Sympathy for the Referee

The last week has seen numerous bad refereeing decisions in both the World Cup Soccer and the NBA finals. As the NBA finals are won and done (Lakers in 7) and in basketball, a 7 game series means that the bad decisions tend to even out over its course, let's turn our attention the the FIFA World Cup.

In soccer bad refereeing decisions are etched into every fans memory.
Quickly, what is the most famous FIFA World Cup goal? The first goal that comes to mind is Maradona's "Hand of God" goal in the 1986 quarter-final win over England. A goal that should not and would not have been awarded, had the referee seen Maradona's fist punching the ball into the net.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup is trending along a similar line. Siphiwe Tshabalala's spectacular opening strike of the World Cup for South Africa or David Villa's excellent skill to get Spain going, should be among the most memorable goals, but most of us are still talking about and replaying the goal by USA's Maurice Edu, which was disallowed by Mali referee Koman Coulibaly for an unknown reason.

Before damning the referees to a far less stressful existence in their day jobs, we may consider the difficulty they have controlling the game, making correct calls every time and what these controversies mean to soccer in general.

Difficult decisions are part of the referees job. We have previously written about the difficulty of getting into the correct position to see all that goes on in a soccer game. Even with TV we often don't see what happened until we get the instant replay from 3 different angles. Sometimes, even then, we are still not sure.

The referee needs to make his decisions quickly. Sure he can get some help from his assistant referees, but decisions also need to be prompt so that the game can continue to flow and be entertaining for the spectators. Player skill, speed, aggressiveness and even simulation, sometimes diving with theatrical eloquence to win free kicks and penalties, make it even harder.

In the USA vs Slovenia game on June 18, 2010, the referee was attempting to keep track of at least 3 different tussles between the players in the penalty box. In most cases, to those of us who got to see it more than once and from more than one angle, it looked obvious that the Slovenia players were fouling the Americans and that a penalty should have been awarded to the USA. The referee however had one view and one chance to see all that was happening and made his call.

Of course we hear the argument that the referee should simply have explained the call. Perhaps he should have, but would that really have appeased the United States players, coach or fans? After all, the goal was still disallowed and video replay is not currently used in soccer to overturn or review a refereeing decision.

This leads me to the other benefit of a poor decision - Interest in the game. The USA is not normally a country to be gripped by soccer fever, but the excitement for the deciding group game against Algeria has been raised a few levels because of the refereeing error. Americans who usually label soccer boring will be tuning in to see if their team can win and qualify for the round of 16, despite the terrible judgement that has befallen their team.

A similar enhancement of the game can be seen around the world. Every game England plays against Argentina, whether Maradona is Argentina's coach or not, is at an elevated level because the the "Hand of God" goal. The next time the Republic of Ireland play France, Irish revenge will be on everyones mind because Thierry Henry used his hand to assist in a goal for France over Ireland to qualify for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The list goes on, everyone creating renewed interest, excitement and rivalries.

Let's have some sympathy for the referee. After all they are only human and can make human errors. And we so enjoy the rivalries they may have created by disallowing or allowing a goal here and there.

OK with sympathy we can now try to understand what Mali referee, Koman Coulibaly saw in this goal to disallow it. Could this video have the answer?

Henry Gives France a Hand into The World Cup

Another week and another call for the use of video replay in sports.
This time from the football (soccer) World Cup qualifier between France and the Republic of Ireland.

Frances' William Gallas scores from an assist by team mate Thierry Henry. Replays and video evidence clearly show that Henry used his hand, intentionally, to control the ball before crossing it.

Watch the video below. Although I believe that Irish football commentary is often biased for their team, the commentary in this video is not biased. It is obvious that this goal should have been disallowed by the referee or the linesmen.



Henry admitted after the game that he had used his hand. I am not sure that any player with the desire to win this do or die World Cup qualification game would not have risked the same. I am sure he even expected the goal to be disallowed. Henry conned the referee and linesmen. Similar cases, particularly of players diving to win penalties, are prevalent in football at all levels and throughout the world. Players should never in my opinion deliberately try to con the referee. However I have no intention of passing judgement on Henry's character or that of any other professional athlete. This website is about video analysis, so once again we will harp back to a previous discussion on the use of technology and particularly video replay in sports.

In this particular instance we had some clear evidence of the hand ball from the TV footage. But again we need to point out that the evidence is not always that clear. See our previous post on video technology for refereeing. There have been numerous calls in soccer when the decision could have gone either way because of lack of clear video footage.

Watch this video of Wayne Rooney falling to win a penalty against Arsenal earlier this year. This decision is less obvious, was Rooney already falling or did the Arsenal goalkeeper touch his foot and bring him down? Was the ball close enough to be retrieved before going over the goal line? Even on watching the video it is a difficult decision to make.



The video technology in this case has let us down. A side on view of this same incident would have enabled us to better assess the position of the ball and the point at which Rooney begins to fall. We would also have been able to tell when Almunia, the Arsenal goalkeeper makes contact. So here is a decision that even with video replay remains controversial.

I believe that some amount of controversy actually brings excitement and emotion to the game. As a fan of a losing team, what better way to make yourself feel better than to suggest that the team would have won if the referee/player/coach/linesman hadn't cheated. In fact had Henry's goal for France been disallowed, Ireland would not have automatically won as many of the Irish believe (the score was 1-1 on aggregate before the goal went in), and may even have lost in the end anyway. Now just think of the great grudge match when France and Ireland meet again, even in sports other than soccer.

