It's All EARs In Brazil

Looking at the highlights of the Brazilian Football State Championships (Carioca) match between Flamengo and Madureira played on 8 February 2012, it can be seen that the organisers in this competition are using additional or extra ARs (EARs) as introduced by UEFA in 2009. The match finished 1—0, with Ronaldinho missing a penalty.

Highlights: Flamengo and Madureira, 8 February 2012 (YouTube)




However instead of following or copying UEFA's modification this season in switching the placement of EARs to the side of the goal line nearest the AR, the Brazil EARs remain positioned on the far side of the goal line.

The Brazil EARs also appear to be taking an active role in communicating and signalling with the players and the match Referee. It should be noted that the Brazilian Football State Championships, which runs from January/February to April/May, has a history of including "obscure formats" and experimenting with "proposed innovations in rules".

The match officials do not use CommLink systems, and have to rely on plenty of eye contact and team awareness.

Goal Kick but also Offside

The EAR signals a goal kick but the AR has signalled for Offside

In this incident, the EAR receives an earful from the goalkeeper because of the lack of communication between the match officials.


Corner Kick


Goal Kick


Goal


Penalty Kick

Ronaldinho misses his penalty kick and the EAR signals a goal kick

For Related Posts on the Ineffectiveness of EARs (please click here)

Also, check out Insightful Camera View Showing The Ineffectiveness of EARs.

Soft Referee Not Helped By Poor Team of Assistants

The following incidents occurred during a Europa League group match between Sporting Braga and Birmingham City on Wednesday 30 November 2011. The match finished 1—0.


Incident One Handball and Penalty Call

In the 1', a handball incident occurs right in front of the extra assistant referee (EAR). This is a tough call, and there are some Referees who may give a penalty in the same situation. Perhaps the correct decision was made in not giving the penalty since the distance the ball travelled plus the natural position of the arms for balance suggests it was not deliberate.


The EAR is clearly seen to shout "NO". But it appears he is talking to the players rather than the Referee.


Incident Two Penalty Call

In the 10', a Birmingham attacker (blue) is hauled down by a Braga defender (red 5) in front of the EAR.

Although a penalty was awarded (as well as a caution to the Braga defender), it is unclear whether the Referee received any assistance from his EAR or AR. As a Referee it would be comforting to know that, during these swift breakaway attacks when the R is far behind play, the AR (and EAR) can be relied upon to provide good information. Did the AR and EAR provide good information to the R? Or did the R just decide by himself?

In a future post (Insightful Camera View Showing The Ineffectiveness of EARs), I question whether the EAR assisted the Referee in this instance.


Incident Three Stopping A Promising Attack

In the 13', Braga defender (red 5) trips a Birmingham attacker. The Referee has a BIG decision to make. The Referee realizes that only minutes ago he cautioned the defender, and this time awards only a DFK.

Referee Markus Strömbergsson (Sweden)

Braga's Ewerton benefits from soft-option refereeing

This is soft-option Refereeing and goes against the Collina principle (i.e. “The best referee is the one who has the courage to make decisions even when it would be easier not to.”).

It is also unclear whether the AR or EAR gave any assistance to the Referee regarding this yellow card offence. At the very least, it could have been brought to the Referee's attention via the CommLinks.


Incident Four Tight Offside Call

In the 51', the AR flags for offside against Birmingham (blue). It is a tight call, and although the unspoken rule is geared toward promoting attacking play, it would be harsh to criticize the AR for his decision.

After seeing this, it was OK to give the AR the benefit of the doubt (and hope that he stays focused for the remainder of the match).

Will the AR stay focused for the remainder of the match ... ?

Incident Five Incorrect Offside Call

In the 64', the AR does two things wrong.

First, the AR incorrectly judges the Birmingham attacker (blue) to be in an offside position as the ball is played forward by the Birmingham goalkeeper.

Second, the AR quickly raises his flag even though the flighted ball has yet to come down and make contact. The AR has neglected the principle of Wait and See.

The AR's flag is up before the ball has come down (Camera 1)

The ball has yet to come down but the AR's flag is up (Camera 2)

This time, the AR does not deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt. He has clearly erred.


SUMMARY

The performance of the Referee and his team did not inspire.

