The Case for Instant Replay

Okay, so we Americans are quite used to the idea of giving referees video replay. In the NFL, each team has a certain number of challenges, in NCAA football most games have an extra official which automatically reviews every play and signals the officials on the field if a play needs to be checked, and in Basketball the referees often review things like clock issues and three point shots, etc, etc.


But what about instant replay in soccer er-football? Present the idea to a EPL fan over 50 and you're likely to get a sour look. That said, I have a proposal which I think would not harm the sport.

1. Each team has a fixed number of combined substitutions and challenges. I suggest 4 total from which the manager can use how he likes (i.e. 3 subs, 1 challenge; 2 subs, 2 challenges; etc.).
   
2. Only calls that are made can be challenged.


3. Off-pitch official(s) review the call and relay the information to the ref on the pitch.
   

Often, this is the response I get "But instant replay will slow the game down, and add interruptions to the match!"

Firstly, I don't know what game these guys are watching, but the game is already interrupted quite frequently. To illustrate this, I beg you to actually count and time the number of stoppages in a very competitive match. I did this for the first 30 minutes of the 2007 Argentina v. Brazil Copa America final. There were approximately 39 stoppages (free kicks, goal kicks, injuries, throw-ins, etc.) in the first 30 minutes for a total of over 12 minutes where the ball was "dead."

Secondly, if challenging a call takes away a substitute from the manager, he will reserve his challenges for the most important of calls (goals, penalties, red cards) and therefore rarely interrupt the game.

Thirdly, having the call reviewed by an extra official will keep the referee from having to run off the pitch and check the video, and therefore save time as well as spread some of the responsibility around.

Fourthly, since only calls that have been made the ref can be challenged, there will be no interruptions where there wasn't already an interruption. This might require the refs to err on the side of making the call and let the challenge sort it out.

Are they going to get it right every time? Of course not, but it would certainly help and I don't think it would change the game in a negative way. I think ti would help in a few key areas:

Diving
Take this common example. Offensive player A collides with defensive player B in the penalty box, the referee awards a penalty to player A. The ref is practically assaulted by the other teams player and it takes an additional 1-2 minutes to book the dissenting players. Under the instant replay outlined above, if Player B's manager challenged the penalty call, an official could relay that it was a clean tackle, or a good penalty, or a dive by the offensive player. If it was a dive, the referee could then give the offensive player an appropriate card and play could resume relatively quickly.

Offsides
This is a little less straight forward, but the above proposal would definitely help with goals that result form a player in an offsides position. If Player A scores and the opposition manger feels that he was in an offsides position the goal could be challenged and if correct, a free kick awarded.

Berating of the Referee
This is one issue that drives me crazy. In many American sports, any physical or verbal abuse of the referee is grounds for dismissal at the referees discretion. But, if the players feel an incorrect call can be rectified by their manager's challenge they should be less inclined to pressure the referee.