Throughout the entire soccer community, the question is being asked whether or not instant replay should be used in games. In the sporting world, instant replay has become the deciding factor and savior to all sports except one, soccer, which has yet to incorporate instant replay in games. Through the many years of experience with the sport I have always thought that instant replay is what the sport needs. Instant replay would be able to help determine controversial calls and prevent blown games from happening. There have been so many games that have been determined on wrong calls that instant replay could have fixed. Instant replay is in use in most of the major sporting franchises such as the NHL, NFL, NBA and PGA. Instant replay has been considered to be the savior of all of these sports. Games are ruined by blown off-sides calls, incorrect penalty decisions and other mistakes. This new technology will be used to mainly review penalties, goals, and free kicks. It could possible be used for more but as of right now the goal is to test it. The technology is here and it works at maximum efficiency and can certainly benefit the sport.

While some support this change, there are some supporters known as the traditional fans of the sport. Instant replay has been questioned, by these fans, as to why soccer needs replay. After all soccer is one of the oldest sports and has become the most famous sport in the world, without the help of instant replay. While this is true, it can be argued that in today's world the technology is available to enhance and better the game. The technology is already being considered and is being prepared for testing. This technology can revise all the errors of the game. However, there is still the one major concern, will it disturb the flow of the game. Some fear that the non-stop sport will have to incorporate stoppage in play so that they can review calls with instant replay. However, it is being tested to prevent that very thing, which is why instant replay should be safe to use in the sport. 

Now picture this: You are playing for your favorite team in the world or representing the country you love in a championship game, one that the entire world is tuned into. Then, picture you losing that game, but not in a normal way. Let's say the team who beats you, does it by breaking the rules. Now you would think the ref, the man who is supposed to keep order and delegate the rules of the game, misses it. He doesn't see the other team break the rules but everyone in the world, and you see that they did. Now usually we could catch it on instant replay and the error can be corrected. Unless you play soccer. In soccer the referee's word is final. It doesn't matter if he's wrong, it doesn't matter that there is video evidence. "I object" the world screams. It doesn't matter because he is the judge and the jury. Its one of the most unfair systems in sports. This growing problem has been around since the beginning of the sport and has haunted it ever since just waiting to screw over a player, a team, a mass of adoring fans. Blown calls will forever torment the game if instant replay is not implemented in the game.

Countless mistakes are made by referees. There is at least one blown call in a game now a-days. The game has evolved since the beginning and the speed of play has increased tremendously. Players are getting faster and faster to keep up with the play, but the refs seem to be left behind. It's become very hard for them to catch the split second tackles, passes and shots. For instance, "In the MLS game between Toronto FC and New York City there was a blown call. New York's David Villa settled the ball with his hand and scored a goal against Toronto. The game ended in a 2-2 draw if the hand ball would have been called Toronto would have gotten the win that they rightfully deserved. Armstrong explained in her article, "New York City FC striker David Villa controlled an incoming ball with his right arm on his way to slotting home his second of the game. The Reds would fight back to earn a 2-2 draw but that non-call on the blatant handball by referee Alan Kelly would ultimately cost Toronto two points. In a league where those additional points come playoff time could have moved Toronto from a sixth-place finish and an away game to third place and hosting, that's a high price to pay." (Armstrong 1). This split second settle was very costly to the Toronto side. When David Villa committed the hand ball the ref couldn't see it. Villa had his back to the ref and was shielding the ball from his view. It was impossible for the ref to to see the violation. You're asking the ref to do the impossible by asking him to catch this hand ball. With instant replay it can easily be fixed. Ok so maybe you're thinking, that blown call isn't that big of a deal. Now one could argue that it was not a giant blow to the game seeing as how Toronto didn't end up loosing, but obviously a win would have been better. Ok, so if that wasn't a good enough example for you here is another. In the article "Top 10 Referee Blunders in Soccer," RedBrothersUnited gives an example where the expressed how "It looked like the United States would finally find their breakthrough in the 50th minute. On a corner kick, US defender Gregg Berhalter slid in to redirect the ball on goal. His shot was initially saved by German keeper Oliver Kahn, but he could not get all of it and the ball spun backward towards the goal where it was stopped by the outstretched hand of German defender Torsten Frings." (RedBrothersUnited 1 par. 15). Now instantly this should awaken your inner American and enrage you. As an American even watching the replays makes me cringe. To know that the country I love and support has been cheated is an awful sight. 

