[football] FIFA's Southafrica 2010 World Cup

[Genesis]

Interesting read:

Goal-line technology firms dispute Fifa claims

[jarmo]

At least ice hockey fans aren't as rabidly against using some aids to make the right calls.... 



My whole point is that it's not fair in any way to allow goals and disallow others when all of them should be allowed (or disallowed in other cases).

It's become a lottery when that happens.


I'm naive enough to think that people would want a game that's more fair? Less diving for penalties, less wrong goal decisions....


England and Mexico both lost because they didn't play good enough. But it's interesting how both of them had wrong decisions going against them.



/jarmo

[kaasupoltin]

But USA won their group though. Anyway you're right and I'm totally with you.. I just hope that they're not ruining the flow of the game with these possible changes.

[Jim]

The "rules of football" are determined by the IFAB, which consists of eight voting members. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have one vote, with "the rest of the world" (ie the Fifa executive) holding the remaining four.

Well I never knew that... Crikey.

[jarmo]

Yeah, people who still drive on the wrong side of the road are in charge. No wonder no changes will occur. 

 




/jarmo

[Jim]

Indeed. The ethos of those who would see the rules unchanged, no doubt!

Traditionalists to death, why change something!, even if it is clearly broken. 

[pilferk]

I second everything Esteban said.


Sure that, when it happens to our team, we'll get pissed off, we'll curse FIFA, the referees and whoever else. But in the end, it's football, that's how it is and how it has been since forever. It's part of the game.

Man could not move long distances "forever" so we saddled horses.

Horses STILL couldn't cover enough ground, so we created trains.

Trains weren't good for local transport, so we created cars.

Neither trains, nor cars, could cover enough ground, quickly enough, so we created planes.

Granted, the above is oversimplified, but the excuse that "it's been that way forever" is, frankly, a cop out.  Getting calls wrong doesn't add to the charm of your sport, or instil nostalgia, or make the game more "quaint" and loveable. 

As for the FIFA argument that it "makes the game different" across levels of the sport...well, yeah.  But then, the guy playing Sunday league isn't exactly competing on a world stage, bringing in millions and millions of dollars, with a World Cup on the line, is he?   When I play in our local basketball league...we get 2 fat, uneducated, local refs who can barely run up and down the court and a broken down scoreboard.  We don't have replay.  We don't have monitors showing the details of every movement of our players.  But we also don't have 15 thousand people willing to pay to watch us play, we're not making millions of dollars in salary, and our best shooter isn't going to play like Lebron or Kobe.  We still have fun, though and play to the best of our ability.  We still play basketball.....the rules are the same, the basket is still 10 feet off the floor, the court is still layed out to regulation specs.  It's just the implementation is more in line with the importance, quality, and fiscal relevance of play.

So what?

Yes, back in the 70's and 80's you dealt with bad officiating because there really was no recourse or technology ON THE FIELD that could make it better.  Now, there is.  So you bury your head (and I'm not directing this tirade at you, really, Mandy) in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist because...

If we can't do something right, we find a better way to do it.  And that involves using every method and bit of technology reasonably possible to use.  And it's not like soccer/futbol/footie would be the first sport, EVER, to make use of this kind of technology.  You don't want instant replay because it slows down the game or might make for ridiculous amounts of injury/stoppage time, fine.  But we're not talking about that.  We're talking about tech for GOALS only, and only to determine if a ball has crossed into the net or not.  That still leaves plenty of room for bad officiating/the human element/crooked refs to have their (un)due influence.

But for pete's sake....this type of thing doesn't make the sport endearing.  It makes it infuriating.  It doesn't bring fans in, it drives them away.  Why would you want to do that, and how can that possibly be in the best interests of the game?


Edit:

Good article:
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37959424/ns/sports-world_cup/

[One.In.A.Million]

We are not talking about fouls and maybe even hand balls, because that's all a matter of opinion. And that's the referees job to determine.

But whether the ball has gone over the line is factual, and it can only be one way or another.

