HuffPost: FIFA Apologizes to England & Mexico for Referee Errors

[AsburySkinsFan]

Fantastic news...I guess since the USA didn't get eliminated due to the disallowed goals that the USA won't get an apology...but still very good news, because if FIFA wants to be taken seriously and to be accepted in one of the largest economic markets (USA) then they had better get into the 20th century. (Yes I know we are in the 21st now, but video replay is 20th century tech.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/fifa-world-cup-apology-se_n_628861.html

FIFA Apologizes to England & Mexico for Referee Errors

JOHANNESBURG -- FIFA president Sepp Blatter has apologized to England and Mexico for the refereeing errors that helped eliminate them from the World Cup and says FIFA will reopen the debate on introducing video technology.

Blatter said Tuesday that he said sorry to team officials, and that the delegations of both teams accepted his apology.

"Naturally we deplore when you see the evidence of refereeing mistakes," Blatter said.

Blatter said FIFA will "reopen the file" on video technology at a meeting of its rule-making panel in Wales next month.

He added that it would be "a nonsense" not to consider changes.

FIFA also will update its referee training program.

Blatter said FIFA has set a deadline of October or November to create a new concept for improving match control by referees and assistants "in high level competitions."

[@DCGoldPants]

too little, too late.

FIFA should apologize to the world for their handling of the Refs since the cup began.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

where was our apology?

[AsburySkinsFan]

too little, too late.

FIFA should apologize to the world for their handling of the Refs since the cup began.

Agreed, it's a shame that it took this World Cup becoming a comedy of errors for FIFA to recognize what the rest of the world already knew.

[AsburySkinsFan]

where was our apology?

That's what I said, but my guess is that since we weren't eliminated as a response then we don't get one. Mexico on the other hand suffered greatly as a result of the non-offsides call that served as a sucker punch to them and took them out of the game emotionally and physically.

[@DCGoldPants]

In the past few years I've felt that stuff Wilbon says is generally wrong. But yesterday he spouted pure truth. Something along the lines of FIFA's stand against tools that could help them fix this is what keeps Soccer a 2nd tier sport.

BAM.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In the past few years I've felt that stuff Wilbon says is generally wrong. But yesterday he spouted pure truth. Something along the lines of FIFA's stand against tools that could help them fix this is what keeps Soccer a 2nd tier sport.

BAM.

2nd tier in the US market...yes, and I agree with that.

[Kosher Ham]

We have a thread about why soccer is 2nd tier already. That won't change unless the game changes dramatically.

[karmacop]

There's no reason why instant replay can't be implemented for key, limited decisions, like whether the ball went over the goal line and offsides decisions where a goal is affected (like Dempsey's disallowed goal and Tevez's allowed goal). You can't use it on all offsides calls, but you can where a goal immediately occurs and you need to check to see if it should be allowed.

Every other sport in the world is using instant replay now. It's just pure stubbornness not to adopt it in soccer.

[renaissance]

Every other sport in the world is using instant replay now. It's just pure stubbornness not to adopt it in soccer.

Instant replay would fundamentally change the game of soccer. That is why FIFA is and should continue to be be unwilling to use it.

As I posted yesterday:

The problem with implementing video replay is that a huge part of offense in soccer is working on the counterattack. For example, our goal against Algeria would have never happened if not for Tim Howard's epic throw halfway up the field and our being up like 4 guys to Algeria's 2 or 3 in the box - something which never would have happened if Algeria hadn't just been attacking our goal. If replay was implemented, and Algeria's preceeding shot had been anywhere close to crossing the line, that could have been challenged, thus crushing the flow of the game.

Soccer is not meant to be a start and stop game. It's not like hockey where the clock stops and starts if the goalie covers the puck. When you get a save in soccer, the advantage is that you can push up quickly and catch the other team's defense off guard and under-manned.

If you implement video replay - when do you get to call for the replay?

Does your team have to have posession in order to initiate the replay?

What if your team shoots and "misses" then the other team immediately goes up and scores on a counterattack, and then your goal is later allowed - is the other team's goal then disallowed bc technically it shouldn't have happened? Or does the other team lose their opportunity at a counterattack bc play is whisteled dead so the ref can view the replay, even though its possible your goal won't even be allowed after video replay?

IMO, an extra set of real-time eyes are the best option if you're going to change anything.

[hockeysc23]

As someone that is a casual at best soccer watcher (only olympics and world cup for supporting USA)

FIFA definitely needs to do something. I know refs are human and the human element is part of the game. But there seems to be one huge mistake made every game.

If the divers and refs were more accurate I think it would def help get more of the US population to watch as well as improve the game.

[karmacop]

Instant replay would fundamentally change the game of soccer. That is why FIFA is and should continue to be be unwilling to use it.

As I posted yesterday:

The problem with implementing video replay is that a huge part of offense in soccer is working on the counterattack. For example, our goal against Algeria would have never happened if not for Tim Howard's epic throw halfway up the field and our being up like 4 guys to Algeria's 2 or 3 in the box - something which never would have happened if Algeria hadn't just been attacking our goal. If replay was implemented, and Algeria's preceeding shot had been anywhere close to crossing the line, that could have been challenged, thus crushing the flow of the game.

