Goal for World Cup: Get It Right!

Argentina's controversial goal in its World Cup round-of-16 win over Mexico is another example of the difficulty officials have when the demands put on them exceed the abilities of normal human vision. This goal marked the third time in the past few days (the second today) that officials obviously were wrong on a goal scored/not scored call.

The goal-scorer in this instance, Carlos Tevez, was clearly closer to the goal than any opponent--offsides--when the ball was kicked by Lionel Messi. We know that because we can view the instant replay from the side. However, no official was so fortuitously located.

The play, as is often the case in soccer, unfolded quickly. The offsides could not have been anticipated, and so no official could have hoped to get into a spot where he could view the play from that side angle.

In fact two defenders had Tevez nearly bracketed at the moment Messi kicked the ball, and by the time it reached Tevez, they were dead-even with him. The officials were naturally looking at Messi when he kicked it, and their eyes followed the ball to where it reached Tevez--who by then was no longer offsides.

The offsides rule is a difficult one to enforce accurately because it is based on where player A is when player B kicks the ball. Humans have two eyes but they cannot focus separately. We must shift our eyes'collective focus back and forth. During that process, time lapses and things change.

We can clearly see the advantages of instant replay:  a choice of viewing angles, the ability to freeze the picture frame, repeat viewing.

So why not give each team the opportunity to challenge up to, say, two scoring/not scoring calls per game? In soccer, where every goal is critical, it makes sense to bring in the instant replay on goals scored/not scored calls.

Play is stopped for a while anyway after a goal while the scorers celebrate and then everyone moves to midfield area. Give the coach, say 30 seconds after goal is scored to protest it.

Have the fourth official hooked-up to review the instant replay immediately and if the call appears questionable, bring in the referee to decide it. The referee remains the final arbiter so his/her authority is not undermined.

If the call is upheld, the challenging team is one-and-done in that department. If the call is reversed, the challenging team can do so one more time.

It's a bit trickier with goals that should have been counted but were missed--like England's in loss to Germany or USA's in draw with Slovenia. That's partly because play ordinarily continues after the non-goal.

Perhaps an electronic monitor could be triggered whenever the plane of the goal is broken. But they'd need to be able to distinguish between the ball and a player (pattern recognition), and/or have "hits" referred to instant replay. Quickly flagging these possible missed goal calls would avoid interrupting fast breaks going the other way. They might take a cue from the National Hockey League's use of sirens.

This system would work in the cases like the English goal that wasn't seen by the referee. The electronic trigger would alert the fourth official who would check the videotape. If it looks like a score (ball completely over the goal line), the referee would be asked to make a determination. If, however, it's ultimately ruled no-goal, play would simply resume at the place the ball was last touched by the team last touching it.

Probably most difficult to correct are subjective situations such as the USA goal that was disallowed because the referee thought there was a foul by the Americans on the play. Since the ball went in the net, a point was taken off the scoreboard--so it should definitely be a challengeable call. The challenge should be restricted to the call that caused the goal to be disallowed.

The coach should be given 30 seconds from the time the goal is disallowed to challenge the call. The referee would then review the videotape to determine whether the disallowance should stand or a goal be tallied.

July 2, 2010
The headline question of the day is: Can Ghana Gana Again? (Or: Is Ghana Gonna Gana Again?)

Steven (Starjet) Kearney

Soccer's Scoring Drought: Analysis and Suggested Remedies

With nearly all the teams having played their opening match, it's already clear that the lack of scoring in World Cup soccer has gotten absurd. To illustrate, through the first 14 games in South Africa:

Teams are scoring on average less than a goal per game--.8 of a goal;

In 9 of the 14 games--64%--at least one of the teams failed to score;

In 10 of the 14 games--71%--neither team scored more than 1 goal;

In 12 of the 14 games--86%--no more than 2 total goals were scored by both teams combined;

Only one of the first 28 teams to play scored more than 2 goals in their first game (Germany got 4);

6 games, that's 43%, were ties;

Goal-scoring has become so rare that fluke goals--such as the English goalkeepers fumble and the Danish wrong-way ricochet header--are decisive;

The crowds have so little to cheer about that they resort to blowing on deafening horns en masse to entertain themselves;

The International Soccer Federation (FIFA) is reportedly considering enlarging the goal to boost scoring. However, such a move could have negative repercussions on how the game is played. And it would compel millions of people to redo or replace their goal structures.

There are other ways to make it easier to score. Taking a cue from thoroughbred racing/exercise programs, officials could "handicap" the goalies by fitting them with ankle weights. Or they could enforce penalties by making the goalie wear a patch over one eye or tying one hand behind his/her back. A really heinous violation might be punished by strapping the offending player ball & chain-style to the goalie. While these scenarios may sound like torture, sitting through a typical soccer game today is already a torturous experience for many.

Reference
Increasing Soccer Goal Size is Questionable!!! (website).

Steven (Starjet) Kearney

World Cup Soccer: US Hopes to Tar and Feather British

Dunce Cap Fits BP Well

The huge Dunce Cap placed over the erupting BP (aka British Petroleum) oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has been partially successful. The Dunce Cap is a better fit than anything else BP has tried. That said, the wound is still hemorrhaging.

Enter: World Cup Soccer--US Hopes to Tar and Feather the British in Showdown Saturday.

The British are heavy favorites, having more internationally experienced players. But the Americans have youth and enthusiasm on their side.

The US also has a history of surprising victories over the Redcoats--such as the stunning 1950 win by a score of 1-0.

On top of that, the US will be playing with the anger of a nation behind them. This, of course, is because of the tremendous devastation wreaked on the US Gulf Coast this spring by British Petroleum's massive Oil Spill.

A US soccer fan says he hopes "that when the American players hit the field they'll run circles around the Brits--make 'em look like they're mired in muck, like all those pelicans of ours."

One fan says that if any other country had spewed-out all of that oil, many Americans would consider it an act of war or terrorism. But this Euro-trashing of the Gulf Coast has been gotten away with. The perpetrators are predominantly White and English-speaking, not like your typical profiled enemy or terrorist.

A fan of the American Tea Party agreed that it would be fun to see the British humiliated in a Revolutionary victory. "People might think that we'd be pro-water-fouling, given our history, but actually we're more pro-waterfowl. The Audubon Society has some very influential chapters in Massachusetts."

Sarah Palin is rumored to have quipped that if she'd ever caught Vladimir Putin drilling for oil off the Alaska Coast, she'd have shot him in the buttocks with a crossbow.
Afterwords
How it turned out: 1-1 tie--a "moral victory" for the USofAers.   The most likely tar & feathering would have been by British fans of their owngoalie who let an easy shot get by him. 

BP Followup
A BP robot has evidently knocked the Dunce Cap off the well head! The company's CEO could not be reached for comment as he was busy unwinding from a nerve-wracking yacht race over the weekend. A BP spokesman said they'd likely try to put the Dunce Cap back on. It was unclear whether the robot, which reportedly had said "Woops, my bad!" would be asked to play any role in the retrofitting.