The Ball

D R E A M S D O N

D I E

SPECIAL EDITION
APRIL 2012

Ever wondered what would happen if all decisions in a soccer match were made by a TV referee? Would there be too many delays? Could they get the decisions right? The Ball decided to take a look
By Simon Lewis (originally published in July 2005)

THE FOUR
HOW THE TV REFEREE MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THE RESULT OF FOUR FINALS A 2005 REPORT
NO BULL, JUST BALL
www.theball.co.za

FINALS

A tale of four nals

In 2005, as Editor of The Ball magazine, I appealled to FIFA to address the issue of TV replays being used in football. There was no immediate impact following my communication to FIFA, however, I also CCd it to a few hundred magazines, newspapers and sports organistions and federations.
BY SIMON LEWIS (ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED JULY 2005)

Using TV footage is the cheapest way to ensure quick and accurate decisions by humans! And, the beauty of it is you dont need to add any additional equipment simply use whatever TV cameras are in place after all, the controversy arises as a result of TV footage that immediately shows a refereeing error. If theres no TV footage then, no problem the crowd will be none the wiser about any refereeing errors and naturally the onfield referees decision stands.
WHAT IMPACT WILL STOPPING FOR THE TV REFEREE HAVE? A CASE STUDY FROM THE FOUR FINALS IN 2005

Soccer, one of the leading sports, actually needs to catch a wakeup, as almost all other sports are using video replays to aid referees, I said back in 2005. I appeal to FIFA to consider the facts of the four finals as shown here and make the best and most positive decision bring the TV ref to life! At that time very few people saw any merit in using TV reviews or any other form of referee assistance in football. The split was about 85 against to 15 for referee assistance. The split seemed to have grown to about 50-50 in favour of helping the referees before the 2010 FIFA World Cup... and following the disallowed Frank Lampard goal and numerous subsequent referee errors (albeit mostly impossible for the referees to call correctly although most were confirmed as incorrect almost instantly within a handful of seconds), the spilt is about 20 against to 80 percent FOR the use of technology now. Hopefully my mail to FIFA and the sports media played some small part in this. Today the argument is not about IF we do it... its about HOW we do it.

In 2005 I took extensive notes of all the referee and linesmen decisions during four high-profile soccer finals in 2005 (the FA Cup, Champions League, Scottish Cup and Championship Playoff finals). After watching the four finals I was amazed at how busy the referee and linesmen actually were and, moreover, how accurate they were with the majority of their decisions! - In the first half of a match the referee blows his whistle every 54 seconds. - In the second half he blows every 47 seconds. - The number of errors remains even between the first half and the second a referees error rate is 1 in 25 decisions. - On average a referee blows his whistle every 50.4 seconds. - Referees make 107 decisions per match in normal time (90 min). - The number of errors in 90 minutes of normal time is 4.25 (under 4% of total decisions), which equates to an incorrect decision every 20 minutes.

Cut your business call costs by 30-60%. No lies

1 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE

021-762-9715

T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

Note: Most of these decisions are humanly impossible for the referee and his linesmen to always call correctly. (Source: The Ball magazine, www.theball.co.za)

Figures, stats and workings from The Four Finals

Compiled by Simon Lewis EOT = viewers can confirm decision from live footage.

FOOTNOTE

RBP = the referee or linemen were in the best position. ERR = a clear error spotted live using the TV replays shown.
FIGURES AND STATS AND WORKINGS

There were a few areas where referees and linesmen erred to a greater or lesser extent, although these were usually due to the decisions being extremely difficult to judge with the naked eye. Crucially, however, those instances were decisions of far greater importance. Ironically, most of these could be confirmed or overruled within 10-15 seconds of watching TV replays, which is usually the time it takes for the players to stop arguing with the referee and linesmen about a contentious decision. Considering that referees essentially make so few wrong decisions in a match, the amount of interruptions for delays linked to the TV referee would be a matter or 2-4 minutes per match. Considering the value of getting accurate decisions, it is arguably a delay worth taking, especially when you consider how much time the players waste arguing with the referees. In the four finals, between 8-10 goalscoring opportunities could have resulted had the TV referee been used (ie largely relating to offsides or penalty decisions).