Soccer is not meant to be a start and stop game. It's not like hockey where the clock stops and starts if the goalie covers the puck. When you get a save in soccer, the advantage is that you can push up quickly and catch the other team's defense off guard and under-manned.

If you implement video replay - when do you get to call for the replay?

Does your team have to have posession in order to initiate the replay?

What if your team shoots and "misses" then the other team immediately goes up and scores on a counterattack, and then your goal is later allowed - is the other team's goal then disallowed bc technically it shouldn't have happened? Or does the other team lose their opportunity at a counterattack bc play is whisteled dead so the ref can view the replay, even though its possible your goal won't even be allowed after video replay?

IMO, an extra set of real-time eyes are the best option if you're going to change anything.

Look, I appreciate that soccer is somewhat unique in that there are no official stops in play. But what's more important -- the flow of the game, or getting the correct score? Clearly, the sport loses respect when it gets calls obviously wrong multiple times in a single tournament. What if that England goal had happened in the finals? Disgrace all around.

If you limit its application to the instances I said -- goal line decisions and offsides calls where a goal is immediately in play -- then the game would only be minimally interrupted. For the offsides instances, the whistle has blown anyway, either for a goal (like Tevez) or for an offsides call (like Dempsey). So it wouldn't take too long to radio up to the replay official to get that call right. And goalline calls only happen once every 20-25 games at most (the England one was the first one I remember in this World Cup so far), so that's not too much of a problem either. You can add on extra time at the end of the half to compensate for the replay time. Guys spend longer faking injuries on the turf than it would take to check to make sure that the integrity of the game is intact and the correct game-changing calls have been made.

I've been a huge soccer fan my whole life, but the need for limited replay is painfully obvious.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Soccer is not meant to be a start and stop game. It's not like hockey where the clock stops and starts if the goalie covers the puck. When you get a save in soccer, the advantage is that you can push up quickly and catch the other team's defense off guard and under-manned.

I get your argument, but it just doesn't make sense especially in the case of the goals either allowed or disallowed due to being offsides, where in fact the game was stopped because the goal was in the net, this is the perfect opportunity to check to see if the call was correct.

Would you or would you not agree that in the cases of the disallowed US goals (vs. Slovenia and Algeria) and in the cases of the Germany v. England goal and the Argentina v. Mexico goal that instant replay could have been easily and effectively used in order to over-turn poor calls without disrupting play?

If so then the issue of whether or not instant replay can be beneficial is settled, what is left is to set the limitations on its use during a match. But honestly, I think you're going to be pretty hard pressed to find a consensus of people who think that the 2010 World Cup was better without instant replay.

[karmacop]

Would you or would you not agree that in the cases of the disallowed US goals (vs. Slovenia and Algeria) and in the cases of the Germany v. England goal and the Argentina v. Mexico goal that instant replay could have been easily and effectively used in order to over-turn poor calls without disrupting play?

I'll let ren speak to this too, but I don't think the Slovenia non-goal would be something replay would have helped. That was a foul call, not an offsides call. Replay can't be used in those circumstances. That's a referee's subjective analysis of rules infractions, similar to if a basketball ref calls a foul. Replay wouldn't work.

But in my opinion, the other three instances are SCREAMING OUT for replay.

[aREDSKIN]

Clearly, the sport loses respect when it gets calls obviously wrong multiple times in a single tournament. What if that England goal had happened in the finals? Disgrace all around.

+1

And you have to start to wonder, given the history of just horrific soccer officiating, if there isn't something more sinister going on.

[AsburySkinsFan]

+1

And you have to start to wonder, given the history of just horrific soccer officiating, if there isn't something more sinister going on.

Let's just assume for the sake of all our sanity that we are not the pawns of a massive sporting conspiracy.

Ignorance is bliss.

[corsair_joe]

I think they could get something going similar to how it works in the NHL, another game where counterattack is important. You don't see replays messing up Hockey much at all.

[MEANDWARF]

FIFA is rigged. Mofia is involved somehow. ETC, ETC,......

[aREDSKIN]

Let's just assume for the sake of all our sanity that we are not the pawns of a massive sporting conspiracy.

Ignorance is bliss.

I follow soccer not at all . But what I've read over the past few weeks makes my conjecture a bit more substantive than blind ignorance. It could be a minuscule conspiracy.

[renaissance]

I get your argument, but it just doesn't make sense especially in the case of the goals either allowed or disallowed due to being offsides, where in fact the game was stopped because the goal was in the net, this is the perfect opportunity to check to see if the call was correct.

If offsides was called then play is "stopped" but only for the free kick to be set. So how do you account for the time that the ref is going to check the video screen to see whether the player was indeed offsides? Again, there are no clock stoppages in soccer.

