What will this book discuss?
There are three major themes, which are of course closely linked. This is explained in more detail below. The three complexes themselves are initially as follows:
- The football rules
- The betting market
To 1.: The goal is clearly to achieve an improvement. There are two basic claims about the rules: a) there is an inherent injustice in them, and b) the mere application of the existing rules would suffice.
Otherwise there is one fundamental claim about football: the goals are the icing on the cake and when the icing is missing there is a lack of flavor and excitement. In other words: a little more excitement would do the entertainment value and thus the game itself good.
These hypotheses are also discussed in more detail below.
Before that happens, however, briefly to the other two main points:
To 2.: This is a specific German problem, but one that has to be taken seriously. Here, too, a higher level of truth and a basic understanding of journalism, which should basically be based on “creating tension”, could quickly help. At that point, however – as with the rules and their improvement/application ideas – the main thing is to gain acceptance. However, this acceptance can only succeed if one engages in a very small amount of psychological argumentation.
To 3.: The betting market is initially kept quite general as a headline, but at the same time it is in a certain way its own core competence and also effective in advertising for the reading. However, there is much more behind it than one might initially suspect. To give just one small example: there are permanent small shifts in probability over the course of a game. The mere fact that the clock continues to run ensures that the distribution for the outcome of a game practically never remains constant. A certain exception would bid here: there is only little playing time left and the winner is already determined. Even then, of course, a goal can still be scored (insofar as the winner is certain, but not the concrete end result). How essential this knowledge and understanding is for the betting market should also only really become clear later on, but it has already been mentioned here: live betting during the games already accounts for a huge volume on the betting market.
The entanglement of the three complexes can be assumed to be something like this: the rules and their interpretation/application have an increasingly decisive influence on games. All trainers have known this for a long time, to name just one example. So: a missed penalty or a due dismissal, an offside decision or a foul whistle, a misplaced throw-in or even a missed time game all ensure that a game has an outcome that does not depend solely on the quality of the game.
In this respect, the reporting would have to deal with it. It was a close game and it could have gone a different direction here and there. That part alone is kind of random. Keeping the tension high would also be a task within reporting, because the outcome is never certain.
The betting market itself “regulates” at all possible points. There would be a lot of statistical data to be given for this, which is by no means taken from a standard repertoire but is very specific, with the (successful) intention of conquering this betting market (and earning a living this way) and insofar its reliability must be guaranteed .
To give just one example of a possible (but long established or at the same time maintained) here: how many trend changes are there within a soccer game? There is a change in tendency when a team takes the lead or if an equalizing goal is scored. However, at least these intuitive questions should be asked here in search of (later provided) answers:
a) How often does the trend in the Bundesliga change in a game on average?
b) Is it different in other leagues? Worldwide or in lower leagues in Germany?
c) Would a higher frequency be desirable here?
d) What about other sports?
e) More goals – more frequent changes in trend: no question. But: would this increase the tension at the same time?
Now a few hurdles should be mentioned here, which would have to be cleared, but only if you dare to go a few steps further (in the text).
The hurdles are quickly listed as follows:
a) football is booming. Why change something?
b) Lots of experts deal with the rules – leave it to them.
c) Everything has already been said about football.
d) I’m an expert too (and everyone really says that about themselves).
e) Everyone immediately has a view on any subject related to football. Then there are the regular tables. You can explain all that over a beer – otherwise nobody needs it.
To a): the football is huge. No question. But he could still grow. The comparison that is often made is as follows: the soccer ball is a dinosaur egg. Gigantic in size and “unbreakable”. is it really him
To b): the experts deal with it. Only here is the assertion that they have not recognized a fundamental problem. At least one. You can even bring this closer with the help of the betting market.
Regarding c): Exactly this view can be counteracted here. The only requirement: read on. So as not to completely neglect the salt here either: frequency of change in trends may already be a halfway new term (and not one taken from a standard beer counter phrase), but how about this: making happiness measurable?
