Skip to content

Time for instant replay as ref bungles match

Mar 17, 2013, 4:39 PM EDT

Britain Soccer Premier League

Who would be a referee?

Have an off day and the players hate you, the managers loathe you and 50,000 supporters get to abuse you.

Your parentage is questioned, you eyesight ridiculed and the chant of ‘you don’t know what you’re doing’ is sung with fanatical glee. On the other hand, when you do a good job nobody notices!

Chris Foy understands the latter perfectly after he had the shocker of shockers when officiating Sunderland and Norwich today at the Stadium of Light.

He blew three calls that had game changing implications much to the annoyance of Canaries boss, Chris Houghton as his club took the short straw every time.

1. Sending off goalkeeper, Mark Bunn in the 30th minute was beyond harsh. It was such a bang-bang incident with zero intent that you have to wonder if he’d already made up his mind that Norwich would play with 10.
2. Agreeing with his assistant that Norwich defender, Sebastien Bassong had deliberately handled the ball after cushioning it off his chest to give the Black Cats a penalty and their equalizer.
3. Denying the Canaries a clear penalty when Danny Rose handled in the Sunderland box and deciding the offence had occurred a foot outside the penalty area.

It’s understandable that referees can have a bad day at the office but to get three decisions so wrong should see him demoted to handling subs and holding the board signaling additional time.

Anyone for instant replay…?

  1. nygiantstones - Mar 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM

    Rubbish. Knee-jerk reaction to one game. Soccer doesn’t need this kind of Americanization where games are required to be perfectly called. There’s absolutely no reason to install anything that will cause the game to slow down. Instead, the referee in question should be fined or suspended and asked why he didn’t utilize the other three referees at his disposal to ensure the calls went right. If they all agreed on the calls, then suspend the lot of them. A large part of the reason I watch soccer is because it is devoid of the constant interruptions of American games: changing of sides, commercials, time outs, constant clock stoppages for out of bounds or lining up of players, etc., etc. Keep your American attitudes out of the beautiful game.

  2. SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM

    I have no mercy for ignorance and fear of change.

    Stupid arguments:
    1. It slows down the game.
    2. There is no other reason.

    Your selfish personal “feelings” are not important. This is a serious business with lives, careers, and reputations at stake. Things A LOT MORE IMPORTANT than the irrational imaginary fake fictionalized fear of something THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. EVER!

    When it slows down the game, THEN COMPLAIN! DUH! If it’s never slowed down ONE SINGLE GAME EVER, how would you know it does?!!? YOU DON”T! You are making it up in the only place it exists. IN YOUR HEAD.

    While back in reality, games are fixed, refs can be bribed, handballs not called, careers ruined, millions of dollars lost and embarrassing for fans of Soccer. Yes, it’s embarrassing as a sport.

    Soccer is the only major sport that still uses prehistoric technology. A humans best guess.

    Since when is a humans best guess, the best we can do? When we live in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. When homeless people have cameras on their phones. Where virtually every single person has a camera. where the replay in the stadium is shown to thousands, SECONDS AFTER, and millions on TV.

    How does your brain not explode at knowing that every person on earth can watch the replay, but the 4 humans who NEED TO are the only ones who CAN’T!?! WTF?

    Its the most unfair thing I’ve ever seen. You leave refs with no choice but to use their extremely limited human abilities to instantly judge a situation while the rest of the planet gets to look at it again and again and again in slow motion, differing angles, freeze frame it dissect it, while refs have to act like it’s the stone age. You only undermine their credibility, the sport and the leagues. It’s stupid. And for what? People’s fear that the 20 mins that are ALREADY DEAD BALL time, will be an extra 1 min? GTFO.

    It’s not American football. But play DOES STOP ALREADY. People act like it’s just some continuously played game where the game never stops except at halftime and full time. Get over it. The game stops all the time. What’s so scary about using that dead ball time to use 20th century technology (in the 21st century) to review it? Seriously what is so scary about using a camera for 1 min? To make the RIGHT CALL that is more than just entertainment to a selfish afraid fan.

