A Hero, a Villain, and an Unlikely Vindication

Well then, it has been a busy first few days for the World Cup eh?

We opened with controversy right form the 1st match (match report) with Yuichi Nishimura. An experienced and frankly "safe" choice for FIFA, as I expected an exhibition match. No one expected Brazil to perform so poorly AND Croatia to play as well as they did.

As we know the controversy surrounds the penalty decision Nishimura-san made in the 71st minute to allow Brazil to go ahead 2-1. A pivotal moment in the match and one that I believe if not called, the match would have drawn. 

Now, I am NOT one of the conspiracy theorists that believe that this was all a plot to quell the protests in Brazil and the only was FIFA gets out with its hide is by Brazil winning it all.

What I do believe is that Nishimura-san fell for an excellent simulation from Fred. Alexi Lalas was very good in his analysis stating that is was the right time, place, and type of simulation to get that call. He was not particularly critical of the referee, and nor am I, frankly because Fred cheated to get that decision.

But honestly folks, this is the biggest of the big leagues and you have to be ready for it.

FIFA's refereeing director Massimo Busacca didn't do anyone any referees in the tournament a favor with his mealy mouthed support of Nishimura-san, saying essentially that if players did not touch each other, there would be no issues.

Wow ... stunning repartee Massimo. How about this ... we reviewed the replays and it seemed clear that Fred simulated a foul and even for this attempt we are fining him $10,000 for his lack of "fair play."

So now Nishimura-san is the villain, when it was really Fred who caused the issue. I don't think we will see him again in this tournament, sadly.

Our hero should be Ravshan Irmatov, (and SB Nation agrees) with his perfect advantage decision that allowed Switzerland to score in the 93' (match report). This was no easy advantage either kids. The foul was just outrageous, it occurred deep in the middle 3rd, and it was not clear if the player wanted to keep playing.

Irmatov was perfect and allowed the PLAYERS TO DECIDE what would come next. He let them play when they wanted to and set the stage for the magic to happen.

You see, here's where Busacca should be shouting. FIFA's headline should not have been,
Super subs play vital Swiss role, it should have been, Superb Refereeing Allows Stunning Result.

So now we have our hero, and believe we will see him again very soon.

Our unlikely vindication came during France v. Honduras (match report) where, you guessed it, GLT was put into practice.

Take a look at this article from Dirty Tackle, it sums it up quite nicely.

I'll be honest, the coverage on this was awful as the commentators themselves had no clue, and frankly were not aided by anyone in the booth at all to get the correct angle.

Also the crappy image to animated goal line looks was awful. Just give us the 10 frames right before and right after it crosses ... that's all we need folks. By the way, the low bidder GoalControl system FIFA is using should have this raw feed from at least 14 angles as that is how it makes the determination.

So for now, a vindication of GLT, but with a need to put a much better public face on it. While (and I'm taking this somewhat on faith) accurate, absent a clean video feed it was clear that there was confusion all over the place ... from a system designed to remove that confusion.

Also, and finally, with this technology I believe it has advanced the wrong discussion. Instead of asking the AR, "What did you see?" or "Do you think you were in position?", it now serves to absolve the AR as the question becomes "what did the technology say?"

It also serves to open the gate for instant replay from FIFA's Dear Leader. You think GLT was a nightmare ... wait for this.

In or out matters, that is clear, but so does the humanity involved in managing such situations from the people asked to manage these matches. Stripping away that humanity bit by bit comes at an ultimate cost or losing it entirely.

SHOCKING!!! ... not.

Brazil to miss FIFA deadline for World Cup stadiums

BRASILIA/SAO PAULO (Reuters) - More than half a million tickets have been sold for the Confederations Cup in June, but host nation Brazil has yet to finish the main stadiums to be used in the dress rehearsal for the 2014 soccer World Cup.

On the eve of yet another FIFA deadline, Brazil has delivered only three of the six venues for the eight-nation warm-up starting in two months.

World soccer's governing body FIFA had demanded that all six stadiums be ready by this past December but construction delays forced it to extend the deadline until April 15. Even with that extra time, all the stadiums will not be ready. ...

See the whole story here from Yahoo Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: Well I am not at all surprised here. Unlike Ronaldo, I don't blame the Brazilian culture, I blame FIFA for failing to recognize this was going to be the case from "go." I only hope no one gets hurt when the public fills these (what will be) unfinished stadia.

One interesting line in the article was:

"FIFA requires that the new stadiums be tested twice, preferably with soccer games."

Preferably?

How is the brain trust at FIFA testing GLT?

Preferably with actual matches.

Half finished stadiums, GLT that might work most of the time, disrespected sovereign law to appease sponsors, and no local food within 1.5k of any stadium.

Welcome to the World Cup 2014.

Honestly FIFA, you should have just went to England.

FIFA: Goal Line Technology went to the lowest bidder

As a backdrop, take a look at this article,  FIFA appoints goal-line tech provider.

Innocuous enough, after all FIFA had to pick someone and better to do it sooner than later.

What was interesting to me was these quotes:

"While all four companies had previously met the stringent technical requirements of the FIFA Quality Programme, the final decision was based on criteria relating more specifically to the tournaments in Brazil, including the company’s ability to adapt to local conditions and the compatibility of each GLT system in relation to FIFA match operations."

Well ok ... I can see this in a way. After all GoalRef and Cairos both used modified goals and ball, and planting electronics in goal posts in a less than friendly ambient environment may cause issues. I personally thought they were lousy (technical) solutions anyway in my previous post on GLT.