The tiny little foretaste:
|Team||T soll||GT soll||T||GT||TD||Glück|
The last column indicates luck: Hertha has been lucky with 6.16 goals so far in the current Bundesliga season 2016/2017. These consist of 0.73 goals, which they scored too many, and 5.43 goals, which they conceded too little.
Ingolstadt, on the other hand, was unlucky for 17.79 goals. You scored 8.98 too few and at the same time conceded 8.82 too many (small rounding error).
The value of Ingolstadt quite significant. However, the fact is: they had purely statistical advantages in many games, but did not use them (a more detailed discussion and the creation and reliability of these values is pending, but will be provided at the appropriate point).
To d): Germany is the land of 80 million national coaches. In this respect: everyone knows their way around perfectly and it is impossible to tell anyone anything new. Right. However, the problem here is also one that is remotely related to the betting market: since this is a game of constantly changing probabilities and these probabilities are the basis (before and during a game, a championship, a tournament, etc…) everyone can say anything – and change this statement at any time. “Wolfsburg are relegated because they…” Two weeks later: “I told you that Wolfsburg has far too much quality.” Or even if they lose twice again: “You see, I’ll tell you.”
Here, too, the betting market helps: anyone who dares to approach it can not only check their statements but even gain expert status – if they win. At this point, too, the link to the reporters: if they had to shell out their statements directly on the betting market, they would probably no longer dare to make them. This starts with an assumed favorite position: “For me, Bayern is the favorite to progress in the duel with Real Madrid.” Then up with the money, back up this statement with a bet on the market – or would you rather keep quiet? This is of course even more true in private circles. Testimony against testimony and a heated argument – or just make a bet? However, these usually fail due to a quota agreement (in private circles). There is a quota on the betting market for each of the two, which you can at least use as a guide.
To e) : is in principle already covered with c) and d). But the same applies here: you have an opinion on it and would never keep quiet about it. Example: video evidence. Everyone blurts it out immediately. It’s not that you want to listen to (another) discussion about it, but rather be live “on air” yourself to spread it over the airwaves – because it’s so secure and so well-founded that not a hair fits in between.
Central involvement of psychology in the argumentation
Well yes, some hurdles mentioned on the way to the acceptance of the text, at the same time the possibility of overcoming them was put into the room. However, the biggest seems to me to be this one: to what extent can one ever argue with psychology? At the same time, it is a kind of “inspection”, which, however, leads at best a kind of shadowy existence in the legal system. Solid evidence is needed – or babble on your own wall.
However, it should at least be noted in advance that everyone knows about it in a certain way (just doesn’t dare to say it like that). Example of a reporter’s comment or just one of those typical phrases, which can still give the indication at the same time: a so-called “concession decision”. The term exists, so it can be assumed that the phenomenon itself also exists. Holding up your hand when saying it, ok, but still confidently believe in it. Everyone somehow knows it and also feels it: they exist. A penalty denied there, which actually could not be recognized as “none” with the club’s own glasses, over there a comparable situation, also no penalty: “Yes, certainly a bit of a concession decision” you then hear, from the speaker or also in the subsequent interview.
So this aspect of psychology includes reporters as well as coaches, players, managers, other people in charge. However, you should first stay quiet times with the referee. A few years ago, Christoph Daum said these words in an emotional interview right after a game that ended due to a wrong decision against his team, 1.FC Köln: “Referees are no longer game officials, they decide the game.”
Now, here, too, the considerations of psychology would already be involved, namely as far as the credibility of Daum’s statement itself is concerned. Namely like this: “He only says that because his team has just been disadvantaged.” So it shouldn’t be given any greater importance, even if he were right in the specific case? Well… Sort of finger pointing from a loser – we know it all. Once he’s calmed down, he’ll see that for sure… Above all, this: sometimes in favor of his team, sometimes to the detriment. Evens out, no cause for (general) excitement. Mistakes happen, even the referee.