    I have a hard time understanding how people can WANT personal bias and best guessing when you don’t have to. Why? Is a dead ball for a fake injury better than using the time to make sure a team doesn’t get 3 points taken in the standings that their ACTUAL performance justified, that could cost them a playoff spot and millions of dollars in revenue? That is too much to ask?


    And I thought Americans were leaders. Not followers of stone age tradition.

  3. SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 18, 2013 at 7:46 PM

    The reaction to using lights for night games had the same knee-jerk reaction as this technology. How can you use the Americanized electricity to use lights at night? Or is that Americanization okay?

    • SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 18, 2013 at 8:09 PM

      What would take longer? An fake injury or a ref rewinding a video?

      What would be more beautiful? Time wasting or a good call?

      Either people have NO IDEA how instant replay works in the NFL or they don’t know the difference between play stopping for the “play clock (40 secs between plays)”, timeouts, change of possession with instant replay.

      Plays are reviewed for the most 3 min per game. If even that. What’s the big deal if it’s even 1 min?

      Instant replay won’t slow down anything. It’ll actually speed it up. It’s called “instant” for reason.

      • nygiantstones - Mar 18, 2013 at 8:17 PM

        Have you watched an NFL game recently? The added delay of instant replay is ridiculous. All it is is another excuse to go to commercials. Throw in goal-line technology and let the rest of soccer sort itself out. If you want robots in baseball to call strikes and balls, I’m fine with that because it wouldn’t slow down the game. But instant replay in soccer? For what? For every incidental hand ball or ball out of bounds or tackle with the defender touching the ball first? Get real. Part of the reason why soccer is beautiful because the games moves without too much interruption. Call it whatever you want but I zero comparison between instant reply and night lights. It’s enough to review the matches after the fact and hand out fines and suspension to players who fake dive. And if you’re talking fake diving, take your instant replay to Italy, or somewhere else it’s a problem. It’s not an issue enough in the EPL to warrant an instant replay. Please.

      • wandmdave - Mar 24, 2013 at 1:01 AM

        @nygiantstones – You’re shooting yourself in the foot with your own argument. As you say FIFA can choose which plays are up for review, when, and how. Amer. football’s review is tailored to fit they ebb and flow of that game while limiting the ability to challenge frivolously. It does stop the game but the game stops so often in amer. football (I’m annoyed by it as much as you are which is why I rarely watch it) a max of 6 challenges (rarely more than 2 occur in a game) which last a minute or two to ensure big game changing plays are called right isn’t a big deal. In soccer the big game changing plays tend to be free kicks, penalties, goals, and cards, especially red ones. After each of those plays there tends to be a long pause in the game while someone rolls around injured (sometimes legitimately but most times not which is almost as annoying as the stoppages in most american sports), both teams protest the call, the players set up for the kick, or the teams are reset after a goal. In this day and age each of those stoppages which are already natural occurrences offer plenty of time for the 4th official or an new booth official to review replay and advise on key issues of each play. Was the goal scorer offsides when he touched the ball in, did the defender make contact on the penalty or was it a dive, was that foul in midfield nasty enough to warrant a card, did a player intentionally handle the ball in the box. Hell you can even add in a rule like in the NFL where if the play is restarted before the video can be reviewed then it can’t be challenged. That would even provide incentive for play to continue more quickly than it does now.

  4. SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 18, 2013 at 8:21 PM

    I think I know what the problem is for people. They look at the NFL, where every single play, no matter what, gets replayed. BUT, it’s not instant replay. Instant replay is for refs to use. The slow motion ‘replay’ of the last play is how the game is watched. You have 40 secs to fill with slow motion of the last play. Not everyone of these are being stopped and reviewed by refs. The game is stopped and started but reviews happen as much as any controversial call in Soccer would. 2 or 3 times a game. Not every single play.

    American football is stop and start every play. Instant replay isn’t.

