Hacker News Reader

Simple way to avoid this, have a tribunal to review matches as they do in Aussie Rules football. If a player is caught deliberately diving, ban them for life.

If everyone is wondering why the USA does not get into soccer, it is because the blatant cheating makes it a joke. It is not a real sport, and never will be, when one dive can win a game for a side, and have a player sent off. Americans have a sense of fair play, that will never accept this.

Of course, this would never get through. South American, Italian, Spanish and Greek clubs have to much sway over FIFA.

Don't get me wrong; I disapprove of the diving and misconduct.

But I am utterly unconvinced that in-game replays will make a difference.

In fact the main problem is the culture of footballers. Go back a few years and things are a whole lot more brighter. Men were men :D and the rules were the law. You are right; strict punishment for cheating would help fix that. Setting limits for player wages and so forth as well would be an important idea.

These are the countries where football is most popular. Why shouldn't they have the most influence?

I don't know if there is such thing as a World American Football Association, but if there was, I'm sure Americans would call the shots.

There are other countries where soccer is also very popular, England, Germany, France, rest of western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia.

I am German and have lived in England and in neither country I have seen a lot of enthusiasm for video refs or more severe penalties. Generally, people enjoy the unpredictability of the game.

In german and english leagues the cheating is not so prevalent.

However, what you say might still be true, they really do not care about the cheating that affects the game so much.

I am just trying to help you understand why soccer will not be big in USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

In the NFL there is generally at least one hold on every play that goes uncalled. Far from offending our sense of fair play, we accept it as part of the game. Basketball is actually strategically centered around fouling and drawing fouls, charging players under the hoop and assuming their feet aren't set, which they usually aren't. These are perfectly accepted aspects of the sport. I hate the diving in soccer, but the push and pull of what the referee will allow you to get away with is a large part of every sport.

One of the most obnoxious things about basketball is how every close game ends with the losing team deliberately fouling to stop the clock.

One possibility would be to use after-the-game replays only to punish particularly egregious behavior, like blatant dives, with suspensions. Wouldn't interrupt the flow of the game, but would deter wrongdoing.

Yes, that's something I think they should do.

The problem is ensuring the game is recorded fairly - they could use the existing cameras certainly but I suspect it's a non-trivial discussion to ensure that the camera coverage is fair for review purposes.

it's already being done, but not to punish dives. it's used to analyze more serious situations such as brutal fouls (a player can get additional punishment by football associations after the game, even to a complete season dismiss) or alleged corruption.

dives are stupid and I hate them, but I think they are far overrated in the US (assumption from what I see in internet discussions)

I'll take it you meant "overblown" instead of "overrated". And no, that's not the case. We actually are incredibly offended by it. We see dives as part and parcel of corruption and as a "more serious situation".

I love soccer and I'd love to see more of it in North America. All the diving to the ground and "oooh my ankle" crap makes it look to people here like a sport full of unnecessary drama. If disincentives were added so diving didn't pay, the game's reputation would be much better imho.

On dives, I agree they're seen as a much bigger deal in the US than other places. I think many people not very familiar with soccer/football tend to assume that they're a much more serious offense than seems to be consensus within the sport. Essentially, people assume that they're a form of deliberate cheating, which in many sports is a kind of offense that would earn you a multi-game suspension on the first offense, and long-term bans on subsequent offenses (say, if you were caught using a corked bat in baseball).

It is deliberate cheating. On the other hand f.ex. tactical fouls are common in basketball, and nobody calls it cheating, just a common strategy. It's quite hard to get a technical foul or 5 fouls, so every end of an NBA game is 0:30 on the clock and till the end of the game you have foul after foul on both sides. I loved basket, but this one was really stupid and annoying.

Different sports, different "tactics".

FIFA already does this ... though there's a lot of bias involved.

Yes. Alot.

No. Not at all. Games are already being interrupted constantly by players diving, kicking each other. Video replays wouldn't add that much.

Of course they would. Your looking at 30s plus for a video replay. Plus then the restart recommended by the ref. A free kick or other call is a few seconds usually (unless it is tense, or important edge of the box stuff etc. which adds to the drama of the game).