A future post will look at the ineffectiveness of EAR during Incident Two


The match officials were:

Referee
Markus Strömbergsson (SWE)
Assistant referees
Magnus Sjöblom (SWE), Daniel Wärnmark (SWE)
Fourth official
Michael Lerjeus (SWE)
Additional assistant referees (EARs)
Daniel Stålhammar (SWE), Johan Hamlin (SWE)

Three Penalty Incidents: EARs in the Europa League

The following three incidents occurred during the Europa League first leg round 16 match between Sporting Braga and Liverpool on Thursday 10 March 2011. The match finished 1—0.

Incident One (Penalty Awarded)

Two freeze frames show the Referee awarding a penalty to Sporting Braga (red).

Referee Serge Gumienny (Belgium) has a clear view, right between two players, of the foul by Liverpool defender Kyrgiakos (black #16) on Sporting Braga forward Mossoro (red #8)

The Referee has a clear view of the foul inside the penalty area, and immediately and decisively makes the call. At least there is no embarrassing scenario of the AR overruling the Referee's decision (as in this case in Penalty One).

How is the EAR involved? Perhaps by affecting the patrol pathway of the Referee.


Incident Two (Penalty Kick encroachment)

This freeze frame is the resulting penalty kick from the above decision (Incident One).

Encroachment by Sporting Braga players (red) and a goal is scored

This blog has often mentioned the ineffectiveness of EARs. Perhaps the clearest scenario illustrating the ineffectiveness and redundancy of EARs is during penalty kicks. What use EARs?

Also, Referees appear unable to decide which side of the goal is the best position for them. Should they stand on the same side of the goal as the AR or the EAR? Either way, encroachment of players still occurs and Referees have still failed to maximize the presence of EARs during penalty kicks.


Incident Three (Penalty Not Awarded)

Line of sight: EAR—Foul Recognition—R. Is this optimal positioning? Do more match officials see more?

Sporting Braga defender Kaka (red #4) sticks out his left leg and makes contact with Liverpool attacker Cole (black #10)

Liverpool's Joe Cole is fouled in the penalty area, but not one of the match officials (not the EAR, R or even AR) made the call. Even if they had, it may not have been a credible call. The AR can be excused because traditionally and, with good reason, it is not the AR's call to make (since he is on the far side of the incident inside the penalty area). But EARs have been specifically introduced to assist the Referee's decision-making in such incidents (in addition to supposedly having a preventative effect on players who are more likely to foul in such incidents). The EAR has therefore failed in his primary objectives. Furthermore, the EAR has also negatively affected the performance of the Referee because the positioning of the Referee is no longer optimal for incidents in that part of the penalty area. The Referee could not see the incident because, in positioning himself by the D, there is obviously more likelihood of players present in the penalty area obstructing his view.

This specific incident in the penalty area—where no match official has a clear and unobstructed view and/or an optimum angle of view—appears to be increasing with every match that uses EARs (previous examples are seen here in Penalty Two and here where the EAR and R miss a push in the back and here in Incident One where a defender raises his arm to block the ball). This is almost certainly due to the presence of EARs.


Central Thesis

Here my main argument is not the fact that EARs are ineffective and redundant (which, in many incidents, they are ) or that EARs do not help or enhance the game. It is worse than that and much more serious. My main argument is the fact that EARs can have a detrimental effect on the performance of the match Referee and hence can contribute to ruining the game since match officials will be perceived to be making more, instead of less, errors.*

This specific incident which is largely created by the presence of EARs (where the line of sight is: EAR—foul recognition—R) so that no match official is optimally positioned to make the correct call appears to be an important scenario set to occur more frequently.

Are EARs the extra eyes needed in football?

Regular readers will know HKRef's answer! Lol.


* Does the phrase "Too many cooks spoil the broth" mean anything to UEFA, FIFA and IFAB?

More about Extra Assistant Referees or EARs

This is yet another follow up to UEFA’s experiment with additional assistant referees, which this blog prefers to call extra assistant referees … mostly because the acronym EAR can be used in the half-humorous semi-serious phrase:

“Are EARs the extra eyes needed in football?”

To illustrate the ineffectiveness of EARs, two controversial penalty incidents occurred during the Marseille and Chelsea Champions League final group match on Wednesday 8 December 2010. The match ended 1—0.