Minor calls like those are huge, so imagine what impact a major blown call would have. These next examples all have one thing in common; the teams that get the blown call end up loosing the game. In the article "Top 10 Referee Blunders in Soccer" RedBrothersUnited reported that, "During the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, replays clearly showed that Lampard's shot in the round of 16 match against Germany clearly crossed the goal line, but was not given by either the linesman or the referee" (RedBrothersUnited 1 par. 4). In this world cup match Lampard's shot hit of the crossbar and down into the goal, but the rotation of the ball caused it to bounce out. All of the England fans roared in triumph because of the goal, but soon realized that the referee never allowed it. The linesman in charge of seeing if the ball went over the line didn't see it. Everyone else did though, but since he didn't it doesn't matter, and let me tell you this isn't the first time it has happened either. In a Manchester United game versus Tottenham, Dan Fitch reports in his article, "WF's Most Notorious Bad Calls," on how "The ball was knocked back into the United half, where Tottenham's Pedro Mendes was waiting to attempt an audacious lob over the goalkeeper [ ... ] Having fumbled the ball, it clearly went several feet over the line, before Carroll hooked it back into play and tried to pretend that nothing happened. Clattenburg somehow bought these unconvincing, straight-faced theatrics and ruled out the goal and with it, the win that Spurs deserved." (Fitch 7). Again, the ref didn't see it. Believe me, these aren't the only times that this has happened. In an article named "Top 10 Worst Blown Calls in Soccer History," the author, Simon Lazarus, tells about how "The youngest Premier League referee at the time, Attwell awarded a goal to Reading when the ball had clearly gone nowhere near the net. This off target strike which was after less than 15 minutes will go down in history for all the wrong reasons. As the ball was hooked back from the byline and bobbled out, he awarded the goal." (Lazarus 1). Ok, so I now what your thinking and yes, you did read that right. Well you did and its quite unbelievable. In this game the ball bounced around in front of the goal about 5 times. At one point there was a shot but a defender got to the ball and cleared it out. And it never came back to the goal. Once the ball had been cleared the line ref thought that it had gone in the goal, but it never did. The shot wasn't even on target. This famous blunder in soccer history is known as the infamous, "ghost goal." It is up there in the top 10 worst calls by refs in all of soccer history. 

Now all of these blown calls are great pieces of evidence to use to promote the action to use instant replay but I still have one left. This blown call is the one that started it all. The 1986 world cup game between Argentina and England was one for the ages. Stewart Coggins reports on this play in his article "Learn About Diego Maradonna's "Hand of God" Soccer Goal" where he tells us how "Six minutes into the second-half, Maradona passed the ball to Jorge Valdano and continued his run from the left into the England penalty area. The pass was intercepted by Steve Hodge but in trying to clear the ball he skewed it into the penalty area where Maradona had continued his run and England goalkeeper Peter Shilton had come out to meet it. Shilton was favorite to punch the ball clear, however, Maradona reached it first and with the outside of his left fist, knocked it beyond Shilton and into the net. Inexperienced Tunisian referee Ali Bin Nasser and his linesman did not see the infringement and the goal stood." (Coggin 1). Argentina won the game sending England out of the world cup, and all because of one of the worst blown calls known to the game. It looked as if he thought he was a goalkeeper punching the ball like that. What really baffles everyone who has seen this goal is how obvious it is. Its not a hidden mistake and it wasn't hard to catch. Maradona wasn't surrounded by any other players. It was only him and the keeper and they had no one else around them to block the refs view. It's jaw dropping how obvious this blown call is. This blown call is always talked about when the instant replay debate comes up and that is because it is one of the worst calls known to the game. 