Nevertheless, let’s just accept this statement and examine it independently of individual disadvantages: a single whistle has this decision-making power. It’s about that one penalty whistle or that offside position, recognized, wrongly recognized or unrecognized. A large number of games already end with this result (the 1:0; taken from the specially managed database: in the 2016/2017 season around 10% of all games ended 1:0, another 7.16% with 0:1, and 7.46% 0-0; these numbers are taken from a selection of 17 leagues covered; the sum of these three numbers is 24.46% ). So a quarter of all games are so close that at most this one goal decides it (in the 0:0 games one would have to say: a whistle either way could have decided it).
Only these, let’s call it statistics, could sufficiently clarify the position of the referee and thus give weight to Christoph Daum’s statement.
Even more so, this argument seems almost inescapable and central here: a goal changes the character of a game. And partly crucial. Christoph Daum was also the first to express this courageously – and was smiled at for it. Yes, as if it were so self-evident and everyone knew it long ago?! No, it’s actually the case that in today’s football, which is becoming more and more “professional”, it’s almost everyday for a team to try to score a goal (usually the favourite, of course: there’s also a connection to the betting market here) and , if he succeeds in this goal, orients himself back immediately afterwards. This is also anything but fantasy, but rather verifiable, both statistically and in comparison with the betting market. This, too, for a more detailed and later explanation, for the purpose of checking the validity, but at least already mentioned here.
First of all, this would perhaps indicate a kind of psychological pressure situation: it depends on this one decision, and very, very often. In many cases the only goal, in many others the possible only goal and in many other cases (of a kind that has not yet been mentioned, but always when there is a “threat”, so to speak, of a change in trend; incidentally, this is subsequently to be regarded as having a decisive effect), and in many other cases of the now so-called cases a kind of change in the course of the game, which should not be completely ignored (after all, as a whistle-man you would be responsible for it).
Explains that almost every whistle in an important game situation has a decisive influence on the end result or the course of the game, just not mentioning the consequence of it. However, this should by no means be absent. The long preface was designed, so to speak, in order to provide the following, at the same time “consequential” words with the appropriate emphasis. The statement is: the inclination of the referees is such that they would rather not accept any of the consequences mentioned.
This may sound modestly formulated – and that’s how it’s meant to be. However, the consequences of this are anything but “so insignificant”. The tendency is to keep the score or the course and not to be responsible for any changes to it.
In other words: the decisions are generally made against the strikers or against the goals. The insight itself goes much further – and follows immediately, at least partially here at first. Before that, however, it should be mentioned that the consequences of a recognized goal can also be rated one of the best on the betting market: if a goal is scored, for example for the outsider, then this outsider is the clear favorite (usually; exceptions here too). Of course, this also depends on the number of favorites and the time of the goal, but there is no question that there are significant changes in the betting market.
To express this just as an example in terms of probabilities: a favorite in a game goes into a game with a 60% chance of winning and concedes a goal early (up to the 30th minute, assumed here). Then your chance of winning this game drops to about 20% (this figure is also taken from the specially maintained database; the selection of games from the last 10 years from a selection of managed leagues).
So this means that a recognized goal for the outsider causes a more than significant shift in the distribution of chances. So it’s possible that even up to that point – as one might suspect – the favorite was on the trigger. Now this goal would be against the course of the game. Maybe then you will discover a fly in the ointment to deny this hit the recognition? The simplest of all examples would be this: there would be a handball or a foul play in the penalty area of the favorite, or just a narrow offside decision. So you don’t know at the moment whether it would be a goal, but the chance would be great. Now you might decide against the foul play or for offside? Of course: the referees act as a team. But even the man (with the nervous arm) on the line is more likely to raise the flag than let it down.