The problem is the blaming. With a referee in charge there are bound to be honest mistakes on occasion. Sometimes there may even be some blatant bias. The players too can make honest mistakes. A player falling over in the penalty box is not always trying to win a penalty, he may be trying to avoid injury.

Video replay technology can give increased accuracy to the decision. A referee is not always in the perfect position to make the most accurate call. Video from different angles can give the official added perspectives to help make his decision more accurate.

Video technology can remove all of this bias and simplify things. However it currently is not 100% accurate and controversial decisions will remain when the perfect camera angle is not available.

As technology progresses and even now with a good camera placement, such as those used in cricket and with the Hawk-Eye system for tennis, even more accurate decisions can be made.

It's time to bring in the video replay for all sports that rely on a referee or umpire to make a decision.

Replay Technology Will NOT make 100% Correct Calls

More blown calls in a major sporting event. This time in the 2nd game of the Major League Baseball World Series, between the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies. Chase Utley of the Phillies was called out at first base, when video evidence suggested he had touched the base before the ball hit Mark Teixeira’s glove. In the same game Ryan Howard was judged to have caught out Johnny Damon, when the ball looked to bounce before hitting his glove. There have been a number of poor calls in this seasons MLB playoffs once again, and blown calls are happening in numerous other sports, including soccer and tennis.

The technology of high definition and high speed video of today can easily eliminate many of these blown calls. Sure there is the argument that using video replay can slow down the game. In baseball in particular this would be truly frustrating, but we would I think all prefer to see the right call made most of the time, particularly in big games such as the World Series.

Cricket is a great example of where camera technology is used to good effect. The cameras are setup side on to the crease (batters line) and can see both the wickets and the crease. In most cases just this one camera would be enough to determine the position of the batter as well as whether the wickets bails had been dislodged. If the umpire on the field is unsure of a run out situation, he will refer the decision to the camera technology, or the 3rd umpire, who will make a definitive decision after reviewing the video footage.

Although we definitely support the use of video analysis to assist umpires and referees, it is important that everyone; umpires, athletes and fans understand that even with video analysis a call can not be 100% correct every time.
Video footage cannot always capture the event from the correct angle or the video cannot be slowed down sufficiently to determine some calls. The fact is that the video footage may not show enough evidence to support or over rule a call.

Fans in particular make the mistake of believing that video evidence will always be able to determine whether a call is correct. Unfortunately this is not the case.
If the camera reviewing a line call or judgement does not have a direct view, then the video image may not help to determine the accuracy of the umpire's call. When close calls are viewed from an angle given by a television camera, they can sometimes give misleading evidence of the accuracy of the call. This can be particularly problematic for example, when using one camera angle to determine whether a base runner has been thrown out. The base runner is running between the bases and the camera could be setup at a good angle to view when the runner touches the base. However, and here is the problem, the ball may be thrown in to the fielder from anywhere on the field (this cannot be determined in advance), therefore the camera setup to view the runner may not be in the best position to accurately determine when the fielder caught the ball and it will be possible for incorrect judgements to be made. If on the other hand we have a great view of the fielders glove and ball, we may have the incorrect perspective of the base runner and when he touches the base.

Of course these 2 situations did not take place in the 2nd game of the MLB World Series, but they also cannot be discounted.

Take a look at the 2 photographs below.


In the above pic we have the view from one camera and shoe looks like it is on the edge of the mat.
Now lets take a look from a second camera with a better view of the edge of the mat and the shoe.

Of course it is pretty obvious from this camera angle that the shoe is just short of touching the mat.
From this we can see that the incorrect camera angle could result in an incorrect call.

The problem of incorrect camera angle could be solved by having multiple cameras, all synchronized with a time source and calibrated so that the 3D position of the ball can be determined. This is how the Hawk-Eye system for Cricket and the Tennis challenge system works. Beside the fact that this type of technology requires numerous cameras, can be very expensive and requires processing time before a decision can be made, it too can suffer from inaccuracies when the ball or target being tracked is hidden from the view of a number of cameras. This can often be the case when their are numerous players on the field, or the lighting is not ideal.

So we know that video analysis of umpiring and refereeing decisions are not 100% accurate. In fact the Hawk-Eye system claims they have an accuracy of 3.6mm. This means that the ball can miss the line by 3.6mm in Tennis and still be called in by the system. In NFL football when a call is challenged and a review takes place, often the result suggests that there is insufficient evidence and the call on the field cannot be over ruled. This insufficient evidence occurs because the camera cannot get the best view of the ball and its position because of the scrum of players or a camera angle that is not optimal.

The umpire or referee has a distinct disadvantage to technology. He or she only gets one chance to get it right. If they fail to get into the best position, have the best view of the play, find the best perspective to catch all the action and happen to blink at the critical point, they could easily make the wrong call.
The camera even with the possible errors in perspective or lighting and the small errors with 3D tracking , can capture high resolution and high speed footage and replay it over and over again.
This advantage will ensure that technology will get the call right more often than even the best and luckiest umpires and referees and should be used whenever an umpire is unsure of the call to be made.

A final thought. While we wait for technology to be used, we should remember that even video footage could result in incorrect decisions. There will always be some statistical error, only a lessor error than those made by human umpires. Fortunately with technology, line calls can not be biased by emotion but only based on whatever video footage is available. With this technology even the teams we support will catch a few breaks in the long run.