What really caught my eye was this quote:

"The respective bids were also judged on cost and project management factors such as staffing and time schedules for installation."

Translation: GoalControl was cheaper than Hawkeye.

Even still it costs $260000 per stadia and nearly $4000 per match to operate the (14) cameras (source). Hardly cheap, but a drop in the bucket for the FIFA bankroll.

This was a bit of a shocker actually as Hawkeye is a well established, well respected company, and GoalControl is just a year old.

I'm sure there was no animosity toward the UK (where Hawkeye is headquartered) after all the grief they have given FIFA of late.

Have no fear, Hawkeye has a safe future in the Premireship as they have been in talks for months.

Now GoalControl did release a statement, in part one I was not really fond of. It stated:

“We look forward to having the opportunity in this competition to offer our goal line technology system, a new tool to assist referees”, states Dirk Broichhausen, Managing Director of GoalControl.

To which I and other referees in the community have said, thanks but no thanks. This is coming from FIFA for reasons other than to help referees. While it is a secondary effect, I don't think anyone genuinely believes that was the ultimate goal.

It rarely is from FIFA.

Interesting GLT Video

So again I was pursuing the internet superhighway, and still upset about FIFA's decision to use GLT, I happen to come across this video from FIFA TV. Sorry, FIFA does not allow embedding.

A few things struck me as I took in this promotional video.

First was the fact that it takes six days(!) and as many people to deploy the Hawkeye solution. That is crazy! I know the system will likely not be moved that often if used in fixed stadia for long periods of time, but holy smokes. 

GoalRef was a bit less complicated in the number of people it takes to set up, but, it looks far more fragile. I mean, a special goal, and PCB's lining the frame. I have lived this one personally with my time at Trakus, where PCB's were put in a incredibly harsh sporting environment (NHL), and things failed. Trust me folks, it's going to break at the worst time. 

In the infamous words of Scotty "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

Between weather and abuse, I have great concerns that anything other than a nice sunny day will provide the results FIFA is after. 

So what's the backup plan in case of ... lets say fog, in the case of Hawkeye, a camera based system?

The referee.

As I seeded in a previous post too, what about the protocol for the referee in the case of failure? How about if the referee believes the system has failed, yet gives no (technological) indications of such? Open the pod bay doors indeed.

Maybe I am actually starting to see why FIFA is after other tenders. The current systems are both flawed in several ways from a high level.

Another thing that struck me was Cüneyt Çakır's comments regarding GLT. Assuming for just a second that he was not a FIFA shill (did you expect anything negative on a FIFA video?), and acknowledging he is a tremendous referee, I'm not sure his endorsement of understanding "the whole system" works for me to provide confidence as an insurance salesman from Turkey.

My point being, who really, and I mean really, understands this stuff?

I don't think anyone except the manufactures who may do what it takes to sell the system.

Finally, and this is most compelling to me, was Sepp's comments at the end regarding "the need." His argument was that a human eye can't see if the ball crosses the line in some cases. He's absolutely correct in that fact. From here my argument goes in (2) directions.

First, why are we doing something in one particular area that is "in human" to The Game? One of the particular allures for me, and I have to believe for others, is the "traditional" nature of the sport. After all, how much (technologically) has it changed since its creation? Not that much I would opine. So why the heck are we interfering with it now?

Second, how accurate and precise are these systems? There are margins of error in their operation, however small, and just how "over the line" is registered as over the line? An angstrom, millimeter, centimeter? Is it really over the line then?

This now puts The Game on the "technology curve" as good enough is never good enough. When it comes to light how precise these systems are, there will be a call for more precise systems, and so on.

It's not going to stop with GLT. 

Now a counter argument to that can be made that (insert precision) is good enough, and it was better than we had before.

Was it though? Hundreds and hundreds of years of history, and thousands and thousands of goals. We seemed to muddle through. Now in 2012 enter GLT, and you know what, we still won't know to absolute certainty, only to the margin of error.

Dosen't sound like it's worth metaling with the fabric of The Game to me.

So, what's the motivation?

It is a sad, sad day

Fifa confirm that goal-line technology will be in place for the 2014 World Cup

Fifa announced plans on Tuesday to introduce the technology to the game’s flagship tournament and invited tenders from interested providers, and the Premier League later revealed that it was “close to entering a formal tendering process” as well.

Fifa hope to confirm which of four systems they have chosen by “early April” so the technology could be used at this summer’s Confederations Cup in Brazil. ...

See the whole story here, from The Telegraph.

Kicking Back Comments: As I have said before, I am not a fan of this at all. I think it disrupts the "free will" that is part of The Game itself. To begin to take these decisions out of the hand of referees is "the camel's nose under the tent" in my opinion.

Video review of Offside is next folks.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have heard many people say, "... this is it ...", only GLT during active play.

Honestly I don't believe them at all. I do believe that over time this will be the beginning of the erosion of the referees authority inside the field during active play.

Others have opined this has taken place over a long period of time with the adjustments to the LOTG that have been made. I do agree with this line of thinking as well, yet nothing has been so aggressive a step as what we are seeing with GLT. 

... and for what some may ask.

This will be for the highest level matches around the world, and that's about it. Don't expect to start seeing GLT at your local U-12 match.

Lets just hope that the technology works. FIFA request for "other tenders" was interesting to me in this regard. If it works, why change it?

Prepare for all heck to break loose when it is shown that GLT fails even once ...

After that, what happens?

Yep, it's up to the guy in the middle and his team anyway. They'll get blamed either way I'm sure.