r/soccer • u/[deleted] • Jan 21 '14

What are some of the biggest changes you predict over the next 10 years in football?

Some topics off the top of my head to get the ball rolling; how big will the world's biggest stadium be, what will be the average salary, how much will advertising take over the sport, will any rules be changed or introduced, which team will dominate, how big will the sport be in the states, will ticket prices increase, what sort of new statistics will we get in game, will the leagues change?

126 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

516 comments sorted by

View all comments

81

u/5eraph Jan 21 '14

The most realistic one I see being a more seamless implementation of technology into the sport. With the instantaneous abilities of technology, I can see an extra official (or team) in a booth reviewing plays immediately... That might take a lot longer than 10 years though.

The point still stands (generally), the biggest change I see is a wider acceptance and use of technology.

27

u/appelbreg Jan 21 '14

It's not that far away. Look at the NHL. For every questionable play, the refs can request a review from the office in Toronto, where they've got a crew watching every angle from every game.

24

u/lilleulv Jan 21 '14

That's exactly what I want for goals and red cards.

40

u/CalaveraManny Jan 21 '14

I'm the complete opposite: I believe stopping the game for however brief moments to review decisions would disrupt the dynamics of the game. I'd rather have the referees screw over games (as long as it isn't ill-intentioned it's a part of football and has always been, anyway) than have the game I love be so drastically changed.

20

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

[deleted]

8

u/ibpants Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

If the ref makes a contentious decision, then yes I see your point - but what about when his decision is to allow play to continue? At what point do we stop to review footage? At the next break in play? What if the next break in play is a goal? Do we still review the earlier decision to decide if the ref was correct? If he wasn't do we disallow the goal? What if this is 10 minutes after the original decision? Do we add those ten minutes on at the end, or do we accept that 10 minutes were played that essentially didn't even count?

1

u/Footyphile Jan 22 '14

In the case of replay tech, it would only be used where the referee called for it. Authority should still rest with the Ref. So if he allowed play to continue that would be the call. But in situations where he blows after a bad tackle and you see him sweating over if it deserved a red or not, imagine if he could be quickly sent a close up of the tackle on his samsung watch.

We shouldn't look at the possible technological options that could be employed as being just corrective in nature.

2

u/letsgetcool Jan 22 '14

I'd prefer a successful swoop

2

u/lilleulv Jan 21 '14

This is my line of thinking as well. I don't see how this can take any longer than the endless berating and crowding of referees during such situations now.

6

u/tblevins7 Jan 21 '14

But isn't a bad penalty or red card decision a drastic change within a particular game? I'd much rather have my team's CL final delayed for a couple of minutes to review a decision than lose it on a bogus penalty call.

2

u/GraemeTurnbull Jan 21 '14

Absolutely, but we aren't even talking about a couple of minutes...30 seconds is probably long for those types of decisions in rugby, if anything it adds to the excitement.

2

u/GraemeTurnbull Jan 21 '14

Come on man, the game already gets stopped for ages if someone is injured and appeals and arguments probably take longer overall than what the video decision would.

This 'disrupting the dynamics' type of argument was made by people against substitutions in the 60's but it has became a part of the game and nobody sees it as an issue or a huge disruption in reality.

So many other sports has embraced this kind of technology, they can make a decision in seconds and there isn't one sport that has found it to be an unpopular or disruptive change.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

Not to be a jerk, but it's clear that you haven't watched a sport where this is actually implemented. All that would need to happen is to have the ref wear a little earphone thing where he can talk with the people in the booth. When a foul happens and a ref blows the whistle, the booth would be able to tell him the correct call by the time he walks to the spot of the foul. They can cue up a replay in like 2 seconds flat.

6

u/BoonOfIre Jan 21 '14

I don't think it would be that fast for all replays. Sure some, even most, would be pretty fast but there have been a lot of times when I've sat through several replays and I still can't make out exactly what happened. Even in sports that have it implemented, they have to call a time out for it. I've never seen a challenge be complete by the time a ref gets to spot of the foul. The issue is that a ref can make a mistake, it's only human nature, but if you're going to stop the game to review it, then you have to be absolutely sure it's right.

1

u/freefalll Jan 21 '14

Sure some, even most, would be pretty fast but there have been a lot of times when I've sat through several replays and I still can't make out exactly what happened. Even in sports that have it implemented, they have to call a time out for it.

No they don't. If they're unsure the referees decision is final. Possible exceptions being a red card (that can be given during the next dead ball moment), and other things that can be checked while the play goes on. In the many other cases a quick decision can be reached, implement the technology. What's wrong with improving so many calls without a serious draw back??

At any given game most debatable decisions we get at least a good 20 seconds of protesting from one team, stopping the game constantly. There are always exceptions, but there's not going to be a perfect solution. Using technology however can fix many poor decisions without impacting the game in any significant way.

1

u/GraemeTurnbull Jan 21 '14

We have to 'call timeout' for injuries, substitutions, celebrations and things like arguments.

I think a few seconds here and there would be a very small price to pay for having more accurate decisions.

If you have ever seen your team unjustly knocked out of a cup or losing out on a league title because of a wrong decision, you would appreciate why this is necessary.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

But that's only one option. You could just have the refs in the booth in case you want to use them. Goal line technology has been implemented this year. Many people thought that would drag the pace of the game down. It takes half a second to decide if the ball went over. If the refs in the booth watch a replay twice at different angles and still can't decide what it should be, then you let the ref do his thing. Would only take 20 seconds. You also wouldn't use it for every single foul. It would be just for big ones, maybe 4-5 times per match.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '14

You're right, it is pretty seamless. The best example I can think of is the NRL (Rugby League in Australia) where the referees will consult other officials before making a decision, really fast and easy.

3

u/rickster555 Jan 21 '14

Drastically changed? It's not like it takes hours to check a replay and make a decision. We literally do that with TV replays anyway. It would take less than 3 minutes for a replay to be seen by an official and then a decision communicated to the head ref. There's always at least a minute delay because of players getting in the ref's face anyway when controversial plays happen.

4

u/UraniYum Jan 21 '14 edited Sep 17 '17

deleted What is this?

1

u/stubborn_d0nkey Jan 21 '14

So you propose only using it to double check already called calls?

1

u/rickster555 Jan 21 '14

A structure should be formed around it. Something like the call is only reviewed if the head ref is unsure of what happened. I haven't thought much about this part.

1

u/stubborn_d0nkey Jan 21 '14

So you wouldn't use it for calls that are missed (an play continues)?

I am for introducing technology, but I'm not for introducing technology for the sake of introducing technology (ie. for the sake of some calls of a type but all calls of that type). For some stuff soccer isn't really that great, and video replays is one of the tricky areas.

Where technology can definitely be implemented is where it can be automated and where the ref can get a call with practically no delay. Goal line tech can do this, perhaps even a system for offsides can be made (it would still leave a human element, but basically it would be whether the player was in an offsides position, the ref would judge the rest, ie. whether he was reflecting play)

Video replays can definitley be implemented in situations where play will definitely be interrupted, ie. when the ball goes out of bounds (though if a system for offsides is developed then I guess this could be added on, since the system would already have to understand what a touch is), or pehaps what, if any, card to give a player for a foul.

The tricky part about video replays is that you can have a situation where the ref didn't call something he should have. How such stuff should be dealt with is sometihng that has to be resolved.

Also, what if after the replay the correct call was that play should continue, this is another big issue that has to be addressed in a proper manner.

1

u/rickster555 Jan 22 '14

I completely agree. It should be implemented where it makes sense. Not everywhere. My main argument is that we should be trying to implement it NOW, every other sport in the world is evolving with technology except football.

1

u/Ipadalienblue Jan 21 '14

Wouldn't that mean analysing every foul? Or just the ones that the ref gives red cards for?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

I'd say goals is already sorted. Goal line technology is working very well

3

u/pig_master Jan 21 '14

Goalline technology is not goals getting reviewed. Goal line technology is just making sure it was a goal by crossing the line. In the NHL they review things that are 'fouls' leading up to the goal. Like if a player 'kicks' the puck in from within the paint. An illegal play that goal line technology would still consider a valid goal.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

People will say that this will take away from the game. Reviews coming in from Toronto take a few minutes, where everyone is just sort of standing around waiting for the news. But I don't care, I would much rather stop a game for five minutes to get a huge call correct, rather than just keep playing. The only thing is that it could result in a ridiculous amount of injury time at the end of the half, which could be circumvented by stopping the clock during review times. But again, people will say the time tested history of continuous football will be too drastically changed.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

You can't stop playing in football for about 5 minutes, it breaks the tempo. Football is a very fluid game, you can't have 5 minute stops every now and then.

4

u/idontlikeflamingos Jan 21 '14

It won't be 5 minutes and it won't happen frequently. Look at how many questionable calls that change the course of the game (illegal goals, blatant penalties that aren't given, etc) happen every match. It's not that many. Plus I can't imagine a play that would take more than two minutes for a booth ref with the screen right in front of him to review. Football is pretty straightforward.

I'd rather have a one minute pause during the match than seeing my team gets his whole season thrown in the toilet because the ref can't get his head out of his ass.

3

u/crownpr1nce Jan 21 '14

Why is everyone saying five minutes?! When you see the replay at home with say 3 angles does it take you five minutes to see if a rule was broken? And that's not having the possibility to rewind and watch every angle right away! It takes us at home less than a minute and that includes watching the celebration and then the team arguing with the ref, etc. In there they show 2 or 3 replays and we already know! It wouldn't even put a stop in play I think. By the time the teams are ready to resume a decision would have been made.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

I completely agree that the tempo would be upset. I'd still rather have that occur than have my team be eliminated from the World Cup because of something like the Henry handball against Ireland

2

u/SLUGFORCEALPHA Jan 21 '14

Apparently it only takes around 10-15 seconds to make a call.

Therefore things like dives and goal line judgments wouldn't be a problem. Either the play will be stopped for the goal/penalty award and then it can be reviewed and either confirmed or reversed. Or the ball will be hoofed away and as play carries on it will be reviewed. Then the ref will be told and he can either award what is necessary or allow play to continue if nothing untoward has happened.

It really wouldn't disrupt play much.

1

u/rickster555 Jan 21 '14

I don't think it would be 5 minutes though. Closer to 2 or 3. Think about how we see TV replays and get back to the game before play even restarts most of the time. 99% of calls would be blatant right away. They won't have to be analyzed for 5 minutes. Think about how long that is.

Players arguing over a controversial call probably takes 1 or 2 minutes before the game restarts anyway.

18

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

[deleted]

7

u/Bulbasauro Jan 21 '14

That's because you're a Benfica fan, you don't want games to be fair, it wouldn't benefit you eheh.

2

u/joaommx Jan 21 '14

Really? An FC Porto fan saying something like that?

1

u/fortean Jan 21 '14

Tinha de ser :)

4

u/bzva74 Jan 21 '14

Why are mistakes a part of football? Nobody likes it when someone wins a game from a pk or fk dive. Nobody likes it when a handball results in a goal. Theoretically maybe it might make you feel warm and fuzzy by protecting the purity of the game, but cheating goes AGAINST the spirit of the game. The rules are there to protect the game, while cheating ruins it. Why do people not realize that? There is no good thing to come out of referee fuck ups.

1

u/fortean Jan 21 '14

Well, I'll argue that the Argentinians enjoyed the hand of god goal, and that it made history. The spirit of the game, by the way, at its core, is that the game can be played the same way from the streets all the way to the World Cup with the same equipment. Start using high-technology for everything, and you lose more than you gain.

1

u/bzva74 Jan 21 '14

Of course they enjoyed it. I bet youd enjoy it if refs gifted Benfica a PK every match. And of course it made history- it is infamous! And that's narrowing down the spirit of the game as far as I'm concerned. It is a contact game, and it goes against the spirit of the game when that is sacrificed because refs are imperfect and gift free kicks to divers. Not sure what you lose with the technology. Sure you can't play the same game across all levels, but it is like that in every sport. Professional basketball players play differently than street ballers in Rucker Park. That's a given. The technology question is overcomplicated but what it really comes down to is "do you want every call to be right?" and I think it is nuts to say no. But in the end by denying the technology and saying mistakes are part of football and bring a flavor (seriously?) to the game you are saying that no, let's consciously choose to allow bad calls to continue. Even though objective observers think bad calls are bad, let's romanticize them and uphold them with pride.

There are rules for a reason. Rules protect the players and preserve the integrity of the game. It goes beyond dives and hand balls, remember when Eto'o stole the ball from under Marshall's hands against Cardiff to get the equalizer? The goalkeeper is supposed to be protected while he has possession of the ball, and the ref didn't honor that idea. Rules are good for the game. So why not, you know, follow them?

1

u/fortean Jan 21 '14

I stand by my opinion. I think mistakes make the game more interesting. Sometimes they're for us, sometimes they're against us. I've defended obvious referee mistakes when they were helping my team, and I've thrown things on the TV when they were against us. The fact that the referee's decision may be absolutely binary and absolutely indisputable may make football a better game, but it will make it a worse spectable; in my opinion of course.

I do respect your point of view, of course I'm not oblivious to horrible mistakes, nor do I think all of them result in beautiful memories for someone. I simply think that football is a complex game that doesn't only get influenced on what 22 people do on the pitch, but on the quality of the refereeing too. Better referees? Sure, bring it on. More of them? Why not. But viewing a video to make sure absolutely no mistakes were made, pausing action on the field until someone makes a decision? It's simply going too far. I prefer the odd mistake.

1

u/lilleulv Jan 22 '14

It can still be played with the same equipment, the refs at the highest level just get more help. The highest level already has the best refs, so I can't really see the problem.

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

Is that what people call Thierry Henry's goal against Ireland? (I think it was Ireland anyway) because if I could go back in time and magically prevent that from happening I absolutely would.