FA Cup final Arsenal v Man United 90 min 1st half 2nd half EOT 48 47 RBP ERR 4 9 3 1 extra time 1st half 2nd half EOT 13 18 RBP 2 0 ERR 0 0

PENALTIES: The keepers were off the line before the kick for five of the 10 kicks, most were only a slight jump off the line. The one penalty that was saved the keeper was well off his line before the ball was kicked. Champions League Final AC Milan v Liverpool 90 min 1st half 2nd half EOT 23 45 RBP 16 11 ERR 1 3 extra time 1st half 2nd half EOT 13 17 RBP 2 3 ERR 0 1

PENALTIES: The keepers were off their line before the kick four times, three of which were saved.

Get two business telephone lines for just R150! Ya, bru.
2 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE

021-762-9715

T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

Scottish Cup Final Celtic v Dundee United 90 min 1st half 2nd half EOT 42 51 RBP 10 7 ERR 3 5

EXTRA TIME FOR THE FOUR FINALS

1st half 30 minutes total 30 blows of the whistle 2 decisions missed / unseen on TV Referee blows every 1 min (60 seconds)

Championship Playoff Final Preston v West Ham 90 min 1st half 2nd half EOT 50 53 RBP 7 5 ERR 1 0 2nd half 30 minutes total 38 blows of the whistle 1 decision missed / unseen on TV Referee blows every 0.78 min (47 seconds)
OVERALL AVERAGES

90 min 1st half 2nd half Total

EOT 163 196 359

RBP 37 32 69

ERR 8 9 17

extra time 1st half 2nd half

EOT 26 35 61

RBP 4 3 7

ERR 2 1 3

TOTAL OVER THE FOUR FINALS

428 in 360 min (normal time) Referee blows every 0.84 min (50.4 sec) 20 errors (1 in 21 decisions) 496 blows in 420 minutes (incl ET) Referee blows every 0.85 min (50.8 sec) 17 errors (1 in 29 decisions)
SUNDRY STATISTICS

NORMAL TIME FOR THE FOUR FINALS

1st half 180 minutes total 200 blows of the whistle 8 decisions missed / unseen on TV Referee blows every 0.9 min (54 seconds) 2nd half 180 minutes total 228 blows of the whistle 9 decisions missed / unseen on TV Referee blows every 0.78 min (47 seconds)

On average, the referees made 50 decisions in the first half of normal time (45 min) and 57 decisions in the second half (45 min). The increase from the first half to the second half was 200 decisions up to 228 decisions (the total over the four finals), no doubt as the players take more risks looking for a winning goal. This equates to a

Why pay for a full minute when you only spoke for 15 seconds?
3 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

referee and his linesmen making a decision every 54 seconds in the first half and down to 47 seconds in the second half, seven seconds faster in the second half. The number of errors remains even between the first half and the second in both cases, the error rate was 1 in 25 decisions. On average, the referees made 107 decisions per match in normal time (90 min). The number of errors in that time was 4.25 (under 4% of decisions), which equates to an incorrect decision every 20 minutes.
STATISTICAL NOTES

was made. Additional replays might show errors within this category. RBP means no replay shown essentially. Taking time to rewind tape often provided confirmation of the decision, and accessing other footage and angles would have done so probably in almost every single decision or appeal. You could make all decisions using TV replays, although obviously the refs and linesmen are able to make 95% of decisions with 100% accuracy and probably twice as fast as the quickest TV replay would allow. ERR = a clear error that can be seen by TV viewers live using the TV replays shown live. There were less RBP decisions in the English FA Cup and the Championship playoff English footage seems to show more replays and, possibly, has more cameras in position. In a short space of time English TV confirms the majority of referee decisions. The error statistics might actually be higher than would normally be the case, as in one match one linesman made three clear offside errors (when viewed on live TV replays) in a short space of time.
SIMON LEWIS The Ball magazine simon@theball.co.za www.theball.co.za

Times are based on an average time of 45 minutes per half. Stoppage time is classed as dead time, as the ref wouldnt be making decisions. Decisions listed are when a referee blew his whistle. EOT = viewers can confirm decision from live footage (including the replays shown live). Note that the officials dont know what will be a close or an easy decision and are fully focused for the full 45 minutes of each half they cant relax for a moment. Probably the time when any mistakes happen is if they do lose concentration, which is a normal human failing, or when the decision is not humanly possible to always call correctly. RBP = the referee or linemen were in the best position, and live footage did not show evidence to suggest an incorrect decision

Call us for a free analysis of your photocopier and PABX needs.