  5. nygiantstones - Mar 18, 2013 at 8:23 PM

    And add some perspective to your opinion. I’m a third generation Arsenal fan with an inherited memory that goes back decades upon decades. Are you upset over a bad call in the two years of your club’s history and can’t get over it? No reason to change what has worked for 150 years because johnny come lately Americans are upset over bad calls that happen.

  6. SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 19, 2013 at 4:10 PM

    So, the only argument against is:

    1. It’s been done that way since the 19th Century
    2. It’ll slow down the game
    3. Every single play will stop the game

    WTF? Could the hyperbole begin?

    1. Who cares if it’s been done the same way for 150 years? That’s a problem not a point of pride.
    2. How will it slow down the game if the calls are instant and FAKE injuries are called INSTANTLY? It won’t. It takes more time having a player act they had their leg cut off rolling around on the ground making a display.
    3. Why is the idea that having 1-2 calls reviewed, so scary that it makes peoples brains go paranoid? Who wants every single play to be reviewed? NO ONE. So how is that even a possibility? How is that an actual argument against it? No one wants that and NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER WANTED THAT.

    So, there is no RATIONAL reason to not use Instant Replay. Sorry, but if your brain is so scared of change that asking for accuracy is the same as ending the sport as you know it, you”re scared of change. You are afraid the game will change. Even if it was for the better, people would still hate it ONLY BECAUSE IT’S NEW!

    If you are going to comment of the NFL, you should understand how instant replay works.

    Coaches get 2 challenges per game. Not hundreds.

    And going “way out there” could also mean that every red card (or dare I say every yellow) is reviewed by a 5th official working with the other 4.

    There are so many ways to use it, that having the lack of imagination to customize it for a different sport, shows how rigid and dogmatic “tradition” is. Tradition is also bribery, apparently in Europe as well. No need to change anything ever.

    Is one challenge by a coach within 10 seconds of the play per game ENDING THE SPORT AS WE KNOW IT?

    Sports that have joined the 21st Century
    1. Rugby
    2. Cricket
    3. Field Hockey
    4. Baseball
    5. Gridiron Football USA, Canada
    6. Tennis
    7. NASCAR
    8. Basketball
    Even Rodeo uses it!

    The one sport that doesn’t? Soccer. What sport is the most corrupt? Soccer. Any coincidence?

    You want sketchy calls and possible bribery, stay with that awesome 150 year tradition of having one guy make or break a game.

    Give one actual fact from a game where Instant Replay was used. Give one stat or actually anything that is evidence that Instant Replay hurts the game. Other than someones personal feelings.

    Just one.

    • nygiantstones - Mar 19, 2013 at 8:01 PM

      And by the way, those sport that you list? I would list most of them as so insignificant that whatever they do impacts such a small percentage of people so as not even to be relevant to the conversation. And I would also list many of them as so long and dull as it currently stands, that adding instant replay wouldn’t matter.

      Long and dull already: Cricket, Baseball, NASCAR
      Insignificant to the vast majority of global viewers: Field hockey, Canadian Football, Tennis, NASCAR, Rodeo???

      I mean come on man, if you’re going to use examples of sports where instant replay is used, try to come up with something more relevant than bloody field hockey, NASCAR, Rodeo??, and Canadian football. Please!

      • SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 19, 2013 at 8:21 PM

        so, no example

  7. SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM

    btw, it’s coming whether you want it or not. Americans are the largest consumers of sport in the world. We set the standard, and if Soccer wants to be a top sport in the top market, it will have to be acceptable to an audience that has higher standards than the rest of the world.

  8. nygiantstones - Mar 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

    So what’s your argument for having instant replay? We’re American, we spend more money, therefore we demand things be done our way? If players are faking an injury, then fine or suspend them after the fact, that will clear up fake injuries mighty fast. We’re also talking about a game that involves massive amounts of non-stop running for 45 minute stretches. It’s part of the game that players go to the pitch to give themselves and their teammates a minute to breath and drink some water. I don’t have an issue with that and accept it as part of the game. It’s a small sacrifice to make to have a game with less stoppages than any American sport. Where has it been written that there would only be 1-2 replays a match? Is there a limit on how many managers can call, on how many the ref can call? Show me the write-up on that one.