This would be just one of the examples (score, favorites, etc.). But in general — including a goal for the favorite — results in an enormous shift in the distribution of chances for the outcome of the game. Insofar as the statement made above is slightly reformulated here: the referee prefers to decide against the shifting of opportunities.
This is also the case for field references. There are no exact statistics on this, but it seems more than obvious that the numerically inferior team (certainly, depending on the previous distribution of chances and the minute of the game, but still) has a considerable disadvantage as a result (this can of course also be seen on the betting market). and the associated quotas).
There is therefore a general reluctance to recognize a goal, no matter how absurd this may sound (and of course not only the whistlemen vehemently opposed it). However, the effects of this are much more lasting than one could conclude from this alone. This, too, is left open for further explanation, but at least this much is mentioned: there are ways of proving this.
The value of a goal as a cause
1.Barcelona-Arsenal, Champions League Final 2006
This final game here as one of the typical examples of psychology as the driving force in refereeing decisions. Since this is not about assigning blame and at the same time nobody should be hurt by it, but on the contrary the actors are rather “relieved” with the help of the derivations (by making this action humanly understandable and comprehensible), you can listen to it at least once:
If you just remember the scene, you can recall it, otherwise watch a video about it, the latter of course also in the event that you remember very well but want to understand the description of the scene in this way (and possibly even had his own statements to the contrary, from subsequent considerations, captured voices of those involved/affected or his own considerations).
Very early in the game the following situation arose: a dangerous Barca attack, Jens Lehmann, then in Arsenal’s goal, rushed towards the attacker, but came too late and fouled him, but outside the penalty area. However, the ball comes straight from there to another free-standing Barcelona attacker, who sinks the ball into the empty goal. In between, however, a whistle from the referee.
Clearly through the whistle: a game interruption, so no goal. Lehmann’s foul outside the penalty area was of course not a penalty, just a free kick.
What range of decisions is still available to the referee? A penalty and the penalty against Jens Lehmann. Then nothing. The decision (thus) obvious. Red card.
But now to the explanation of the (quickly, too quickly?) whistle, in connection with the general statements made: a) if possible against a goal and b) the psychology behind it:
The overzealous whistle is a kind of reflex. Nevertheless, there are also explanations for reflexes. Under all circumstances, the justification would be to capture the referee’s statement as follows: “That was a very gross foul in a highly explosive goal situation. So I HAD to blow the whistle right away? I didn’t care where the ball went then and I don’t care.” This sounds so understandable that all further questions are superfluous. Nevertheless, one could raise these two questions: a) is there an advantage rule? Then b) would Barca have preferred to continue playing at 1-0 and 11v11 or at 0-0 and 11v10? And finally c) wouldn’t the referee have preferred not to issue a red card?
The answers are as follows: to a) There is an advantage rule and it could have been used brilliantly here.
On b) Barca would rather have had the goal than one more man.
On c) Issuing a red card is absolutely undesirable in a game of this kind, which is broadcast and followed worldwide. It is possible that it even led to direct (unpleasant) discussions all over the world and that not all of them paint a positive picture of the referee.
In other words: the way things went was not good at all. The man at the pipe would have been spared everything if he had exercised his right to hesitate briefly (advantage – yes or no?). However, everything happens in fractions of a second and the decision is made “intuitively” despite everything. However, the instilled intuition, so to speak, is shifted in that direction: “The main thing is not to score.”
So it means: in principle, the referee thinks (without “thinking” it) that he can “prevent” a goal with the immediate whistle, and this for sure (there was not the slightest possibility of scoring the goal afterwards recognizing it; that would have been clear and would have broken all the rules). For his part, the apology goes to Barca: “Yes, sorry if I had known… but unfortunately already too late.” They have to put up with it. Nevertheless, there were also a number of alternative continuation possibilities in the scene, which practically could have happened. The simplest case: the second attacker’s shot does NOT go into the goal (or he doesn’t get to it at all; perhaps not foreseeable at the moment of the whistle).
