The Virtual World of the World Cup

Some of it feels gimmicky, as when Alexi Lalas stands on a real pitch explaining how the players move, the players being life-size digital images superimposed on the video. Some of it seems like genuinely useful application, such monte carlo simulations of outcomes (play the game 10,000 times virtually, count the wins, call it a probability). (Note: Doing it once, like this, is not informative. You have to repeat it 10,000 times.)

Older issues arise again. Once again we encounter the virtual world of sport, where utterly trivial things really seem to matter. It is undeniable - look at the faces of the players. It is life and death to them. An evolutionary argument explains it. Take 10,000,000 football players (not handegg players) with a distribution of talent and interest. Among them, a certain percentage believes that football is the most important thing in the universe. Assume the same initial distribution of talent among them as among the general population of players. Over time, the obsessives become better players, however, due to their obsession. Now we have perhaps 50,000 obsessed, talented players. Repeat. Now we have 5,000 super-obsessed, super-talented players. Repeat. Now we have 500 maniacally devoted, machine-like players. Repeat. Now we have the makings of a World Cup team: A community of people who take it all very, very seriously.

Knowing all this, I nonetheless dive headlong into this virtual world, as I do in any other. Ask no questions, respect the aesthetic, participate, float along. Being American, I was thus jumping on Wednesday and moping on Saturday. When society gets into the act, you find yourself having to suspend belief, not disbelief. The default state (unless you arduously train your mind in skepticism, something I would not recommend) is to accept the apparent reality and go with it. 

Finally, let's take a stroll in the darkest, most evil virtual world of all: The World Cup as seen by the referees. This year, the officials have concocted an internal virtual world in which offsides is onsides, onsides is offsides, goals are not goals, and not-goals are goals. A little bit of bad officiating can help motivate the immersion - "The INJUSTICE!" - but systematically errant calls make you wonder why you dove into this place at all.

Comments

[Frans Charming]

1.

So what is your stance on refs using video footage, to make calls on of-site goals, etc. Would that mean the cameras would break the magic circle? ;)

[Richard Bartle]

2.

Why would cameras break the magic circle?

Richard

[Edward Castronova]

3.

It reminds me a bit of RMT. There are ways of adding such things that don't break the magic circle of the game. In the NFL, you go to the camera if a coach requests it. If the call stands, the coach loses a timeout.

I would like a similar idea in football-not-handegg. The trainer throws out a red rag, forcing a review. If the review fails, the team loses a substitution.

I also think having an official in the booth would work. After a goal is scored, or a non-goal missed, the booth official reviews video from different angles. If the call on the field merits a review, the booth official stops play.

Finally, the on-field referee should be able to consult video whenever he wishes.

Or, forget video. How about a linesman every 3 feet, and they don't run around? I mean, why not have 350 officials?

[Cunzy1 1]

4.

"A community of people who take it all very, very seriously"

The exception to your rule is the England football team. Who seem not really at all that bothered about the whole thing.

[Richard Bartle]

5.

Cunzy1>The exception to your rule is the England football team. Who seem not really at all that bothered about the whole thing.

Or are bothered by it so much that they're frightened of it.

Richard

[Richard Bartle]

6.

Ted>The trainer throws out a red rag, forcing a review. If the review fails, the team loses a substitution.

And if they've already used up their substitutions?

One of the arguments against the use of technology in soccer is that it would mean too much stopping and starting as every decision was appealed. My own view is that a failed appeal should result in a booking, which could have the effect of speeding up play as there would be fewer arguments from players trying to change the ref's mind when they know they're in the wrong.

>I also think having an official in the booth would work.

Most stadia have big screens - the referee could make the decision by looking at a replay.

>How about a linesman every 3 feet, and they don't run around? I mean, why not have 350 officials?

There are plans to have officials standing behind the goal in the upcoming European championships, but I'm not persuaded that the once-in-a-blue-moon times that they will be required to make a judgement they will actually have been paying attention...

Tennis and cricket have had technology for years to determine whether a ball is in/out or hit the wicket. Video replays in soccer could catch off-the-ball incidents and offsides, but if all you want to do is make sure that goals really are goals, OK, well that's easy.

Oh, and the argument that technology means that kids playing on a Sunday afternoon in the park won't be playing by the same rules (which FIFA also uses) is a red herring, too: you can make rules specific to a competition, not to the game as a whole. If the World Cup uses video evidence, that doesn't mean Sunday League players have to, any more than it means they need to use one of those stupid balls that behaves as if it had helium inside it...

Richard

[Rob Gray]

7.

As Bill Shankly once said 'Football isn't a matter of life and death. It's much more important than that'

[Darryl Woodford]

8.

Richard >My own view is that a failed appeal should result in a booking, which could have the effect of speeding up play as there would be fewer arguments from players trying to change the ref's mind when they know they're in the wrong.

Presumably this would then result in the goalkeeper sprinting up the field to make an appeal to the referee, as he would be the player least impacted by a booking?

[Edward Castronova]

9.

Perhaps bad refereeing is indeed an integral part of the game. Imagine your favorite sport, but replace the officials to whom you're accustomed with very, very bad ones. There would be terrible calls. Like most people, you'd tend to overlook the ones in your favor and you'd focus in a towering rage on the ones against you. It would be annoying, but it would also be motivating.

That's the argument, I imagine, among the more cynical of football's administrators. Human referees are going to be bad referees, and that's a good thing, they might say, precisely because it drives the viewers insane and motivates them to seek justice in the next matchup.

Perhaps. If this were an effective tool of game design, however, it would be used broadly. Let's try to find a board or video game with a design element that is known or understood by the players to result in unfair outcomes, yet persists.

Here's one candidate: Roll-the-dice-and-move games. Patently unfair; the outcome has nothing to do with player choices; the dice determine everything.

Three things about RTDAM games:

1. They're really, really popular.
2. They're considered great games by kids and by grownups who are not particularly cerebral about games
3. When I ask students to come up with board game designs, RTDAM is the first thing they think of.

So perhaps there's something to this. The sport with the greatest global audience is also the one most dictated by chance.

OTOH, I'm not sure its fair to characterize football-not-handegg as the most random major sport. Is it a giant pull of the slot machine handle??