Both penalty incidents—in the 16th and 43rd minutes—occurred inside the penalty area and questions are asked of the Russian match officials. In particular the referee, Vladislav Bezborodov, was officiating his first Champions League match, so his courage, confidence and conviction come into focus, as well as the interaction with his team of match officials.

Note: Apologies for the long string of freeze frames in this post. Please skip to the end of this post for the summary.

Ultimately, the issue of whether EARs are effective comes to the fore … yet again. Here are the two penalty incidents that were not given to Chelsea.

PENALTY ONE

In the 16th minute, Florent Malouda of Chelsea (green) heads towards the goal line and Souleymane Diawara of Marseille (black) trips him. The referee is right up with play and initially awards a penalty. [Note: this decision appears to be correct because the path of the ball does not change, suggesting that Diawara did not get the ball … and instead got the man]. However, the AR uses the intercom and indicates that Diawara did make contact with the ball and therefore says it is a corner kick. Questions to ask here are: Did the AR have the better angle of view than the R? Was the AR 100% sure that there was contact with the ball? What was the R's pre-match brief to his AR regarding fouls in the penalty area?

This turn of events gives a poor impression on the match officials, and in particular cuts down the credibility and authority of the match referee.

[Note: does the EAR have an optimum angle of view? Should the EAR assist?]

[Malouda (green) can not believe he is going to take a corner instead of a penalty kick!]

[This camera angle shows a good view of the incident]

[Referee Bezborodov instantly strikes a pose and confidently points to the penalty spot!]

[But wait ... the AR is saying that there was no foul and that it's a corner kick ...]

[As is expected, Chelsea captain John Terry (#26) questions the referee's judgement]

PENALTY TWO

In the 43rd minute, Solomon Kalou of Chelsea (green) heads towards the goal line and Souleymane Diawara of Marseille (black) trips him. Both the EAR and R are close to play. But do they have the best angle of view? [Note: the path of the ball does not change, again suggesting that Diawara did not get the ball … and instead got the man]. So, was the presence of the EAR helpful? If the R did not think it was a penalty, then why not caution Kalou for simulation? In either scenario, the EAR did not (or perhaps could not) assist.

[Both the R and EAR are near to the incident. Between them, they should be able to decide whether it was a penalty or simulation. Or are they in the best positions to see clearly?]

[Kalou can not believe he did not get a penalty!]

[This camera view provides an optimum angle of view between the players. Clear foul.]

SUMMARY

It would be interesting to know what the R’s pre-match instructions were to his ARs and EARs. However, in usual practice, any decision inside the penalty area should be the match referee’s priority or first call unless he absolutely has no angle and the AR has the better view. It would appear that the teamwork between the Russian match officials was not optimal.

For the first penalty, the AR undermined the R’s penalty decision. In fact the R, from about 12 yards behind play (see pic below), had a good view of the incident inside the penalty area, and subsequently made an immediate and decisive call. Unfortunately, the AR took matters into his own hands and subsequently eroded the R’s credibility and authority. Furthermore, the EAR most likely had the best view compared with the R and AR. So why didn't the EAR help out? From the relative positions of the R, AR & EAR, it certainly seems the EAR had a better view than the AR.

For the second penalty (see pic below), the EAR is close to the incident but perhaps does not have the correct angle to see contact between the players. This may be a reason why the EAR did not assist the R in making a penalty decision. The R, with his confidence unsettled by the first penalty call 27 minutes earlier, probably did not have the courage to make this penalty call.

These incidents add weight to the ineffectiveness of EARs. In particular, the wide camera angle (see pic below) for the second penalty gives the best angle of view. Neither the R or EAR had particularly great views. This also brings up the altered positioning and limited narrow runs of the R, when EARs are used in matches. Referees no longer feel the need to run wide, and hence can no longer obtain an optimal angle of view such as that seen by the camera angle (below).

[From this optimal angle, it is a definite penalty]

“Are EARs the extra eyes needed in football?”

No. It would appear not.

In UEFA’s publicity campaign, UEFA chief refereeing officer Pierluigi Collina, says: “Now we see more”

However so far, EARs do not appear to assist refereeing decisions or have a preventive effect on players’ conduct. EARs do not significantly enhance or help the game.

The question now is how long will UEFA stick with their calamitous experiment, and will UEFA release proper data and results of their experiment?

Related Posts

Now We See More. Yes, But Do Referees Perform Better?

Self-Censorship at UEFA