    And for your information, NFL coaches get 2 challenges, unless they get both correct, in which case they get a 3rd one. Also, Referees in the NFL can initiate instant replay after all scoring plays, interceptions, fumbles, backwards passes recovered by the opponent and muffed scrimmage kicks recovered by the kicking team. Where’s the limit on those amount of calls? I can’t find the average amount of time it takes to review a challenge but the average length of NFL games has increased ten minutes. If each challenge takes 1:30, then it could add an extra 9 minutes to a game, based on only a coach’s challenge. Can you guarantee a soccer challenge will take less than 1:30 and there will only be a total of 4 allowed per match by all participants? I don’t need a potential extra 9 minutes of players standing around doing nothing on a soccer pitch and I certainly don’t need or want an unlimited amount of instant replays initiated by the referee. Don’t want it and don’t need it.

    I can give you three incidents from the NFL last year where instant replay failed. One was the game between GB and Seattle where the GB player clearly had a catch and not only did the refs on the field get it wrong, but the instant replay official got it wrong as well. Another incident was the Titans INT for TD off Andrew Luck where Luck’s knee was down and the instant replay official got it wrong again by not showing the video angle to the ref on the field. Another example was in the Houston/Detroit game when instant replay would have gotten the call right but because the coach threw a red flag, which was against the rules on a scoring play, the play stood as called on the field. So don’t tell me instant replay is going to cure all the mistakes of refereeing, instant replay has it’s issue as well with the human element still involved.

    I’d rather see fines and suspensions for players faking injuries and taking dives, and the same for referees that call bad matches. The video is available and can always be used to remove suspect refs from future matches if we think they are fixing games. And besides, I’m arguing EPL here – and in all the examples of match fixing that were recently brought into question, I believe there was ONE match that involved an EPL team and that was a European or International match that Liverpool played against someone else. I’m sorry, but if you’re going to say that instant replay is going to remove the chance of cheating from matches, then you’re probably not paying attention to third and second world economics. If a ref isn’t getting paid in a third world country and he is offered a bribe, instant replay isn’t going to stop him from fixing matches.

  9. SD1 Timbers Special Forces - Mar 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

    So, no examples

  10. nygiantstones - Mar 20, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    Examples of what? I gave you three examples of where instant replay failed in the NFL this previous season. I gave you an example of how NFL games have extended ten minutes longer after installing instant replay. Are these not the examples that you are looking for? What did you give me? Platitudes about Americans being #1 and examples of instant replay used in sports no one gives a damn about?

  11. scoocha - Mar 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM

    Soccer isn’t American football, it is extremely easy to officiate. Baseball (outside of balls and strikes) for that matter too. These two sports are the ones that should have replay over American football.

    Also, the call on the keeper was correct. He can’t handle the ball outside the box. The other 2 were wrong.

  12. wandmdave - Mar 24, 2013 at 1:11 AM

    The same traditionalist idiots argued against instant replay in baseball and football already. Hell the soccer traditionalists have been arguing, and somehow winning, against the breathtakingly obvious benefits of goal line technology against all reason until just a few months ago. Instant replay make take a few more years but it will come as the old fogies who grew up listening to the sport on the radio give way to a new generation that is used to such technologies. Once it does no one will be able to fathom why it was ever argued against it will be so successful. That has been the story with every other one of these life or death struggles for the soul of whatever sport is being dicussed.

  13. wandmdave - Mar 24, 2013 at 1:11 AM

    The same traditionalist idiots argued against instant replay in baseball and football already. Hell the soccer traditionalists have been arguing, and somehow winning, against the breathtakingly obvious benefits of goal line technology against all reason until just a few months ago. Instant replay make take a few more years but it will come as the old fogies who grew up listening to the sport on the radio give way to a new generation that is used to such technologies. Once it does no one will be able to fathom why it was ever argued against it will be so successful. That has been the story with every other one of these life or death struggles for the soul of whatever sport is being discussed.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Highlights: Swansea's win vs. Man United