Give Referees iPhones II

Yesterday it was good to see the Americans defeated by the team that played better (Ghana) and, for once, not have to worry about whether some referee would make a mistake that clouded the result.

Not so today in the wonderful England-Germany match. There was, of course, another howling, humiliating mistake, this time one that cost England a goal. I'm not sure whether being awarded the goal would have changed the outcome of the game (too many counterfactual hypotheticals), but can you imagine the outcry if Germany had won 2-1, simply because of a referee's mistake?

Arguments can go either way, but what has made the case for electronic review irrefutable is experience. Defending the prerogative of referees to make irreversible screwed-up calls that change game outcomes just can't survive what we've seen as spectators over the past couple of weeks. The Politburo may claim that production targets are being met, but we've just toured the collective farms, and we're gonna believe our lyin' eyes.

Naturally, there will still be holdouts. I'm going to strap on my armchair sociologists' helmet, and venture a few observations. Those who will doggedly defend referees' right to make irreversible game-changing screw-ups without accountability will come disproportionately from Catholic countries. Why Catholic? Two reasons. First, Catholicism is well known as the non-perfectionist's religion -- why else was the ingenious institution of the confessional invented? Second, Catholics are at least formally expected to respect the doctrine of infallibility. Do I need to draw you a diagram?

I'd also be willing to bet it's the countries presently or formerly governed by absolutist monarchs that will hold out for the referee's right to err. After all, they're used to showing deference to mediocrity. Another drawback, from this perspective, is that electronic review would seriously hinder referees' ability to throw matches in return for cash or favors. Where's the fun in that?

Comments

[dining table]

We are just an ordinary people. We are not perfect. Sometime we commit errors. Although that one is not on the right timing for error. That is a game. In game there is going to be a winner and a looser.

[cohu]

I think Mr. Blatter reads your blog...

[Norbert]

It was especially painful to see Lampard's goal disallowed, when at least 45 cameras had recorded the ball's movement, so that the referee just needed to have a quick look above to the large screen in the stadium to find out what 1 billion or so TV viewers had already found out a few seconds earlier.

However, what happens if, even on video, the situation is "too close to call"? There are endless examples of fouls or offside situations where even with the most precise video footage at hand, so-called experts can debate for hours whether it was or wasn't. What would you do in situations like these? You still need a referee who makes a final call, on the spot. So allowing electronic review may serve to reduce human errors (that's already better, sure), but it won't eliminate them totally.

What is faulty with the whole game is that the world football association FIFA (who are more and more compared to the Catholic church, BTW) just rules that electronic review is evil, without consulting the fans, the clubs, the national assiocations, i.e. the "stakeholders". That's the true scandal.

[John]

As I watched Günter Netzer explain: football is not just a sport, it is a drama.

Whether these failures make it a comedy or a tragedy depends, I suppose, on which team you're supporting when the bad call is made. (Given all the talk about Wembley '66, we learn that football can also be, specifically, a revenge tragedy.)

Is Netzer Catholic? No idea.

And there are some devoutly Catholic Mexicans who, I'm sure, would share your view today... :-)

[cohu]

@Andrew: Yep, I assume that referees will, on average, have the same rate of error over time. Only a crude secular mind would demand data; I simply believe this is true because the God of football is just.

Your obsession with short-term justice for the "better" team relies on the spiritually stunted (deeply American) belief that winning is an end in itself. I'm as lapsed a Catholic as they come, but I can tell you this: There's no winning in this world. We must face the adversities of life - idiotic referees, back pain, red lights -, dust ourselves off, and fight on, just for the sake of doing the right thing, not for winning. Who has "won" will be decided in another world, if at all.

Another misconception: This game - like all the big cultural rituals - isn't supposed to be "nice" (as in: consistent, logical, stringent, dependable). It's there to emulate or imitate the human condition as closely as possible. Referee imperfection serves this goal.

[Andrew]

@cohu: So, these preventable errors can go one way during one tournament, and another way the next time, so that no team gets a lasting unfair advantage. Two comments here: How do you actually know that's true? This is frequently asserted by the anti-review faction, but I haven't seen any proof of it. And it seems pretty imporant to know whether it's actually true or not!

Second comment: Even if we assume errors even out in the long run, wouldn't a game with fewer preventable errors be even nicer? After all, every game-changing error you tolerate detracts from the principle that the better team should win. And I would have thought that was kind of important. Or is that just my amerikanische Leistungsobsession shining through?

@Ferdinand: Red herring. Nobody's suggesting that the rules of the game would be re-written to force every single African village to install a Hawkeye system. In fact, nobody's suggesting the rules be changed at all -- just more accurately enforced.

The mere fact that the very highest levels of tennis and basketball may use high-tech verification procedures hasn't dimmed the enthusiasm of the millions of people who play tennis and basketball every day, everywhere, without any lasers at all.

[Ferdinand Kleist]

If you watched the Bundesliga every weekend you would realise how often decisions are hotly debated even with technology. I think if introduced it should be restricted to situations where with technology you can come to an undisputable decision within seconds. That is only the goalline technology which I would support. But keep the video replay out of fouls offside and corner kicks. This isn't American football. To play this game you don't have to live in an industrialized country and be able to afford all the gear. This is what makes football so inclusive.

[cohu]

"Arguments can go either way, but what has made the case for electronic review irrefutable is experience. "

Wha-?!!! Au contraire! The main argument of your opponents, of course, is that referee imperfection isn't unfair in the long term, because it affects everyone the same. I can't think of a better proof for this point than yesterday's goal. Wembley 1966 - finally corrected. Gottes Mühlen mahlen langsam, aber gerecht.

Yes, I'm catholic and presently ruled by absolutist monarchs.

[dai]

sorry, repost correcting stupid typos - typos almost as low level as the referee screw-ups. really driven crazy.
wanted to cry, seen the greatest and next to greatest life-changing 'errors' in one day, today, first england-germany, england goal one meter beyond goal line disallowed, second argentina-mexico, argentina header from two meters offside allowed. surreal. i played this game since 9, followed the world cup since 1982, and today is my darkest day. theory for these outrageous wrongs - fifa wants stronger sides to travel far, for tv ratings and whatever that makes more money. all of a sudden my life's game becomes dirty to me!

[dai]

wanted to cry, seen the greatest and next go greatest life-changing 'errors' one day, first england-germany, england goal one meter beyond goal line not disallowed, second argentina-mexico, argentina header from two meters offside allowed. i played this game since 9, started to follow the world cup since 1982, and today is my darkest day. theory for these outrageous wrongs - fifa wants stronger sides to travel far, for tv ratings and whatever that makes more money. all of a sudden my life's game becomes dirty to me!