4 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

Soundbites from the article 30 seconds to fair play

If the players are going to be tricking and cheating the referees, their opposition and the fans, then they dont deserve much of a voice in deciding about the use of technology, do they? If the players know that they cant get away with trying their luck on officials, if they know they will be found out, exposed and penalized then they will simply have to start playing their games in a more sporting manner. That makes the game fairer and certainly makes the referees role a lot easier. And why not? Where does it say in the rules of any sport that we must test the referee as much as possible, see if he can spot the right decision? Their purpose is not to be tested, but to be an arbiter. Traditionally, the referee or umpire was always in the best position to make a decision. Think about the 1950s! However, today cameras are all around the stadiums and THEY now provide the best views. Plain and simple. If I were the umpires I would be picketing hard for the implementation of TV replays.

Your boss at work wouldnt say, oh, you made us R200,000 profit last year ... unfortunately, this year you lost us R200,000. Dont worry, though, you can keep your job as it all evens out.
HOW TO USE THE TV REFEREE?

To refer a decision to a TV referee is awful its slow and more embarrassing to the official as he is asking for assistance without having the chance to prove his ability to get the decision right. We should empower the referee (and cricket umpire) by not allowing them to refer any decision to a TV referee (or umpire). Let them prove their decision-making ability on the field. At the lower levels of refereeing or umpiring they have to make those calls, so now when you get into the televised arena suddenly you stop calling it as you see it but ask for help from your TV buddy every time there is a close call? The onfield umpire / referee should make the decisions, with the knowledge that if they get close calls wrong, the TV umpire/referee will be able to correct them, for the benefit of the game, the fans and the players. That sounds a lot less embarrassing for the referees.
WHAT ABOUT MATCHES WHERE THERE IS POOR TV COVERAGE

In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 seconds of players swinging their handbags above their heads and crying to the referee. Surely if everyone waits for 20-30 seconds for a TV umpire to spot any glaring errors it would be quicker than the handbags hit parade and would be fairer to all.

The four finals showed me that referees CAN be trusted they do a good job. They can be trusted! It follows, then, that if there is no TV coverage or inferior standards of broadcasting, then at least we have already discovered that officials can be trusted as far as is humanly possible. Sure, the finals would have had the top-rated referees and linesmen officiating, but their performances do offer proof

Losing business because your incoming lines are always engaged?

5 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

of their ability to get it right under pressure and heavy scrutiny. The only problem with referees is that the phrase humanly possible becomes a grey area with penalty decisions and offsides (as well as certain goal decisions), simply because it is only with slow motion replays that you can get 100% accuracy with these decisions, and even then sometimes you need to watch 2-3 replays, as well as sometimes another angle or two. Sure, mistakes will happen in non-televised matches, but these would have happened anyway. TV referees can only improve soccer, they cant lower standards in any way or harm the sport. Cricket uses TV replays for certain decisions, yet there are matches with no TV coverage. The important thing is to get the high-profile obvious decisions right, even if it means over-ruling an official. The end result is that the correct decision gets made that has to be good as the public and players view of referees can only be improved if there are fewer controversial errors hitting the headlines.

THE PROBLEM WITH OFFSIDES

Incorrect line calls halt play, breaking down legitimate attacking situations. This frustrates the fans and the players, especially as in around 40% of instances the attacker would have been on a virtual or actual one-on-one face-off with the keeper. These decisions are sometimes almost impossible to judge even with TV replays, so for a linesman it is unthinkable for them to always call these correctly. Linesmen in general do phenomenally well in their adjudications, but the impact of any wrong decision is so huge that prevention should be implemented. The solution is for the linesman to raise his flag when he believes the players are offside, while play carries on (thus not affecting the players or frustrating the fans). The TV ref can overrule or confirm the offides without play having been stopped. Rather have a goal overruled by the TV referee than have incorrect offsides being called.
IN A TIGHT CORNER

MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THE USE OF THE TV REFEREE

The goal-kick or corner kick decision is potentially a big decision to get wrong a corner kick is an opportunity for the attacking side to drop the ball right in the goalmouth and look to score a goal. Its a great attacking opportunity, and being denied it is potentially a huge disadvantage, especially for weaker teams who rely on deadball situations for a goal against the run of play. Refs and linesmen cant always get these decisions right as it is humanly impossible to spot some tiny deflections. A TV replay usually confirms this before the players can take the goal kick or corner kick.

I appreciate the delicacy and care required by the people in charge of soccer any such major change needs a good deal of talk and careful consideration. But its reached the stage where brain surgery is no longer required soccer, one of the leading sports, actually needs to catch a wake-up, as almost all other sports are using video replays to aid referees and umpires. I appeal to FIFA to consider the facts of the four finals as shown here and make the best and most positive decision bring the TV ref to life!