The game stops for 30 seconds after debatable situations anyway. Also, the rule could be set up in such a way that the main ref. has the option to call for the video replay if he's not sure. That way, the ref. can keep the game smooth but ask the 5th ref. to examine the video replay before game changing decisions.

Time it next time this happens. Barring injury a game does not frequently stop for a full 30 seconds, even when contentious decisions happen. And in cases where it does I wouldn't want to see it stopped even longer.

One of the attractions of the game is that the referee is the law; he makes a decision on his best judgement and that is the game.

I see your point; and it has merit. But I think it really detracts from the spirit, the flow and the attraction of the game :)

Cheating (especially diving) already detracts from the game. On top of that you have refs given god-like powers to determine a game with their human shortcomings.

Already, I can't take the world cup seriously. 2006, it was the Italians diving to get free penalty kicks. Now, I can't even trust the refs to make honest calls. I'll continue to watch the games until something better comes along.

For me the ubiquitous level of diving is one of the huge detractions for the sport, and no I don't subscribe to the school of thought that diving is part of the game. In my dream world there would be a 12 month ban on any player caught diving. After each game, the refs go through all the footage of the game's fouls, and any player that even looks like he's diving gets banned. If you didn't break a bone or tear a ligament, pick yourself up and stop fucking whining.

>Now, I can't even trust the refs to make honest calls.

Are you talking about a particular incident of dishonesty? Refs tend to be impartial as they benefit from being impartial (wages, honour) whilst would lose by being noticeably partial (lost license to ref, no more wages).

Have you been asleep for the last week?!

The ref for the Slovenia/US game was banned from refing any future Worldcup matches and is being investigated by FIFA.

Nope, I just can't afford TV or newspapers and don't find this sort of news reported on places I look on the web, thanks for the info.

> Yes. Alot. Injuries already interrupt the flow of the game - and one thing Football is good at is flowing (one reason I personally enjoy it).

Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 seconds. Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up.

> bad decisions aren't all that prevalent

They are extremely prevalent, especially not punishing players who pretend to be injured.

> Many many injuries are players pretending to be injured. Video capture would stop those "injuries". And if there is an injury you don't need to stop for 30 seconds. Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up.

Would it really? I don't think so at all - except in the most blatant cases. If contact is made, well, the player might be making a meal of it but the letter of the law is quite solid.

And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P

> Replay reviewing can be quicker than the time it takes for the player to get up.

Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all.

> They are extremely prevalent, especially not punishing players who pretend to be injured.

How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D).

To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem.

> And if we had to stop each time a player went down to decide if contact was made or not that would just ruin the game :P

Ehm, obviously the players would pretend less if they get punished for it. That's the idea of a working ref system...

> Current rules require the player to leave the pitch for treatment. IMO this is a much more streamlined solution. If you change that for the same initial stoppage, plus the ref requesting a review, plus a restart of the game (which may take additional seconds to sort out) it starts to add up. I fail to see how a TV replay shortens that at all.

It's not like it all has to happen in sequence. You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who only after that decides what to do. The only difference is that instead of using the ref's eyes, you use super-eyes. A little bit slower but not significantly slower, and significantly more accurate.

> How do you define that though? Throwing themselves on the floor with no contact is, obviously, bad and should be punished. But if contact is made how do you judge whether an injury has occurred or not? It's next to impossible a decision to make. On many occasions players make the most out of it - on others the most innocent of taps can be excruciating (this is speaking as an ex-footballer in my youth :D).

Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video?

On TV it's often very obvious that they are faking it. But of course judging this is hard sometimes, the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video.

> To me TV replay represents classic over-engineering of a problem.

It's fixing an obviously broken system.

You have a crew of 20 people continuously reviewing the slow motion capture and they tell the results to the ref, who....

You see what I am saying about complicating things. These are just not needed as there are plenty of other fixes to try first!

Are you claiming that a ref in the field can judge this better than one looking at a slow motion video?

Well, uh, probably actually.

