Double Jeopardy - The Case for a 2nd Referee

[Zososoxfan]

Welp, I just had what I thought was a pretty solid OP making the case for a 2nd on-field referee get wiped out - FML! Anyway, I'm going to keep it shorter as a result.
 
I would like to have a second on-field ref (i.e. not a linesman). I think it would cut down on BS behind the play, get the refs closer to the action and in better position, and give them someone to consult if they are unsure about something. I would have each ref assigned to a half of the field, and each ref would only be able to make calls on their half of the field, so that there is no overturned calls and ref B doesn't make a bogus call on a play occurring on Side A. If something fishy happens on Side A, but Ref B sees it and Ref A doesn't, Ref A stops the game and asks Ref B what he saw.
 
Some articles to get discussion going:
 
http://www.fansmanship.com/why-soccer-should-have-a-second-referee/
 

 
Whenever a player takes an elbow in the face behind the play, gets kicked (as Freddy Adu did the other night in the Gold Cup Final), or is pushed or shoved behind the official’s back, the 22-1 player-referee ratio has always seemed unmanageable to me.

 
Quoted purely for nostalgic comedy.
 
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/ed-graney/second-referee-too-drastic-fifa-how-about-adding-video-replay
 
There are a couple of other rule changes I would support. First, I'd be interested in a rule to limit time wasting following a foul. Something like if a player stays down after a foul and the ball is not back in play for X time (e.g. 1 minute), the player must come off for Y time (e.g. kind of like a powerplay for 1-3 minutes) or be subbed off, in which case the sub can come on immediately. Also, I'd be cool with teams getting an extra sub or two for games that go into extra time, so that extra time is more exciting without losing its marathonish luster. Perhaps we can start a rules and officiating thread if one doesn't already exist and people are interested.

 

[teddykgb]

I think I would just rather see video come to the game.  One thing I found really interesting when I was in France was that Rugby have incorporated video review into their sport wonderfully.  The refs get together next to the giant screen in the stadium and watch the replay live right there and make a 2nd ruling.  It was the least disruptive implementation of replay I've ever seen.  No special booth, no real stoppage, just get it right as quickly as you can and move on.  In a sport that already allows for retroactive yellows and what not, I think getting more of these decisions right with technology would be better than adding an additional opinion in a sport already open to interpretation.

 

[Schnerres]

1) I don´t know exactly many situations, where a 2nd referee would help that much. If there are two refs, you place the 2nd 30m away (like you said one has control over each half, so if one is in the box on a corner kick, where ten players are poking each other in the eye, there is one ref, while the other is standing 20-40m away from goal, to prepare for a possible counter-attack, for example). You have one guy close to a situation and the other close to a possible other situation. But i don´t think that would happen five times per match. Ideally, the assisstants (close to one side) or the goal-line-refs in CL or WC matches would help with those things more - i would say i haven´t seen a goal-line ref signal if it was a corner or a goal-kick, for example, they have to do more!
 
2) If there´s two refs, someone would call for three refs, as the field is still too big for two and those two cannot see every action (=finger in the ... poke, etc.) away from ball or if they´re turned away for a moment. What happens away from action should be regarded from the assisstants.
 
3) If there would be consultations, this would take away the speed of the game and bring more delays.
 
4) On your idea how to speed up the game: look at handball: when the ref makes a call (for example when you make a foul), you have to stop the play and you are not allowed to touch the ball. You have to lay it down instantly. Same could happen in football - if you touch it, dribble it (and not just the extreme / dumb time-wasting, where you kick it 30+feet away), kick it away, you should get a yellow card instantly.
 
5) I don´t think it would be a good idea to hand out "bans" or powerplays if someone is down injured for a minute. Sometimes, people are really injured and stay down. Your rule would say that someone is injured (say, a swollen ankle/knee/..), but there are no more possible subs. What would he do? Limp back as soon as possible and not wait for another minute.
 
6) Adding subs in extra-time could help. But you could also see it the other way around - it would only add another minute for each sub, so the extra-time wouldn´t be that interesing plus the tired players are usually more prone to mistakes, so it´s of course more likely that there would be goals included with tired players, instead with more fresh players taking the field.
 
--> Biggest point towards less refs: you would lose ref quality in half: you basically double the refs, say you add the refs from 2nd league to 1st league. Who refs the 2nd league? Right, the refs from former 5th to 2nd league, and so on. Would that really help? I don´t know...In lowest leagues, there is already a lack of refs (with parents / coaches / ... reffing matches), so doing that would even add more to this, even if it´s just in 1st and 2nd league.

 

[Bosoxen]

I think I would just rather see video come to the game.  One thing I found really interesting when I was in France was that Rugby have incorporated video review into their sport wonderfully.  The refs get together next to the giant screen in the stadium and watch the replay live right there and make a 2nd ruling.  It was the least disruptive implementation of replay I've ever seen.  No special booth, no real stoppage, just get it right as quickly as you can and move on.  In a sport that already allows for retroactive yellows and what not, I think getting more of these decisions right with technology would be better than adding an additional opinion in a sport already open to interpretation.

 
That would have to be paired with a rule that the team controlling the video board make all viable replays available. There's way too much potential for gamesmanship with that, particularly if the home team gains from withholding a replay angle that would hurt them.
 
Then there's the fact that many stadiums don't have a huge video board that would serve this purpose. And you'd also have to account for one-off stadiums like Jerry World, whose video board would not be viewable by the on field officials.

