The Ball's the Four Finals

8/2/2019 The Ball's the Four Finals

1/12

APRIL 2012

Ever wonderedwhat would happen

if all decisions ina soccer matchwere made by aTV referee?

Would there betoo many delays?

Could they get thedecisions right?

The Ball decidedto take a look

By Simon Lewis(originally publishedin July 2005)

TheBallSPECIAL EDITION

THE FOURFINALS

HOW THE TV REFEREE MIGHT HAVECHANGED THE RESULT OF FOUR FINALS

A 2005 REPORT

D R E A M S D O N T D I E

N O B U L L , J U S T B A L L

www . t h e b a l l . c o . z a


2/12

A tale of four finals

In 2005, as Editor of The Ball magazine, I appealled to FIFA to ad-

dress 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)

Soccer, one of the leading sports, actually needs to catch a wake-

up, as almost all other sports are using video replays to aid refe-

rees, 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 impos-

sible for the referees to call correctly although most were con-

firmed as incorrect almost instantly within a handful of seconds),

the spilt is about 20 against to 80 percen t FOR the use of technol-

ogy 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.

Using TV footage is the cheape st 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 ref-ereeing 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

In 2005 I took extensive notes of all the referee and linesmen de-

cisions 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 refereeand 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 numbe r 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.

1 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 D R E A M S D O N T D I E 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

C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y 3 0 - 6 0 % . N o l i e s 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


3/12

Note: Most of these decisions are humanly impossible for the ref-

eree and his linesmen to always call correctly.

(Source: The Ball magazine, www.theball.co.za)

FOOTNOTEThere 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 im-

portance. 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 refereesessentially 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 accu-

rate 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).

Figures, stats and workingsfrom The Four Finals

Compiled by Simon Lewis

EOT = viewers can confirm decision from live footage.

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

FA Cup final Arsenal v Man United

90 min EOT RBP ERR extra time EOT RBP ERR

1st half 48 4 3 1st half 13 2 0

2nd half 47 9 1 2nd half 18 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


1st half 23 16 1 1st half 13 2 0

2nd half 45 11 3 2nd half 17 3 1

PENALTIES: The keepers were off their line before the kick four

times, three of which were saved.


G e t t w o b u s i n e s s t e l e p h o n e l i n e s f o r j u s t R 1 5 0 ! Y a , b r u . 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


4/12

Scottish Cup Final Celtic v Dundee United

90 min EOT RBP ERR

1st half 42 10 3

2nd half 51 7 5

Championship Playoff Final Preston v West Ham

90 min EOT RBP ERR1st half 50 7 1

2nd half 53 5 0

OVERALL AVERAGES


1st half 163 37 8 1st half 26 4 2

2nd half 196 32 9 2nd half 35 3 1

Total 359 69 17 61 7 3

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




EXTRA TIME FOR THE FOUR FINALS

1st half 30 minutes total



Referee blows every 1 min (60 seconds)

2nd half 30 minutes total38 blows of the whistle

1 decision missed / unseen on TV


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

On average, the referees made 50 decisions in the first half of nor-

mal 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


W h y p a y f o r a f u l l m i n u t e w h e n y o u o n l y s p o k e f o r 1 5 s e c o n d s ?


5/12

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

Times are based on an average time of 45 minutes per half. Stop-

page time is classed as dead time, as the ref wouldnt be makingdecisions. 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 deci-

sion 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

was made. Additional replays might show errors within this cat-

egory. RBP means no replay shown essentially. Taking time to

rewind tape often provided confirmation of the decision, and ac-

cessing 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 lines-

men are able to make 95% of decisions with 100% accuracy andprobably 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 re-

plays and, possibly, has more cameras in position. In a short spaceof 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.

SI MON LEWI S The Ball magazine

[email protected] www.theball.co.za


C a l l u s f o r a f r e e a n a l y s i s o f y o u r p h o t o c o p i e r a n d P A B X n e e d s .


6/12

Soundbites from the article30 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 of-

ficials, 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 cam-

eras 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.

In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 sec-

onds 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 .

Your boss at work would nt 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 it s 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 deci-sions, 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

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 hu-

manly possible. Sure, the finals would have had the top-rated refe-

rees and linesmen officiating, but their performances do offer proof


L o s i n g b u s i n e s s b e c a u s e y o u r i n c o m i n g l i n e s a r e a l w a y s e n g a g e d ?


7/12

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 mo-

tion 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 decis ions,

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 errorshitting the headlines.

MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THE USE OF THE TV REFEREE

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 it s 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!

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 attack er 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

The goal-kick or corner kick decision is potentially a big decision

to get wrong a corner kick is an opportuni ty 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 dead-

ball 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.


H i - t e c h C C T V s y s t e m s 4 , 8 o r 1 6 c h a n n e l w w w . a d v a n c e d t e l c o m s . c o . z a


8/12

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 abso-

lute certainty. As these are often of major significan ce 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 tomor-

row, 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 whendelivered by a big name player, manager, coach or ex-player. You al-

ways 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


U s e C C T V f o r r e c o r d i n g s p o r t s m a t c h e s a n d t r a i n i n g 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


9/12

from across the line. TV replays would have ruled a goal in two sec-

onds, 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!

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 ac-

cidentally 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

Players: stop appealing for free kicks and penalties when you know

you dont deserve them. Stop appeali ng for the throw-in every time

the ball goes out. Dont you realise that the referee will make deci-

sions 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.

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,

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 dramat-

ic!) then they will simply have to start playing their games in a moresporting 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-


A c c e s s t h e V o I P n e t w o r k s c h e a p e r c a l l s r a t e s f o r b i g s a v i n g s .


10/12

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.

Isnt that enough argument for the TV referee and umpire to be

used much more?

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A REPLAY!

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

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 il lustrate, it s 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 subcon-

scious sporting goodwill .

No wonder, then, that so many top teams arent picketi ng for great-

er use of technology!

A bleeper in a ball costs money, in research and development, and

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 unsa-

voury, but I am saying that they are unneccessary. Tennis has the

cyclops to call l ine decisions - but why is it sometimes over-ruled?

How reliable will Hawkeye or a bleeper in a soccer ball ever be?


C u t y o u r b u s i n e s s c a l l c o s t s b y 3 0 - 6 0 % . N o l i e s 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


11/12

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 part-

ner 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 peopl e use shock appeal to

make the public fear that technology will make the referee disap-pear. Oooh, lets not use the replays, as it will dehumanis e 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 hi-

tech 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 decision-

making, such as the increased use of TV replays.

BUT IT TAKES SO LONG!

Back in the 90s everyone moaned about crickets Third Umpire rul-

ing on run outs. Today its just part of the game. In football any con-

troversial 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 dif-

ficult 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 re-

source 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

1 0 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 D R E A M S D O N T D I E 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

G e t t w o b u s i n e s s t e l e p h o n e l i n e s f o r j u s t R 1 5 0 ! Y a , b r u . 0 2 1 - 7 6 2 - 9 7 1 5


12/12

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

SI MON LEWI S The Ball magazine

[email protected] www.theball.co.za

1 1 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 D R E A M S D O N T D I E 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

W h y p a y f o r a f u l l m i n u t e w h e n y o u o n l y s p o k e f o r 1 5 s e c o n d s ?

The Ball's the Four Finals

Documents

Transcript of The Ball's the Four Finals