Hi-tech CCTV systems 4, 8 or 16 channel

6 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE

www.advancedtelcoms.co.za

T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

THE BEST POSITION

TV commentators themselves sometimes cant agree on decisions, and perhaps they arent well enough versed with the rules, but the point is that the referees and linesmen are best placed to judge decisions that are often open to interpretation and which require you to be placed in the thick of the action to best ascertain impact, cause, effect and intent. However, there are some decisions made by officials that a TV replay can quickly confirm or reject with absolute certainty. As these are often of major significance in the course of the match, TV replays should be incorporated into the referee and linesmens decision-making armoury for the start of the next European football season.

30 Seconds to fair play

If a spaceship from a planet far, far away landed on earth tomorrow, how would you convince them that not using TV replays is a good idea?

By Simon Lewis (from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005) There are three main arguments against the increased use of technology in assisting match officials to arrive at the fairest decisions: - They say it dissipates the referees powers. - They say it isnt reliable. - They say it takes too long. All three are good arguments in their own right, especially when delivered by a big name player, manager, coach or ex-player. You always need to remember, of course, that any comment or statement carries with it a degree of bias. The players obviously want and demand fairness, but in reality the whole debate can be unravelled to reveal one shining pearl of truth: The fans, who pay and pray in support of their teams, deserve the right decisions! Remember the guy who scored that long-range goal against Man United, the one where keeper Roy Carroll literally shouldered the ball and almost the blame, before diving backwards to scoop it back

Use CCTV for recording sports matches and training

7 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE

021-762-9715

T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

from across the line. TV replays would have ruled a goal in two seconds, and that poor unknown player (in terms of the masses) would have become a household name. Instead, today no-one except the diehards remember his name or his team? He is Spurs Pedro Mendes. Salute, Pedro!

Perhaps thats too simple to be practical and perhaps it has more chance of happening than a woman becoming president in the US or SA, or for thousands of men to start turning up to watch womens rugby or netball, but it is relevant in terms of one thing: what the players say they want! If the players are going to be tricking and cheating the referees,

The same applies to free kicks and penalties when the ball is hoofed upfield and the referee cant see if a player dives, is tripped accidentally or on purpose, or even who trips himself (accidentally or on purpose!). Unfair red cards, penalties and free kicks have changed many a game, yet a TV replay could so often have ensured the correct decision before the players even stopped arguing with the referee.
DONT FOOL THE REF

their opposition and the fans, then they dont deserve much of a voice in deciding about the use of technology, do they?
BIG BLUBBER

Heres the best part: if the players know that they cant get away with trying their luck on officials, if they know they will be found out, exposed and penalised (sorry, that does sound awfully dramatic!) then they will simply have to start playing their games in a more sporting manner. That makes the game fairer and certainly makes the referees role a lot easier. And why not? Where does it say in the rules of any sport that we must test the referee as much as possible, see if he can spot the right decision? No, no, no. I say NO! The more invisible the referee is the better and referees (mostly!) agree. Their purpose is not to be tested, but to be an arbiter. They share the field, enjoy some limelight, make good money, and get to enjoy a physical activity that is also a big test of the grey matter. The ref aint there to play Big Brother be-

Players: stop appealing for free kicks and penalties when you know you dont deserve them. Stop appealing for the throw-in every time the ball goes out. Dont you realise that the referee will make decisions even if you dont appeal? Maybe everyones been watching too much cricket! Get on with the game and concentrate on your efforts rather than trying to weasel out false decisions. That way you are more likely to have a fairer balance of decisions anyway: if you and your opponents play fairly and in the right spirit there wont be fake appeals for referees to rule on in the first place. The amount of referee error must surely, therefore, be reduced.

Access the VoIP networks cheaper calls rates for big savings.
8 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

tween two spoilt playground brats! But do you know whats absolutely, unequivacably BEST OF ALL? Do I even need to say it? If players start behaving normally and with good sporting grace on the field ... oh dear, think of the massive effect on club and school sportsmen and women! Your hero no longer dives for a penalty in a tough Premiership match ... you no longer dive for a penalty in a tough school or club match. A Test rugby player no longer makes dirty, high tackles, or punches in the scrum, or stands on someones face ... and you no longer dirty your name or your clubs name in a crunch match.