Now another outrageous statement goes like this: if the ball had not landed in the goal, then the penalty against Lehmann would have had to be “re-negotiated”. The referee could have determined this, just as intuitively but also partly by reading the reactions of the players and spectators. The options would have been: yellow card or red card (no, you can’t do without a warning here, so basically not mentioned: ONLY a free kick). So the assertion: the referee gives himself some time to think about it with the whistle (apart from initially preventing a possible goal). In addition, however: Lehmann might have gotten away with a yellow card if the ball did not land in the net. Precisely because you shy away from such interventions (on the distribution of chances), even more so in such big games.
The concept of the concession decision has already been briefly introduced, but here is the expanding thesis: actually every decision is a kind of “concession decision”.
Justice/Injustice – Aggression/Peacability
Basic thesis: Application of existing rules is sufficient.
- Rule of three points
- Time game
- “Forward Foul”
- Yellow card – a penalty?
- Disproportion of Offense – Punishment
- Goalkeeper protection? The contrary!
The two main rules
a. At foul play
b. At handball
c. The Swallow – Pursuing the wrongdoers to appease their conscience
i.e. The possible consequences of applying the rules
i. More penalties?
ii. More exciting scenes, more goals
iii. Provided more goals: Relief for acknowledgment of a single goal due to decreased importance
a. The referee hears offside?
b. Objective survey: what percentage of wrong decisions against the attackers? Answer: 80%.
- Kick against Prödl
- Offside discussion WE 16/17
(Corner kick, two men on goal line, ball played back to corner kicker – who is now said to be offside; subtle, wrong;
- Offside like this:
(Long ball forward, no pass, more like a candle, into the danger zone at the corner of the penalty area, ball bounces up, Traube jumps up, nobody seems to be able to get close, neither striker nor defender, a previously uninvolved striker now comes up and scores a goal; should now be offside because the goal scorer was offside at the moment of the candle; “new game situation” not an issue, “in doubt for…” not an issue; only: error, offside goal).
More goals – more fun?
Memorable games: almost always those with a few (more) goals. Curious, it only becomes spectacular when there is a change in the score.
Mismatch perception of wrong decisions (for goal – against goal)
The USA 1994 World Cup – two enforced rule changes
Football – a results sport? Whatever the media makes of it.
The “evidence technique” for the discrimination of the attackers
Foul play in the penalty area – penalty?
Short example: Foul only possible if attacker falls. But if he falls, then “he wanted the penalty”. If you want him, then it’s already acting. So you don’t get him, but rather even yellow because of swallow.
If you don’t fall, there certainly isn’t one. Because: it can’t have been that bad and if you don’t even fall, it definitely wasn’t.
In fact, everyone knows that foul play somewhere on the field is not critical and is recognized as such. There is a kind of “special regulation” in the penalty area. The rules commissions have already recognized this. Therefore, an instruction (not a rule) means: it must be a clear, unambiguous foul game for which a penalty is pronounced.
But here’s the problem: the defenders don’t decide when they step in “so that everyone can see it, I’ll foul this time” and in the other situation “just don’t foul, otherwise there will be penalties” but instead they “work on” the strikers throughout semi-legal means. So a very short tug in the jersey can’t immediately result in a penalty? That was really so little and so harmless, it just can’t be a penalty. Then another push, a press, if necessary another light, very short hold or pluck, you can’t blow the whistle, can you?
Of course, the striker also knows at the moment: no, it’s not worth going down with this slight pull. I don’t get any anyway, rather yellow. So, despite the handicap, he keeps walking. However, the size of the scoring chance shrinks, more and more with every slight “intervention” by the defender. Until you no longer have a chance to score. In the end you’re just angry, still fall, scold – and have neither goal nor penalty but in the end only yellow. And is that supposed to be fair?
Hand ball in the penalty area – penalty?
Part 2: Reporting
Questions for any comment:
c) entertainment value
d) Background of a statement
e) The psychology