 

[Zososoxfan]

I think I would just rather see video come to the game.  One thing I found really interesting when I was in France was that Rugby have incorporated video review into their sport wonderfully.  The refs get together next to the giant screen in the stadium and watch the replay live right there and make a 2nd ruling.  It was the least disruptive implementation of replay I've ever seen.  No special booth, no real stoppage, just get it right as quickly as you can and move on.  In a sport that already allows for retroactive yellows and what not, I think getting more of these decisions right with technology would be better than adding an additional opinion in a sport already open to interpretation.

 
I think very limited booth reviews would be OK for, oh I don't know, HANDBALLS IN THE BOX, other penalty situations, and cards perhaps. For the reasons Bosox says, I would have it be an official in a booth with a private feed. I have connections to DV Sports FIFA/MLS, I'll hook you guys up.
 

1) I don´t know exactly many situations, where a 2nd referee would help that much. If there are two refs, you place the 2nd 30m away (like you said one has control over each half, so if one is in the box on a corner kick, where ten players are poking each other in the eye, there is one ref, while the other is standing 20-40m away from goal, to prepare for a possible counter-attack, for example). You have one guy close to a situation and the other close to a possible other situation. But i don´t think that would happen five times per match. Ideally, the assisstants (close to one side) or the goal-line-refs in CL or WC matches would help with those things more - i would say i haven´t seen a goal-line ref signal if it was a corner or a goal-kick, for example, they have to do more!

 
Your issue with corners is enforcement, not really pertinent to this discussion. It seems like assistants have very little authority to make calls, which reduces their effectiveness.
 

 
2) If there´s two refs, someone would call for three refs, as the field is still too big for two and those two cannot see every action (=finger in the ... poke, etc.) away from ball or if they´re turned away for a moment. What happens away from action should be regarded from the assisstants.

 
This is a logically flawed argument. If 2 refs are better than 1, than use 2 refs. Saying 'don't use 2 refs because then people will ask for 3' is dumb. Hell, if it's shown that 3 refs are better than 2, go to 3. You could even have them decide tricky calls by majority, no abstentions!
 

 
3) If there would be consultations, this would take away the speed of the game and bring more delays.

 
I'm OK with consultations slowing the game down a bit if it means a Panama player doesn't get a straight red for a bogus call, or a guy who fingers a defender's butthole then fakes an injury gets a red (shit, or at least keeps the violated attacker from getting red).
 

 
4) On your idea how to speed up the game: look at handball: when the ref makes a call (for example when you make a foul), you have to stop the play and you are not allowed to touch the ball. You have to lay it down instantly. Same could happen in football - if you touch it, dribble it (and not just the extreme / dumb time-wasting, where you kick it 30+feet away), kick it away, you should get a yellow card instantly.

 
My purpose with that rule was not a speed up the game remedy, but a preventative measure against time-wasting. However, I like your enforcement strategy for dead ball situations.
 

 
5) I don´t think it would be a good idea to hand out "bans" or powerplays if someone is down injured for a minute. Sometimes, people are really injured and stay down. Your rule would say that someone is injured (say, a swollen ankle/knee/..), but there are no more possible subs. What would he do? Limp back as soon as possible and not wait for another minute.

 
I stand by this rule. For example, Player A is tackled and exhibits pain/discomfort. Play is stopped for over a minute, so the rule indicates he must come off for at least 2 minutes, unless he is subbed. If he is not actually injured and the coach chooses to not sub, he has now forced his team to play down a man for 2 minutes. If he is injured, he is subbed off and there is no penalty for faking. If the team is out of subs and the player is really injured, it will likely take at least 2 minutes to seek treatment before the player is ready to return.
 

 
6) Adding subs in extra-time could help. But you could also see it the other way around - it would only add another minute for each sub, so the extra-time wouldn´t be that interesing plus the tired players are usually more prone to mistakes, so it´s of course more likely that there would be goals included with tired players, instead with more fresh players taking the field.

 
I don't understand the point here. The purpose of giving teams an extra sub or two in extra time is to get fresher legs on the field and make it more exciting. I would also argue it benefits deeper squads more, which is a positive IMO.
 

 
--> Biggest point towards less refs: you would lose ref quality in half: you basically double the refs, say you add the refs from 2nd league to 1st league. Who refs the 2nd league? Right, the refs from former 5th to 2nd league, and so on. Would that really help? I don´t know...In lowest leagues, there is already a lack of refs (with parents / coaches / ... reffing matches), so doing that would even add more to this, even if it´s just in 1st and 2nd league.

 
I also have a problem with this logic. If the conclusion is that 2 refs are better equipped to ref a game, adjust accordingly. More importantly, a ref's job may become easier if he only has half the field to worry about and can lean on another ref for consultation. I would even argue that pairing young and inexperienced refs with more high quality ones will lead to faster improvement and overall better performance.

 

[McDrew]

Related, but tangental question:
Why are there substitution limits anyways?  It seems that that limit causes people to stay in when they're injuried, try and milk calls because the other team will be punished if a player is taken out.  Also, tired players aren't that entertaining at all.  I'd like to see what would happen if the top-tier players got a couple 5 minute rests each half and could spend the same amount of energy in 10 less minutes of active play. 
Leading back to the original question, if injuries were less of a concern than they would before, would there be as much incentive to try and play the refs?  There's a whole legit discussion here about how to reform referring, but I thought that by eliminating some of the pressure created by substitutions, the refs could concentrate more on calls and there would be less incentive for bullshit.