[football] FIFA's Southafrica 2010 World Cup

[kaasupoltin]

The match wont be any less fun if less mistakes happens.

It will, if everything needs to be checked from the screen.

[jarmo]

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.

Not everybody thinks discussing mistakes is fun.


As I said, I don't think it's fair or sportsmanlike to have games decided by mistakes that could be prevented.

Having some kind of system to eliminate the wrong calls regarding goals doesn't remove anything from the game itself.

It just eliminates all the "what if" discussions that some of you seem to enjoy.





/jarmo

[D]

I know our purist and most beloved game is Major League Baseball and hell they even finally broke down and started using instant replay on Home Runs etc cause they were getting them wrong.

It isn't like it would delay the game either. the time a team celebrates etc would give the refs sufficient time to check a quick replay.

[CheapJon]

enough with the ref/goal camera talks eh?

[Genesis]

Mexico's Hernandez joins Man Utd next season and Fabiano has expressed interest in joining as well. That would be something.

[Alan]

All you armchair critics who want to change the rules are missing the point of the game...

you don't need to change a great deal. but football is more than sport now days it's big business

england going out where they did has cost the UK close to a billion pounds in terms of lost revenue in bars/pubs, sports stores etc.

human error is one thing, but if ice hockey which is a much faster sport can use video replays then football should be able to. 4th official can see it on a screen on the side of the pitch from a few angles and make a decision, if the game has played on it simply continues if it's not a goal, if it was then play stops and restarts as it would if the goal was scored.

we were shockingly bad for the first half hour.

though i love the irony that germany's first goal was scored "kick and rush" to use the kaisers words....

but as D said, if we go in to half time 2-2 it's a different game, john terry wouldn't have been trying to run past players into the german penalty area. so germany wouldn't have been able to break so easily and score a 3rd and 4th goal.

well done to the germans though, i hope the argies dump them out next round 

[kaasupoltin]

but if ice hockey which is a much faster sport can use video replays then football should be able to.

Totally different situation. Totally different game. Ice hockey match is stopped every time there's a foul or something or even to let the sponsors advertise their products, football match is only stopped for the half-time. That's called the flow of the game. There's no flow in hockey. And in football the fourth official has no priviledge to watch any video screens or replays, that's a rule. I still think the best solution is the extra referee behind the net.. reliable and not expensive.

[pilferk]

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).

What I mean is: Right NOW, isn't it the lineman's job to watch the goal line?

And wouldn't adding extra refs be the same as admitting the lineman needs help? 

And, since you've gone that far (which is one of the things FIFA objects to....they think it "insults" the officials, as it stands), why not just give them the best help possible?  As in, a technological solution.

And they wouldn't need NEW tech.  That's the point.   There is tech, already, that can do it.  And it's more reliable....that's a fact, now, not an opinion...than any human can be.  That's the point.

As for it being "infrequent".....especially in World Cup play, ANYTHING missed is a big deal.  When many games have only a goal or two scored, total.....missing ONE is a big deal.  Especially when you don't HAVE to miss any.

[pilferk]

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! 

I agree that England was outplayed.  That's a different issue, and really seperate from the bad call.

[pilferk]

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.

That's simply not true.

There are lots of examples (tennis, baseball) where they've limited the use of technology.  It actually  works very well, and makes a LOT of sense.

The issue with computerizing everything is that you would certainly slow down the pace of the game. 

Instituting goal line tech wouldn't, though.  And it would solve at least ONE of the issues with officiating. 

It doesn't make sense to say "Since we can't solve ALL the problems, we shouldn't solve ANY of them".....

[pilferk]

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.

"Extra footage" meaning "stoppage/injury time"? 

Both techs mentioned in the article I linked to have a response to the ref in 1/2 a second.    That shouldn't be an issue.

Or do you mean, if you add a ref to monitor the goal line, THEY would have to determine stoppage time, which starts making it all a bit more subjective?

[pilferk]

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.

So what you're saying is:  You want the sport remembered for it's catestrophically bad officiating?

Sorry, that makes no sense to me.  I'd much rather talk about the on the field play, rather than the officials incompetence.  The best officials, actually, aren't noticed AT ALL.  They simply enforce the rules.

[Genesis]

It's not always about getting the 'correct' decision. Refereeing decisions going against you is an extra variable that players have to take into account in football. There are situations where a bad decision late in injury time have snatched victory away from teams, but those situations are rarer still. In both the England and Mexico matches, that certainly was not the case. You can argue with a million 'what if's', but the fact is both those teams lost because they didn't play well. Besides, no one complains when the incorrect decisions go their way.

[kaasupoltin]

But you can't compare football to tennis or basketball. The only great technical solution for football is the hawkeye-thing that is currently in use in some of the tennis matches, but do we really need that complicated and expensive system? One referee behind the net watching the goal line.. what's wrong with that? And using videos is not good because the footage is not always as good as in this particular case, nor is the goal always so clear. So in my opinion the video checking is the worst possible choice there is. Extra referees being the best one. Hawkeye would be great as it wouldn't affect the game as much as video, but believe me, that would not end the discussion about whether the ball was in or not. Just like in tennis. Plus it's pretty expensive too.

And if FIFA starts using videos, are they only going to watch if the ball was in or not.. 'cause there are always these offsides that lead to a goal for example.. are they going to check them too? If they are, then they should be checking wrongly flagged offsides also. What if it wasn't an offside? Freekick for the attacking team? Even if FIFA says that the video is used only to  check the goal line, after a couple of "extra important offside goals" people are going to demand FIFA to use the video in those kind of situations too just because "why not do it if it's possible, we can all see it in the television".. and that leads to another case and so on..

[Alan]

but if ice hockey which is a much faster sport can use video replays then football should be able to.

Totally different situation. Totally different game. Ice hockey match is stopped every time there's a foul or something or even to let the sponsors advertise their products, football match is only stopped for the half-time. That's called the flow of the game. There's no flow in hockey. And in football the fourth official has no priviledge to watch any video screens or replays, that's a rule. I still think the best solution is the extra referee behind the net.. reliable and not expensive.

oh please, every free-kick, throw in, corner, goal kick, there is enough time to watch 5 seconds of footage. it would also cut out the diving because players know they would be caught doing it.

also every pro game is taped, so therefor every pro game has the opportunity to have a 4th official with a screen on the sideline.

but your extra officials idea can't work there can only be 4 officials "that's a rule" rules change just like the offside rule has, how about bookings for removing the shirt, that didn't happen untill the late 90's, tackles from behind being straight yellows, early 2000's, 2 footed tackles straight reds only brought in the later part of the last decade.

so to say "that's a rule" is pointless, they change, and they should change to improve the game, why pay 2 extra officials when the technology is there already to show the 4th official exactly what happened, there is so much at stake now, it seems crazy not to get the major decisions spot on.

and like i pointed out it doesn't need to interupt the flow, the 4th official can watch it and tell the referee, what happened.


oh and in the stanley cup final there was a questionable goal, and instead of stopping play to check they continued for almost 5 minutes untill a break then checked it was a good goal so they went back from there and restarted the game accordingly, not interupting the flow at all.

with football you wouldn't need to wait the 4th official could judge seconds after.

there are no good reasons for not introducing technology to help the officials.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but enough of that now paraguay japan, predictions anyone?

myself i say 3-1 paraguay.

[pilferk]

But you can't compare football to tennis or basketball.

Why ever not?  Same sorts of problems, similar solutions.  You can't discount the comparison for no logical reason. 

The only great technical solution for football is the hawkeye-thing that is currently in use in some of the tennis matches, but do we really need that complicated and expensive system? "

Not true.  There's also the chipped ball tech.  Less expensive, equally reliable.

One referee behind the net watching the goal line.. what's wrong with that? And using videos is not good because the footage is not always as good as in this particular case, nor is the goal always so clear. So in my opinion the video checking is the worst possible choice there is.

Because humans are, as evidenced, much more likely to fail.  Either solution (hawkeye or chipped ball) has, in extensive testing, proven to be more reliable than the human eye.  That's good enough for me.  "Reliable enough" isn't a solution, it's a stop gap.....

If you acknowledge there is a problem, and it needs a solution...why not opt for the one(s) that has proven to be best/most reliable?

Extra referees being the best one. Hawkeye would be great as it wouldn't affect the game as much as video, but believe me, that would not end the discussion about whether the ball was in or not. Just like in tennis. Plus it's pretty expensive too.

Hawkeye IS video, it's just high tech video.  And it pretty much ends the discussion in tennis....as soon as they show the findings.  I haven't seen or heard of any real rumblings about Hawkeye reliability in YEARS.

And, in relative terms, it's NOT that expensive.  Add to that the opportunity to find a sponsor for it (which means it would cost little to nothing to implement...and trust me, you'd find a sponsor) and the argument just sounds like rationalization. 

And if FIFA starts using videos, are they only going to watch if the ball was in or not.. 'cause there are always these offsides that lead to a goal for example.. are they going to check them too? If they are, then they should be checking wrongly flagged offsides also. What if it wasn't an offside? Freekick for the attacking team? Even if FIFA says that the video is used only to  check the goal line, after a couple of "extra important offside goals" people are going to demand FIFA to use the video in those kind of situations too just because "why not do it if it's possible, we can all see it in the television".. and that leads to another case and so on..

Extensive use of video replay is NOT something I've advocated for.  I agree, it would slow down the pace and flow of the game.  The only thing I've really argued for is either Hawkeye or chipped ball tech for GOALS only.  And neither of those solutions would (or could) be transferred to other uses.  So you kill any rally cries for what you're supposing may happen.

Again, the argument: "If we can't solve all the problems, we shouldn't solve ANY" just seems not to make sense.

[pilferk]

It's not always about getting the 'correct' decision. Refereeing decisions going against you is an extra variable that players have to take into account in football. There are situations where a bad decision late in injury time have snatched victory away from teams, but those situations are rarer still. In both the England and Mexico matches, that certainly was not the case. You can argue with a million 'what if's', but the fact is both those teams lost because they didn't play well. Besides, no one complains when the incorrect decisions go their way.

See, that's where we'll part company.  I don't think having to account for bad officiating should be a routine "part of the game", nor does it make the game more exciting, more viable, more charming, or anything else.

The refs are there to enforce the rules.  They are not meant to be any more than that.   You should have to beat the opposing teams keeper, and their defense.  You should not have to plan how to defeat the officials errors/incompetence/mistakes. 

I agree that England and Mexico BOTH deserved to lose their matches, regardless of the bad calls.  Neither played all that well.

But again, that's a different discussion.  I'm not a fan of either of those teams, really....so this isn't an an "angry itch" rearing it's head.   For me, this is simply a discussion of the events, not the outcomes.

[pilferk]

so to say "that's a rule" is pointless, they change, and they should change to improve the game, why pay 2 extra officials when the technology is there already to show the 4th official exactly what happened, there is so much at stake now, it seems crazy not to get the major decisions spot on.

That's a good point on costs:  With extra officials, you pay 2 extra people for EVERY MATCH.

With Hawkeye or Chipped ball, you pay the upfront costs, and maintenance (maybe) but no ongoing costs other than that.  It's fixed, and front loaded, to some extent.

The manpower is variable and perpetual.

[kaasupoltin]

Have you ever watched football Alan? 'Cause there is no time to watch any video footage after/before every throw-in/corner/goal-kick/free-kick. What if the player want's to give the free-kick instantly? That's a huge part of football isn't it? And it's not the fourth officials job to watch the videos, he has his own responsibilities already and he's not the one who would do the video checking, and this has been said by people who work with the referees in this tournament and know these things. Yes, rules can change but I think the video checking only brings us more problems than it can ever solve. Plus it's not the most efficient way to check goals either, hawkeye is way better/faster/more reliable.

In my opinion the only thing that needs any improvement is checking whether the ball was in or not. Offsides are linemens responsibilities and they don't need any videos for it if they are professional and can keep up with the speed of the game. I just hate it if FIFA thinks that video is the ONLY possible solution there is. These extra refs have been tested already and results have been great. So where are they now? Nowhere. And why not hawkeye then..

But yeah let's give it a rest. I missed the first half of Paraguay-Japan, but I heard there was some good opportunities on both sides. I hope that Paraguay wins, it's the only South American team I actually like

[Alan]

Have you ever watched football Alan? '

season ticket holder for 15 years.


though if more players where honest like arshavin, it would cut out the need for technology greatly.