You keep saying "injuries" without really quantifying it. Do you mean throwing themselves on the ground and faking it (i.e. diving) or going down under a soft challenge and pretending to be hurt. The first is inexcusable (and sometimes the ref gets it wrong), the second is not on at all but it could still be a correct foul.

the point is that it is way, way harder for a ref on the field to judge than for somebody looking at slow motion video.

It doesn't matter; because it is just part and parcel of what makes up the game. End of. Football doesn't need to be Americanized (I think that term is justified, no offence intended) as far as I am concerned because we enjoy it the way it is.

There are problems, TV replays are not really the fix we are looking for.

It's fixing an obviously broken system.

Obvious to you. For those of us who love and enjoy the sport it is a terrible and badly thought out fix. No thanks :)

The takeaway is this is all part of the game WE enjoy watching/playing. Yes it is getting a little much at times. Yes there are steps we should take to knock the modern footballer into shape :P but no, TV is not the way.

What does america have to do with it?

> It doesn't matter; because it is just part and parcel of what makes up the game. End of. Football doesn't need to be Americanized (I think that term is justified, no offence intended) as far as I am concerned because we enjoy it the way it is.

BTW, I'm from Europe. And everybody I know agrees that TV replays for judging fouls is good. So, your appeal to "we" is a non-argument at best.

> Obvious to you. For those of us who love and enjoy the sport it is a terrible and badly thought out fix. No thanks :)

You are dropping all reasoning and you are just saying "we like it this way, no thanks.".

> TV is not the way.

Then what is?

To summarize your two points:

1) "We already like it this way" -- unclear who we is, and not an argument against replays: maybe it would be even better with replays.

2) "There are other, better fixes" -- without mentioning what these fixes are.

without mentioning what these fixes are.

I've discuses them elsewhere. The main ones:

- setting limits on player wages - harsher penalties for cheating or foul play via post-match review - faster review of matches

These address the same issue without materially affecting the game.

What does america have to do with it?

TV replays is a very US influenced idea. It seems fair to term it that way,

And everybody I know agrees that TV replays for judging fouls is good. So, your appeal to "we" is a non-argument at best.

ahem :) see below:

You are dropping all reasoning and you are just saying "we like it this way, no thanks.".

maybe it would be even better with replays.

I already laid out in quite some detail why I feel replays would interrupt game play and generally make the game less fun to watch overall.

> - setting limits on player wages - harsher penalties for cheating or foul play via post-match review - faster review of matches > These address the same issue without materially affecting the game.

I agree that these are good suggestions, but you want to change the game. Remember US-Slovenia? I don't suppose you think it's good for one side (not) to win because the referee made an error?

> ahem :) see below:

Exactly my point: "we" is not a good argument.

> I already laid out in quite some detail why I feel replays would interrupt game play and generally make the game less fun to watch overall.

The point is that it doesn't interrupt the game, unless there was foul play (and then the game should be interrupted). The current situation is that the game gets interrupted when the referee thinks there is foul play, the situation with replays is that the game gets interrupted when there is foul play. The result is that there will be less foul play because the players know that the probability that they will be caught is much higher than it is now. And there will be less pretending to be hurt, because it's much harder to lie on slow motion capture.

You seem to be arguing against a system where the referee constantly stops the game and asks for replay reviews, which is not what I'm proposing. What I'm proposing is a system where a crew continuously watches replays and gives this information to the referee. It's the same idea as sideline referees, but much more accurate and general.

I suppose in some sense it flows but watching the World Cup I notice that there are constant little stoppages of play -- the ref is always blowing the whistle when two players collide going for a ball, any time there is a challenge (and an opportunity to mug and dive and generally lose dignity ;) Restarts happen quickly to be sure but the whistle stoppage seems to take some of the momentum out of the game.

It would be better if the refs just let the players play and only blow the whistle for the most egregious fouls.

No it wouldn't. Immediate red cards for "faking", determined by the video ref, would solve all the problems soccer has in an instant.

The number of refereee interventions would go down, not up, and the number of games won by theatrics instead of skill would drastically decrease.