a goal referee would be best.

Does anybody remember when college and NBA used to have two on court officials and it was decided the players were getting too fast, so they went to three officials? I know this would also be controversial, but there should be two on field referees.

They would be able to control play away from the ball and on the ball so much better. It improved basketball and it would improve soccer.

Just some thoughts. They’ll never happen.

by Coug1990 on Nov 23, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Multiple refs have been tried and didn't work well

People complained that the game was called to differently from one end of the field to the other. That’s why the new proposed officials are new assistants to help the ref with information to correctly call the game. They won’t have the authority to make calls on their own.

by CarlosT on Nov 24, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

They said the same thing in the NBA at first

But, eventually what calls were made and at what times by each ref got ironed out. There was a learning curve involved.

Also, the complaint that the game is called differently is just that; a complaint. First, that is why teams switch ends of the field at the half. Second, as I wrote, things will adjust themselves with time.

by Coug1990 on Nov 24, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But since the idea already has bad baggage

It’s not likely to get another airing.

by CarlosT on Nov 24, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, that is likely true

Sometimes an idea is ahead of it’s time. I am not sure of the history of when they tried this, but I am guessing that there was probably a lot of opposition to this and they probably didn’t give it enough time let it evolve to work. But, as I said, I could be wrong as I don’t know the history.

On a parallel note of something getting a second airing after it was disbanded; the NFL’s “instant replay” to help with officiating. They actually stopped using it, but later went back to it’s use in an improved form.

by Coug1990 on Nov 24, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs