Sepp's U-Turn: Is More Video Technology A Good Idea?

When you think of famous and historic U-turn moments, you think of the 10p tax rate, the pasty tax and the poll tax. But video technology in football? Ask me just four years ago, days after the infamous Frank Lampard non-goal, and I'd have said not a chance. However, with Sepp Blatter's announcements at Soccerex last week that he is in support of video challenges, the pendulum seems to have swung full circle.

But why is this? As with many things, you can take the conspiracy or sensible route. The conspiracy? That goal line technology was only introduced once it had benefitted England. After Lampard's goal, not a whisper of discontent. But after Ukraine had a goal wrongly denied against England at the Euros, suddenly Blatter, and Platini (I have ranted often about his potential bias against English football before) are all for it. This theory is supported by Blatter's side-swipe and the FA once his scheme had been announced, namely that the English FA do not respect fair play (ironic when you consider the diving and biting that goes on from players not from these shores) and that they are sore losers following the failed bid for the 2018 World Cup. Funny that Blatter delivered this speech in the heart of England's current footballing capital - know your audience Sepp!

However, the real reason behind the change in heart is perhaps equally cynical, but considerably less likely to make you look like the sore loser Blatter claims we are. It's all about maintaining power. With his term set to come to an end in the upcoming months, and the seeming success of goal-line technology in both club and international football, a bit of bandwagon jumping is required to ensure that Sepp keeps his place at FIFAs top table. I don't believe for an instant that he would be making these statements if he had years of his term left to run.

So if we assume that this is a PR stunt to retain power, why did he pick technology a subject that had been so controversial over the past few years? Because it's been almost unanimously accepted the world over. The goal-line technology has been a revolution in both domestic and international competition (the Karim Benzema goal/no goal debacle at the World Cup ignored), and though technology to a lesser level, the cheers that have greeted the disappearing spray at every Premier League ground since its introduction clearly demonstrates that not all change is negative.

With technology very much in favour at present, it is hardly surprising to see Blatter sling his weight behind it. But I'm not so certain that the idea he came up with for Soccerex is that good. Let me say that I am a huge advocate of technology in sport - tennis and cricket have proven that Hawk-eye style systems work, while rugby league and union have shown that video referees are also successful. However, Blatter's idea that coaches should have a number of challenges to use during each half is, in my opinion, not the best way to handle this.

As we have seen on many occasions, football is a game of taking advantage of momentum. The very phrase that "2-0 is a dangerous scoreline" shows this, as teams frequently level having pulled one back. Often the most exciting moments in football are when one team has their tails up and have momentum on their side - look at the way Man City won their first Premier League title. Should Blatter's system be implemented, shrewd managers will be able to minimise this impact, affording their team the opportunity to recollect their thoughts and go again. If coaches are afforded the opportunity to break up that momentum and slow the game down by making frivolous challenges, it will have a hugely detrimental impact on the game for spectators.

However, as I said before, I am all in favour of technology in football, and I have a suitable solution. Ex-referee Graham Poll, when interviewed about the concept, said that referees can tell from the reaction of the players around them when they've made an incorrect decision. If this is true, there is absolutely no need for coaches to have the power to contest decisions and slow the game down. I would certainly have a video referee, but only so the officials could check that they have made the right call. It may not have saved Poll from handing out three yellow cards to Josep Simunic in the 2006 World Cup, but it will help in many other situations! This would minimise the risk of tactical use, while helping the referee to do their job to the best of their ability.

Should Blatter be re-elected (re-elected in the same way that dictators like Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi were "re-elected") it will be interesting to see whether this new policy goes any further. Maybe it's just my cynical mind, but I doubt it. As soon as he is safe in his job, this will conveniently go on the back burner, and I suspect we'll see the Swiss take a slowly more technology-sceptic mindset.  

FIFA 14 Realism Series: Can Video Games Mirror Reality?

                           This week, I will be doing a three-part mini series, celebrating and analysing the release of the most successful and popular football game series of all time. I am, of course, speaking of the immortal FIFA series. A franchise that has generated upwards of £3.7 billion since its inception in 1993, the game has made its way into the hearts (and homes) of football fans and gamers across the country. Last year's edition of the game has seen over 4.5 billion goals scored, and a staggering average of 13.3 million per day. The hotly anticipated release of their '14' version, which hit the shelves Friday 27th September, sold over 2.5 million copies on the day of release. Having got my copy on the day, I have decided to see whether FIFA 14 can be considered to have achieved its primary objective: to be realistic. For Part 1 click here.

                             For those of you who follow me on Twitter (@amhaywood), you will have seen my feed dominated with my newest project. I have decided to use the current Premier League fixtures to try and assess the realism of the game. Having already created a predictions spreadsheet, which I advertised here, I have the full 388 games being played in the Premier League this season readily available, along with the method of calculating the accuracy, and even comparing it to predictions sent in for my competition. This should give me some indication of just how realistic FIFA is compared to real life, as in the early weeks I will have something to compare it to immediately, whilst in later weeks I will be able to see if real life then mirrors the game. In this post, I will be explaining exactly how I am going about this test, and assessing the test's flaws etc, before examining my early season data to see how true to life it really is.

                                As I explained in the paragraph above, I will be using FIFA 14 to predict the Barclays Premier League scores from the season 2013/2014. Using the 'Kick Off' mode on the game, I will play as neither team, and allow the game to play out as though I were watching it on TV. I will then record the scores of each fixture into my pre-designed prediction spreadsheet (where it will automatically score it in line with the rules for my prediction competition: 1 for a correct result (HW, AW, D) and 2 for a correct scoreline), where it will then calculate the table as FIFA would predict it to happen. This way we could see an accurate representation of exactly how FIFA thinks the season will pan out. I will also be recording the goalscorers, so that we can see who FIFA believes the Golden Boot will go to this season.

                                 I have consulted the Internet in order to find the most realistic difficulty level to play the simulation at. The vast majority of comments have suggested that somewhere around the 'World Class' to 'Legendary' levels would be the most realistic in terms of gameplay and speed of the game. Having tested out both of these levels in numerous practice games, I have concluded that Legendary is the level that I will use for my test, as it tends to produce more chances and a more exciting game to watch. In terms of the half length, for obvious reasons (being too boring and too many goals), I have decided against playing the realistic 45 minutes a half, instead choosing six minute halves. Once again, the practice games suggest that this is the most entertaining game length. Other than that, I will allow FIFA to randomly select weather etc-all I will do is ensure that the time of year is correct, thereby reducing the chances of snow in a match in May!

                                  Whilst I will do my all to make sure that conditions are as realistic as possible, meaning that the test is as fair as I can make it, I acknowledge that there are flaws with my idea. Arguably the biggest one surrounds the selection of realistic squads. As I am planning to predict results with FIFA before they actually happen, there is no way that I can be expected to field accurate sides for every Premier League club. Therefore, what I have decided is this: I will put out the strongest possible team I can for each side, by ratings alone, ensuring that I am being as fair to all sides as possible. It does, however, mean that a mid-season injury crisis will not be picked up, nor will any January transfers. However, should there be significant transfer activity in the New Year window, I may revisit the idea of replaying the games with the updated squads, taking the results up to January 1st as given. If anyone has any suggestions as to the strongest side for their club, please feel free to leave a comment or send me an email to itsmorethanjustagameblog@gmail.com, and I will do my best to accomodate you.

                                   I did also have initial worries about the setup of the game, and whether the simulation would produce competitive matches, or whether the ball would just be stuck in the middle of the pitch for the 90 minutes. Certainly, on the last few FIFA games, whenever you try and play a simulated game, the score would normally end up a boring 0-0 draw, with little in the way of goalmouth action. Another worry was that due to the natural ranking of the teams, we would just see a table skewed in favour of those with a better rating. Both of these fears were allieviated just two games into my simulated season. My first game was the lunchtime kick-off between Liverpool and Stoke at Anfield. Under normal circumstances, a banker home win. In line with my rules, I even had Luis Suarez in the Liverpool line up, despite his 8 match ban for biting Branislav Ivanovic. Despite all of this, and early Reds dominance, a quick-fire double from Peter Crouch put the visitors 2-0 up at half time. Though Liverpool rallied, with Suarez scoring within 10 minutes of the restart, they couldn't find a way through the Potters' rearguard. An entertaining, and surprising start to the season.

                                      Better was yet to come, however. In the very next match, Arsenal took on Aston Villa at the Emirates. For anyone who remembers the fixture, it was a well-deserved, but shocking 3-1 away win. Whilst FIFA may have got the result wrong, the match I saw was no less entertaining. In a first half packed with goals, Arsenal raced into a 3-0 lead after just 15 minutes. My worries about the highly rated clubs beginning to peak, Villa fought back, dragging themselves back to 3-2 by 35 minutes. This was perfectly set up for the second half, until Giroud scored on the stroke of half time to give the Gunners that cushion back. After the breathless first half, the second was bound to be a little more leisurely, and that it was. A late goal from Agbonlahor set up a nervous finish, but Arsenal hung on. Whilst FIFA had got the opening two results completely wrong, there was enough evidence to suggest that this would be an incredibly intriguing experiment.

                                        As I write this, I have currently completed the first three weeks of Premier League action, and thus far, FIFA has accurately predicted either the result or the score on 50% of matches. Whilst this may sound poor, it is broadly comparable to the percentage scores that myself, and everyone else who entered the prediction competition has. This suggests that FIFA is no more well informed than your average fan, but there is certainly a level of reliability to their results. I think I will be continuing this series with irregular blog posts throughout the season, updating you all on the progress made and the state of the FIFA table as it lies. I will also mention noteworthy games or derbies.  After three games, Chelsea lead the league from Manchester City and Stoke, with Tottenham currently sitting in the final Champions League spot. Sunderland currently sit 8th, a full 12 places above reality, with Manchester United slotted in beneath them. Though in FIFA, United lost to Chelsea and drew with Liverpool, the points tally is identical to that of the real team after three games. Towards the bottom, Liverpool have had a dreadful start, picking up just 1 point from their opening games. The relegation zone currently consists of the three promoted sides, with Cardiff the only side yet to get off the mark in the FIFA Premier League. In terms of individual prizes, it is Chelsea's Samuel Eto'o that has taken his chances early, with 5 goals scored in the three games. A host of players follow him on an average of a goal a game, but that will be one that I will be interested to follow.

                                         Whilst there may well be inaccuracies and flaws in this experiment, it is certainly one I am looking forward to undertaking and developing as the season goes on. As for how realistic the game is based on the early results, it is difficult to say. I would have to conclude that the early result suggest that the realism is perhaps not quite as good as the EA developers would have wanted, but 50% isn't bad. The early season has given me a few cracking matches so far, and I look forward to watching, and sharing, a few more in the near future.

Diving: A Red Card Offence?

                             Last weekend's events, most notably David Moyes's comments after Manchester United's home victory against Crystal Palace, has brought the topic of diving back into the public eye. So many players are accused of it, and there there are discussions in pubs up and down the land assessing what the appropriate penalty for divers is. The current system of a yellow card for 'simulation' is widely considered to be too lenient. However, is the answer really, as Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish has suggested, a straight red card for diving offences? This post will look at the offence as it is currently defined, before examining the possible new punishments for the crime.

                               In order to fully understand the topic in question, it is worth consulting the FA definition of diving (or 'simulation'). Diving constitutes: 'an attempt by a player to gain an unfair advantage by diving to the ground and possibly feigning an injury, to appear as if a foul has been committed'. This seems relatively clear, and you would expect to see fairly regular punishments based on this definition. However, it proceeds to state that: 'a referee should be 100% certain that a player has simulated (feigned) an unfair challenge before cautioning the offender for unsporting behaviour. The referee must be convinced that there has been no physical contact whatsoever by the player challenging for the ball.' This is the cause of the controversy, as this clause means that referees tend to be overly lenient on simulation, not wanting to call a player a cheat, and this sometimes leads to miscarriages of justice when the referee gets it wrong. We will examine this in more detail later.

                                 Looking purely at the definition as it stands, we should perhaps compare it with other offences. By examining both those considered to be worthy of yellow and red cards, we will be able to see which category this offence more resembles. If we look at the options in both categories, I would say that 'unsporting conduct' would most easily be comparable from the yellow card section. The red card section does not appear to have an easily comparable alternative, with neither serious foul play, nor violent conduct accurately describing the act. If we run with the unsporting conduct offence, there are clear parallels between the pair. This indicates that perhaps the initial classification of diving as a yellow card carries weight.

                                 However, two alternatives have been suggested by prominent men in English football. We will begin by the suggestion made by Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish, that diving should constitute a straight-red card offence. Despite my above paragraph, there is evidence to suggest that this may be a possible alternative. Diving is a scourge in world football, and needs to be stamped out. If we look at another offence that has been 'stamped down upon', we find that racism has been much more heavily punished in recent years, in an attempt to eradicate it from the game. Now, I am not for one moment saying that diving is as bad as racism, however, I am merely making the point that if you want rid of an aspect from a game, you must penalise every instance heavily. Therefore, a case could certainly be made for the introduction of a heavy-handed penalty for diving, at least until the act is not so prominent. However, there are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, there will be the inevitable comparison between diving and the other red card offences, which illustrates the gap in severity. Simulation does not seem on the same page as intentionally breaking someone's leg, but, under this rule change, they would be considered equally severe. Secondly, there is a more pressing issue with the rules. As the current idea of diving is so open to interpretation, there are already many instances of referees making the wrong call. Under these new rules, a referee making the wrong call could irreparably change the outcome of the game, potentially ruining a team's season. Until we solidify what is considered a dive, I feel that a red card could not be awarded for the offence.

                                     The second alternative is one that appears far more reasonable. David Moyes, having stated that he wanted to stamp out diving from his own club, with Ashley Young coming in for further criticism, then suggested that video technology should be used to retrospectively ban players who have been proven to have dived. As much as that will be a dagger to the heart of Michel Platini, I think that this is an excellent idea. It lowers the fear of referee's getting a decision woefully wrong and costing a team a game in an instant, whilst ensuring that those guilty of diving are rightfully punished. I would introduce an initial ban of 4 games for a diving offence, meaning that there is that aspect of over the top punishment with a more accurate justice system, which I believe forms a nice middle ground. Once simulation has begun to die out of the game, a reduction in the ban could then be enacted. However, I suspect that none of these will be considered, players will be allowed to con referees and dive all over the place. This will continue to cause a horrible Catch 22 situation for referees, who will be blamed as much if they fail to penalise a dive, than if they wrongfully penalise one. And it will continue to be the topic of pub gossip for years to come.