it scares them. They have a lot at stake. However, we as fans also have a lot at stake. Firstly, we want a fair contest and, secondly, if we think the contest is not fair, we spend our money elsewhere. We need to wake up and think for ourselves about what we want our sport to be. Do not be taken in by big voices convincing you of things. History has shown often enough how dangerous that can be. To illustrate, its a well-known fact that officials are often more inclined to rule in favour of the better player, or bigger club - not because they are cheating or applying favouritism. Please do not even consider that for a moment. No, its simply that the official is more likely to believe that the better player or team is deserving of the benefit of the doubt in any close call. Call it a form of subconscious sporting goodwill. No wonder, then, that so many top teams arent picketing for great-

Isnt that enough argument for the TV referee and umpire to be used much more?

er use of technology! A bleeper in a ball costs money, in research and development, and

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A REPLAY!

to supply the balls. And Hawkeye... it wasnt just lying on the side of the road, or plucked off a tree. Im not suggesting that any of these methods are in any way unsavoury, but I am saying that they are unneccessary. Tennis has the cyclops to call line decisions - but why is it sometimes over-ruled? How reliable will Hawkeye or a bleeper in a soccer ball ever be?

My worry about technology in sport is that, as with most of the other problems in sport, MONEY is at stake. The top players, teams and managers generally would rather leave decision-making to an onfield official. Consider this: a lowly team such as Exeter can draw with Man United. Doesnt that show that in the competitive world of sport, a one-on-one contest between two vastly uneven foes can, in fact, be a very even contest. I think the top people know this! I think

Cut your business call costs by 30-60%. No lies

9 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE

021-762-9715

T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

Why not leave the power in the eyes of the referees and umpires! Have a system where the referee or umpire always makes the best decision he can onfield, backed up by his umpire or refereeing partner watching a TV monitor. He can then radio the onfield ref if a more accurate decision can be given after a QUICK viewing on the monitor. Traditionally, the referee or umpire was always in the best position to make a decision. Think about the 1950s! However, today cameras are all around the stadiums and THEY now provide the best views. Plain and simple. To be honest, if I were the umpires I would be picketing hard for the implementation of TV replays. Many people use shock appeal to make the public fear that technology will make the referee disappear. Oooh, lets not use the replays, as it will dehumanise the sport and make the referees redundant. Oh no lets avoid technology today! Its the plague of the new century. However, in three weeks time when the same authorities smile and announce tests of this format or that format of technology, we all rejoice. Thank heavens - they have found a way! Hallelujah! We are now all saved. Referees and umpires thanks for all your hard work, but if the hitech technology goes much further, you guys are going to be back home in your slippers! If I was brave and dedicated enough to stand

among your ranks, I would be DEMANDING more low-tech decisionmaking, such as the increased use of TV replays.
BUT IT TAKES SO LONG!

Back in the 90s everyone moaned about crickets Third Umpire ruling on run outs. Today its just part of the game. In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 seconds of players swinging their handbags above their heads and crying to the referee. Look, we dont need the right decision always. Sometimes thats too difficult to achieve even if you watch a tape for months and I mean that! What we can do is spot the really big mistakes quickly, which an onfield official might have missed (because hes human). Surely if everyone waits for 20-30 seconds for a TV umpire to spot any glaring errors it would be quicker than the Handbags Hit Parade... and it would be fairer to all.
BUT IT ALL EVENS OUT ...

Its just stupid to say we shouldnt use an easy and available resource to help make high-impact and high-pressure decisions. In club or school sport theres no alternative: you have to accept the referee or umpires decision, and it all evens out is relevant (well, theres also no choice in the matter than to accept that and hope!). Not in professional sport, however. Selectors dont worry about things evening out, and neither do league tables. Your boss at work wouldnt say, oh, you made us R200,000 profit last year ... unfortunately, this year you lost us R200,000. Dont

Get two business telephone lines for just R150! Ya, bru.
10 THE BALL MAGAZINE THE FOUR FINALS DREAMS DONT DIE

021-762-9715

T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M

worry, though, you can keep your job as it all evens out. In the old days rugby never allowed substitutions: it was a great mystery to me, as a soccer lover. In fact, as recently as the 70s soccer didnt even allow substitutions! Of course, the players and management found a way, and phantom injuries allowed players to be substituted. Today substitutes are a big part of rugby, and are taken for granted. Funny how things change! Is it really such a difficult decision to say that all televised sports should have a referee watching a TV screen, ready to overrule wrong decisions?
Article extracts from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005 SIMON LEWIS The Ball magazine simon@theball.co.za www.theball.co.za

Why pay for a full minute when you only spoke for 15 seconds?
11 T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E T H E F O U R F I N A L S DREAMS DONT DIE T H E B A L L . C O . Z A T H E B A L L M A G A Z I N E . B L O G S P O T. C O M