Would you or would you not agree that in the cases of the disallowed US goals (vs. Slovenia and Algeria) and in the cases of the Germany v. England goal and the Argentina v. Mexico goal that instant replay could have been easily and effectively used in order to over-turn poor calls without disrupting play?

karmacop is right - the US vs Slovenia goal was disallowed for a foul so that would never be challenged in a game even with replay. HOwever, FIFA needs to require that refs be more accountable on the field in terms of telling players (captains) who and what foul they called.

As for the England goal, the German goalkeeper was VERY smart in getting the ball back out onto the field quickly as if nothing happened. He's even admitted as such that he knows by not hesitating he probably tricked the ref. So at what point do you call for the video replay of England's goal?

If you call for it immediately and it turns out England didn't score, you've just ****ed over the Germans' opportunity at a counterattack.

If you call for it when there is a natural stoppage in play (ie a foul, out of bounds, or even when England gets posession back), what if the German goalie had pulled a Tim Howard and gotten the ball up the field and Germany scored?

If England's was later called a goal, does Germany get theirs taken away (because technically that play never should have happened). And if that's the case, did that game time ever really happen? Or do you need to add even more time to stoppage time?

If so then the issue of whether or not instant replay can be beneficial is settled, what is left is to set the limitations on its use during a match. But honestly, I think you're going to be pretty hard pressed to find a consensus of people who think that the 2010 World Cup was better without instant replay.

I don't think I would have a problem finding a consensus of soccer fans and those knowledgeable about the game who are against instant replay. That doesn't mean that those people aren't for some kind of improvement to the reffing system. As I said, I think the best option would be to place additional assistants on each half of the field, or to somehow ensure that the current assistants are better placed on the field.

[Harwich Hog]

I think as soon as the ref is unsure he blows the whistle, stops play and refers to the replay. Counter-attack starting at the keeper is not reason enough not to stop play. If the ball crossed the line - it's a goal. If not - goal kick.

Situations where an actual goal is at stake (not a penalty, which is a different phase of play altogether) is the only instance where technology should be used in-game.

Diving and simulating fouls should be punished retrospectively with fines and bans. Everything else should be left to the referee in my opinion.

[karmacop]

I don't think I would have a problem finding a consensus of soccer fans and those knowledgeable about the game who are against instant replay.

Sorry, but I heartily disagree with this statement of yours. I've been watching and following soccer for years, and have many friends that do as well. We are all in agreement that replay is needed in the two circumstances I mentioned -- offsides calls where a goal is allowed/disallowed, and whether the ball crosses the goal line. If you poll die-hard fans today, I'd bet a majority would want to see replay in those limited circumstances right now. My bet is that FIFA will adopt one or both of those after the World Cup is over.

And as for your concern about counter-attacks starting with a keeper, I'm not convinced. Those goal-line calls happen so infrequently, so it is highly, highly unlikely that interrupting one potential counter-attack in one out of every 30 games or so will have the effect of preventing an actual goal on the other end. What's more important: getting the score correct and avoiding a horrible call, or allowing a team (and one that may have unfairly benefited from a bad call at that) to have a less than 1% chance of scoring on the counter-attack??

Injuries (both real and fake) also cause interruptions in the flow of the game, but teams and fans are fine with preventing a counter-attack to address players down on the pitch. In fact, teams purposefully kick the ball out of bounds even if they have a counter-attack going, since that's just the way it's done. There's no reason the same sacrifice can't be implemented to allow for a 30-second review of a replay. In fact, given that most players are faking anyway, I'd say making sure the scoreline is correct and not robbing teams of valid goals is way, way more important.

[Corcaigh]

There's no need for a stoppage in play because simple proven technology such as sensor in the ball can determine if it has crossed the line.

Reviewing offside calls is much tougher. Part of the solution is training officials so that they read the game better, i.e. to immediately scan when the ball is played if there is anyone in a potentially offside position. Too many officials watch the ball too much.

This is a problem with officiating in other sports too. Because of the rigors of officiating they often hire younger people who are career officials rather than strong players and thus they have limited knowledge of the game at a high level. Their ability to make such tough judgement calls on the fly without video backup is not developed.

[thehogs]

well, despite claims of FIFA conspiracy there are attempts in place now that were used in last years Europa League championship (the old UEFA Cup tournament). They used extra assistants positioned behind each goal area.

This had one major influence on something that riddles the game at all levels at the moment - off the ball holding and, at times, blatant wrestling of players to the ground. Suddenly players had an extra eye on them, focused directly on them and nothing else unlike the ref who has to check everything going on across the field.

Obviously, with such an assistant in place at the weekend the call(s) would have been the classic no brainer. The idea was to start introducing this in to early qualifying rounds of the Champions League next season and to slowly (this is FIFA after all!) monitor and assess its impact until maybe one day extra officials become part of the normal game.

[“Misdirection”]

If offsides was called then play is "stopped" but only for the free kick to be set. So how do you account for the time that the ref is going to check the video screen to see whether the player was indeed offsides? Again, there are no clock stoppages in soccer.

Who said the ref on the field had to go run over to the sideline to check it? They could do it differently from football. Maybe a hockey system where they just radio it in from fifa headquarters or something of that nature. A replay official somewhere else in the game that gives him the call. That wouldn't be too difficult.