While there are plenty supporters of instant replay there are those that oppose it. In another article by Stewart Coggin, called "The Video Replay Debate," he talks about how "Traditionalists believe that referring to video technology would disrupt the flow of a match and spoil it as a spectacle. No one wants to see a game based on fluidity constantly interrupted, they say." (Coggin 1). Soccer has been the world's favorite sport for a very long time and has fans that scour the globe. The beauty of this game is that it has barely changed over time. Soccer has maintained the human aspect of sports. Some franchises are starting to rely too much on technology which is taking away that human aspect. Humans are not anywhere near perfect and the fact that we wont to make the game that way could potentially take away the passion that we all love. Soccer is a non-stop sport full of passion without all of the crap filled commercials to interrupt it. In an article for the New York Times, George Vecsey reports that ""If our game is becoming scientific, then we will take away its emotion and nobody would have any discussion any longer if it was offside, not offside; if it was inside, not inside the penalty box," Blatter said. "No. This would destroy an essential element in this game  --  and this is emotion," he added." (Vecsey 1). Emotion is what drives this sport. You can not get the same emotion in any other game. Fans cling to their seats for 90 minutes hanging on to every blade of grass that is torn up by their favorite players. Yes, instant replay could cause stoppages, but no one wants that. Supporters of instant replay just want it to be tested and see if there is a way to incorporate it without ruining the flow. 

Games are ruined by blown off-sides calls, incorrect penalty decisions and a bunch of other mistakes. This technology should be considered for the well being of the game. Other sports have adopted different kinds of instant replay. In the article titled "Soccer Needs Instant Replay as Soon as Possible" Connor Dowley, the author, expresses how "It's hard to deny that it's made the [other] sports better. With the ability to correct mistakes and confirm close calls, games have improved and lingering doubts about the quality and impact of refereeing has -- with a few small exceptions -- largely been removed from the game" (Dowley 1 par. 2). Instant replay has proven beneficial in other sports. He later goes on to say that "Experimenting with replay is such a common-sense move, but we're probably years away from it even being considered. Until then, match after match after match will be ruined by mistakes, misjudgments and refereeing incompetence." (Dowley 1 par. 6). Managers and fans have voiced their opinions on the matter countless time. One manager commented after a game, ""If you have the access to it, why would you not use it? If there's any time you can be certain about something, why would you not want to have all the information you possibly could? It's kind of like the debate about goalline technology. It's like, really? We really need to have a discussion about that? It's crazy."" (Murray 1).  It makes you wonder with all of this support for it why isn't it being used. Its not like its just fans voicing this opinion. It's managers and players. In an interview with About Sports correspondent, Jason Davis, MLS commissioner Don Garber stated, "We spoke to the (MLS) Board about how instant replay might work, we think it can work, we'd love to see it work," the commissioner said. "We've got to talk to US Soccer, we've got to talk to FIFA, we've got to make sure the technology works, but you should know that MLS is a supporter of the idea." (Jason Davis 1).  The Commissioner of the MLS is all on board to start testing. An article recently came out titled, "MLS Has Tested Video Review, Ready to Move Forward. " In the article Paul Tenorio states that the "MLS has been running trials with a low-tech version of video review in three different markets  --  Philadelphia, Vancouver and Salt Lake City  --  and would like to begin experiment with live, in-game use either in MLS or perhaps in the third-division USL." (Tenorio 1). Reports like this are prime examples of what the sport of soccer should do. We have this technology so at least try it. ESPN reported, "Our findings show there is ample time to give information to the referee. Depending on the incident, there can be from 40 seconds to well over a minute, plenty of time to review a decision." (ESPN 1). Commissioners and managers have sat down and thought about when the sufficient time would be to use this system. Tony Marshal, a reporter for Fox Sports, recently released an article, describing how "The FIFA-dominated panel met on Thursday in London to decide whether to allow the first official in-game tests with video replay systems that could, for example, help to inform referees on whether a penalty should be awarded, a player should be sent off, or consider violent conduct they might have missed." (Marshall 1). 

The technology is available, it works, its been proven in other sports. The fact that it has taken this long to be tested is wrong. There are countless reasons why it should be used as I have previously shown you. Soccer suffers from too many blown calls and it is hurting teams in the overall chase for the title of their leagues. Yes, there is a risk but the reward could be that much greater and who said it would be permanent if it were tried out in the sport. Obviously no one wants to ruin this beautiful game. Those who have voiced their support for instant replay have expressed that they don't want the flow of the game to be ruined because of it. It's an obvious move to test the theory that the MLS has come up with. Fans only want justice for their favorite teams and how could you blame them for that? This system needs to be established in soccer so that we can bring justice to this amazing and passionate sport.