So, if the referee is unsure, what harm can it do to call upon video evidence which will take a maximum of 5 seconds. 

Also, it's not as if FIFA has to pay alot out to do this. All the games at the world cup are documented in one way or another, and the BBC did a perfect job of getting a good view of Englands goal that never was.

[Jim]

Oh, Pilferk, for God's sakes...

Why does the post that I agree with the most, on a footballing matter, have to come from the mouth (or the keyboard) of a Yank!, rather than from those cradles of football that are Argentina and Brasil!

Damn you!

[pilferk]

We are not talking about fouls and maybe even hand balls, because that's all a matter of opinion. And that's the referees job to determine.

But whether the ball has gone over the line is factual, and it can only be one way or another.

So, if the referee is unsure, what harm can it do to call upon video evidence which will take a maximum of 5 seconds. 

Also, it's not as if FIFA has to pay alot out to do this. All the games at the world cup are documented in one way or another, and the BBC did a perfect job of getting a good view of Englands goal that never was.

The two techs mentioned in the article I linked to both say they have a message to a ref (either their watch, or an earpiece) in .5 seconds.  That is not a typo:  HALF a second!

No unnecessary stoppage time. And then, if you feel the need to "review the review"...TEHN you're talking about an additional 5 seconds, max.

Quick, easy, and pretty painless.

As for money:  Rolex sponsors the tech in most of the tennis matches.  I'm SURE you could find a big name sponsor (the COKE GOAL MONITOR!) to help foot (if you'll excuse the pun) the bill.

[pilferk]

Oh, Pilferk, for God's sakes...

Why does the post that I agree with the most, on a footballing matter, have to come from the mouth (or the keyboard) of a Yank!, rather than from those cradles of football that are Argentina and Brasil!

Damn you!

The way I look at it is this:

If it's obvious enough that a Yank and a Limey can both see it, and agree......it's gotta be pretty damn obvious!  Especially when it concerns football!

[Mandy.]

For God's sake! You guys have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!! This is a bunch of nonsense.

This is what football should really be like: http://bit.ly/9W9p58



Seriously, though:

We're talking about tech for GOALS only, and only to determine if a ball has crossed into the net or not.  That still leaves plenty of room for bad officiating/the human element/crooked refs to have their (un)due influence.

That's why I think there should be a couple of extra referees in the game, behind the goals. I'm not against a change of rules, sure lots of things have changed from the 1930's to how football is nowadays, but if something's gotta be changed, then I think that's the best option. If my memory serves me correctly, FIFA discussed this in the beginning of the year, for this World Cup, but then they changed their minds.

[pilferk]

That's why I think there should be a couple of extra referees in the game, behind the goals. I'm not against a change of rules, sure lots of things have changed from the 1930's to how football is nowadays, but if something's gotta be changed, then I think that's the best option. If my memory serves me correctly, FIFA discussed this in the beginning of the year, for this World Cup, but then they changed their minds.

Humans are much more failable than machines.  That's not to say the machines get it right 100% of the time....but they get it 99.99%. Evidence-wise, tech outperforms man in these situations.  So the only justification for using people, instead of machines, is to "preserve the human element" and "because" it's always been that way.

As for FIFA's review:  Sorry, just because FIFA says it's so, doesnt' mean it's so.  They can be wrong...and, in this case, I think they are.  They might not change their minds, but until they get a little more progressive, in this respect, they're going to, routinely, be a laughing stock.   Like they are right now.

They're actually doing a disservice to their own sport.  I don't care what dinosaurs are installed in that capacity....no matter how "tech phobic" or set in their ways they are...these types of discussions are bad for their sport.  It detracts from the field of play, and from the athletes who are busting their asses out there for their countries.  They have to take SOME sort of action.  Tech would work best...adding refs would be a stop gap. 

But really, aren't refs behind the goals just doing the lineman's job for them?  Aren't you, at that point, admitting they need assistance?  If you need assistance, why not get the best assistance you can?

[kaasupoltin]

But really, aren't refs behind the goals just doing the lineman's job for them?  Aren't you, at that point, admitting they need assistance?  If you need assistance, why not get the best assistance you can?

Not really. Linemans could concentrate on offsides, corners/goal kicks/throw-ins and fouls while these extra refs are there only to tell if the ball is in the goal or not. That would do it in my opinion. And for the record, it's not that common situation where the ball is in the goal but it's not seen by any of the refs. So I don't think we need any new technology for it, an extra referee behind the net would be enough and pretty damn reliable in my opinion. In this tournament the bigger problem has been these offside situations like yesterday (Argentinas first goal) and there's no technology to fix that problem (unless if we really want to kill the flow of the game).

[sandman]

i'm all for reviewing calls to get them right, especially on goals. there's like an average of 1.5 goals scored per game....you should get that part of the game right.

Wimbleton has similar tradition and old-school mentality, but they adopted the electronic sensors to get the call right on serves. the technology is there....why not use it?

just as the refs now use headsets to communicate with each other and with the additional "refs" who are sitting in the booth. that's a pretty significant technological change FIFA adopted.

but England lost because they are an over-rated, over-hyped, poorly-coached, collection of prima-donnas that does not know how to play like a team. instead of crying about the refs, don't fall behind 2 nil! 

[GeorgeSteele]

Thing is, even if FIFA agrees only to goal-line tech, refs will still be responsible the other 99% of things that decide game outcomes.  Like the 2 U.S. goals disallowed (one for offsides, the other who knows), also the Thierry Henry handball that got France into the WC. 

 

[Mandy.]

But really, aren't refs behind the goals just doing the lineman's job for them?  Aren't you, at that point, admitting they need assistance?  If you need assistance, why not get the best assistance you can?

Not really. Linemans could concentrate on offsides, corners/goal kicks/throw-ins and fouls while these extra refs are there only to tell if the ball is in the goal or not. That would do it in my opinion. And for the record, it's not that common situation where the ball is in the goal but it's not seen by any of the refs. So I don't think we need any new technology for it, an extra referee behind the net would be enough and pretty damn reliable in my opinion. In this tournament the bigger problem has been these offside situations like yesterday (Argentinas first goal) and there's no technology to fix that problem (unless if we really want to kill the flow of the game).

Great point. The thing that happened yesterday, where the ball entered but the ref didn't see it, almost never happens, compared to other stuff like, players being offside, penalties not given, or wrongly given, players faking, etc, etc. So, you know, why have technology for that one little thing and not have it for a bunch of other stuff that's also important and counts a lot to the final score? That's the point. It makes no sense having technology for that only. And if you have it for everything else too, it would take all the fun away from football having every little thing computerized.

[Voodoochild]

Mandy, the fun isnt on referees. Its on the game. The match wont be any less fun if less mistakes happens.

Also, I guess it would need at least one extra person to also judge the extra footage - which would make it a lot more subjetive than you guys are saying.

[One.In.A.Million]

Another great game from Brazil.

My favourite player so far in this tournament is Luis Fabiano, I think he is Brazils' new Ronaldo. I fancy Brazil to win this world cup, even if it means taking down Argentina. 

[Mandy.]

Mandy, the fun isnt on referees. Its on the game. The match wont be any less fun if less mistakes happens.

Also, I guess it would need at least one extra person to also judge the extra footage - which would make it a lot more subjetive than you guys are saying.

Voodoo, I know the fun isn't on referees, but it's part of the fun, having that kind of discussion. It's what Esteban said a few posts back. Years from now, people will still be talking about those crucial mistakes. Some people will agree, some won't, and there'll be endless discussions about it. It's part of the beauty that surrounds football and its fans.




One.In.A.Million: I like Luis Fabiano a lot too. He was very criticized by the Brazilian press a few months before the World Cup, but he gained my respect in the Confederation's Cup. I like him very much.