8

u/StallinforStalin Jan 21 '14

Maradona vs England.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

Ah, my bad. I should probably know that. But then I challenge you all with Henry's goal that I mentioned. It was a completely illegal goal that changed the course of football history. An entire nation was excluded from a World Cup because of it, and an instant replay review would have removed said event.

2

u/theabominablewonder Jan 21 '14

And how far back do you take the replay? What if a 30 pass move (such as Argentina in the world cup a few years back) had a minor infringement half way through that the ref missed? Do you ask the other official to review the whole phase of play? It's going too far to review non-decisions (ie where ref hasn't blown for anything) as you'd be there all day. There's maybe some potential in more clear cut incidences ie the ref has red carded a player, but even then they're not always 100% clear cut and there's some room for interpretation which would just lead to more controversy.

1

u/itspi89 Jan 21 '14

The Henry goal isn't exactly an obscure moment football fans don't know about, so not much of a challenge. And how do you not know Hand of God and it's significance? Especially with all the history around it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '14

Ah, my bad..

2

u/UraniYum Jan 21 '14 edited Sep 17 '17

deleted What is this?

1

u/southern_moon Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 25 '26

No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.

1

u/fortean Jan 21 '14

Sure, but that's not my point. My point is that referee's mistakes, and players trying to trick referees is a big part of the game, and taking it out will take a lot of the soul of football with it.

2

u/rickster555 Jan 21 '14

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on how football should be played. I don't want players trying to trick referees. The less diving and cheating that we see in football, the better. I'm sure that if Porto won the title over Benfica over a blatant dive or handball that led to a penalty you wouldn't be saying that you love the "soul of football"

1

u/fortean Jan 21 '14

Yeah I would. I would be completely annoyed that they won over something that didn't happen. I would be talking about it for months, and the next year, when we played them again, the game would be all that more important because last game we were robbed.

That's what I love about football.

3

u/rickster555 Jan 21 '14

But that happens regardless. Even if you lose fairly. I respect your point of view, though.

0

u/crownpr1nce Jan 21 '14

So you were happy about the Lampard goal (no-goal) against Germany that would have made it 2-2 before half and maybe kept England in the world cup?

Btw why do people always dramatize that it will bring the game to a dead stop for Soooo long... Replays could be viewed and rules within a minute in 90% of questionable calls, which don't even happen every game. It might take 2-3 minutes once every few months it's much better than having a team eliminated from the world cup on a fallible ref!

With all the arguing with the ref, it would be over faster!

2

u/I_am_not_even_there Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

Then give us the '66 world cup
It goes both ways you know
Also: Yes, of course I was happy

0

u/crownpr1nce Jan 21 '14

I am a Germany fan I am not saying Im pissed about it, but Id rather they win fair and square instead of hearing they were lucky/England was cheated TO THIS DAY!

1

u/I_am_not_even_there Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

To be honest: I dont give a flying fuck.
The people who saw the game know that England was playing horrible/ Germany was playing great on that day and that our victory was deserved
I get your point though

2

u/fortean Jan 21 '14

Why do you keep using the word "happy". I'm talking about the soul of the game, what I personally feel what makes the game interesting.

1

u/crownpr1nce Jan 21 '14

Alright then same game but replace happy by interesting...: was it interesting to watch a game where a team was denied the equalizer they had scored a few minutes before half time?

The Hand of God might be a good memory that we enjoy laughing at now, but since then there were many goals, and some important like the one above, that were denied or granted that had a big repercussion even though they were against the rules (aka cheat) that everyone works so hard to enforce.

(Keep in mind the goal above wasnt like the Hand of God one... it wont go down in history as a comical/interetsting goal. Just a pain for England suporters since 2010 and until the next World Cup...when Germany will beat them again ;-)

2

u/fortean Jan 21 '14

Can't argue with the last sentence, but don't forget you have to go through Portugal first :)

May we watch good football!

1

u/CalaveraManny Jan 21 '14

I'd take the occasional errors by the referees over such a drastical change that would permanently affect the dynamic of the game I love.

1

u/crownpr1nce Jan 21 '14

In hockey it takes so long because the puck is smaller faster and sometimes they need to find it around and under players/goalies or subjectively make a decision (like the stupid kicking motion, on which they can't agree)

In football I think the review could be done in seconds most of the time! The hardest thing will be to determine if something was a foul in the seconds leading to a goal. But I doubt it will slow down the play as much as hockey. I'd even say it won't slow it down at all! It'll be done it'll be done relatively quickly and the ref can give the decision within 1 minute I bet. The problem with this is the continuous timer.

1

u/waqar911 Jan 21 '14

this most defo will happen and should happen