As World Cup Shows, Lack of Instant Replay in Soccer Is a Big, Big Deal

The ball went into the goal. Frank Lampard saw it. Fabio Capello saw it. Tens of thousands of screaming, vuvuzela-clutching fans saw it. Even Germany coach Joachim Loew saw it.

Unfortunately, referee Jorge Larrionda didn’t see it, and he’s the one who counts. The goal didn’t count, the score remained Germany 2, England 1, and the Germans went on to a commanding 4-1 win. Any English player – and for that matter, any German player – will tell you that the no-goal was the turning point of the game.

You, however, are probably shaking your head. How on earth can a no-goal in the first half be the difference maker when Germany went on to win by three goals? Not only did England have plenty of other chances, but they allowed two more goals in the second half, so it’s not as though one goal would have mattered. Right?

Sure, that’s true and all, but a single goal like that can dramatically change the way soccer is played, far more than a single point changes a sport like basketball, football, or hockey.

If you’ve watched even a single World Cup match over the last month (and if you’re reading this blog, chances are excellent you either watched USA-Algeria or USA-Ghana), you probably know that soccer is a low-scoring sport. Most matches end with two or fewer goals. Since goals are in such short supply, the team that scores first tends to win, or at least tie. So far in the 2010 World Cup, the side scoring first went on to win the match 69.6% of the time, and went on to at least tie it a whopping 82.1% of the time.

That’s a staggeringly high rate. Coaches in any sport would love to know a sure-fire way to win their games over 82% of the time. In soccer, it’s that easy – just score first!

Of course, in the Germany-England match, the Germans scored first, so the odds were already against the English. In fact, only two sides that scored first went on to lose their match this year (3.6%). While it’s not perfect, you could say that after they allowed that first goal, England had a 96.7% chance of losing. Odds like that don’t do much for confidence. So what did England do? They started to play a little more aggressively.

While playing aggressively certainly increases your chances of scoring a goal, it also increases your chances of giving one up, since your players are spending most of their time focusing on offense and not spending much time on the defensive end of the pitch. If the ball squirts over the midfield line and even just one attacker breaks free, chances are excellent that you’ll give up a goal.

The strategy paid off for England, though, and they scored their goal. Germany went on to score another, and then just before halftime, Lampard appeared to score his, which would have tied the game at 2. Instead, England went into the locker room knowing they’d have to play aggressively to have a chance at winning.

The mental difference is an important one. England could have played a normal game if they were tied in the second half, and perhaps (though we can’t be sure) they wouldn’t have conceded those two extra goals.

But do the numbers back it up? We already know that teams that score first only lose about 3.6% of the time. Teams with a one goal lead at any point in the match fare about as well, only losing about 3.9% of the time. But teams that are tied? They actually go on to lose the match 41.7% of the time, a huge increase over the one goal lead. That’s a big, big difference. According to those numbers, England was actually ten times more likely to win the match if the goal had been counted than if it hadn’t.

You can understand why they were so upset.

So how do we fix the problem? Fans worldwide are now clamoring for FIFA to implement instant replay on the goal line to prevent something like this from happening in the future. FIFA has responded by saying that’s unlikely, since they don’t have the funding to provide equipment for every match. Some have suggested something as simple as having two people stand by the goal line just to check if the ball goes over the line, which could be done relatively cheaply.

Personally, I feel like FIFA already has those guys on staff. They stand by the sidelines throughout the whole match. You’ve probably seen them – they’ve the guys who hold up the flags when the ball goes out of bounds. Yes, they’re the line judges. During shots on goal, they’re usually close enough to the action to be able to see whether the ball goes in or not. If there’s a question, couldn’t the referee just refer to them for confirmation? We already see this in MLB, when the home plate umpire refers to the first or third base umpires to see if a batter’s swing crossed the baseline.

Certainly that’s not the only way it could be done.  I’m sure plenty of other people will offer up suggestions. But the important thing is that something needs to be done. Goals don’t come easily in the World Cup, so every single one ought to be counted, and counted correctly. If they aren’t, teams could see their chances of winning drop by ten times or more with a single missed call.

Just ask England.