Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Replay/Officiating for 2014


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
46 replies to this topic

#1 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,597 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 02:26 PM

I will not pay this much attention to the 2014 FIFA World Cup unless FIFA adopts replay on goals. Both games today have been marred by goals that should not have counted. A few of the group-play matches had similar issues. The field is too big, the athletes too good and the stakes too high to have this many completely blown calls. Calls that are easily correctable by replay.

I understand that FIFA's primary objection to replay is that it's not enforceable all levels and locations. This is like the NFL claiming replay in the Super Bowl isn't an option because there are high schools without replay capacity. Goal cam - a goal judge!! - at this level has to be involved.

#2 johnmd20


  • voice of soccer


  • 16,854 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (soxfan121 @ Jun 27 2010, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I will not pay this much attention to the 2014 FIFA World Cup unless FIFA adopts replay on goals. Both games today have been marred by goals that should not have counted. A few of the group-play matches had similar issues. The field is too big, the athletes too good and the stakes too high to have this many completely blown calls. Calls that are easily correctable by replay.

The stakes are really too high for this many debacles.

#3 atisha

  • 40 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 03:23 PM

Simple really, take some pages from rugby union rulebook for big games:

1. Video umpiring when not sure about something on the field - 4th umpire should master it.

2. Clock stops when the ref asks for it, stadium clock stops too. When the time is over, final whistle for the half is blown at the end of current possesion.

Works in rugby just fine.

#4 j44thor

  • 4,238 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 03:48 PM

Why not just have a goal judge like in the NHL?

You could have someone elevated enough to determine if the ball crosses the goal line or not. Perhaps even give them the opportunity to review goals if they deem necessary.

A bigger problem for me is all the ridiculous diving. Players that stay down and claim injury should have to A. Be forced to miss at least 5min after they reach the sideline and B. If they obviously dive like the Ivory Coast player then they should be suspended for their next game.

It is ridiculous seeing a player act like he was hit in the face when in fact he was tapped in the chest, go to the sideline can come right back in the game like nothing happened and the end result is the player who brushed him misses a game.

#5 KenTremendous

  • 453 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 05:38 PM

It really is insane, and it smacks of snobby stubbornness: this is how it has been, and so it shall ever be.

If you don't want replay, adding a goal judge at each end is a must. I would also double the assistant referees -- have one on each side, for each half of the pitch. You can't expect them to be in position for every offsides call when they have to run 70 yards alongside world-class athletes.



#6 Chemistry Schmemistry


  • has been programmed to get funky/cry human tears


  • 7,743 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 05:43 PM

Diving is a huge problem. I don't know any good way around it. One suggestion is to make players wait at least five minutes before returning to the game after there's a non-foul-related injury stoppage. Or allow them to take a yellow and return to the game immediately.

Or let the play go on as it is currently, but use technology to review plays thoroughly and suspend players for diving later (like the guy who grabbed his face Marcia-Brady style when he ran into Kaka's shoulder).

As for the goal calls and offsides calls and foul calls in the penalty area? That's difficult, too. Soccer depends on its flow. Stopping for video review is impossible except during a natural break in play. They do that in hockey, but the breaks are really too long.

I'd build a cage over each goal and put a referee in them. That would clean up the penalty area, solve almost all the line call problems and offer another eye on offsides (that angle would have made the Tevez mistake obvious today).

#7 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9,675 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 06:32 PM

QUOTE (Chemistry Schmemistry @ Jun 27 2010, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd build a cage over each goal and put a referee in them. That would clean up the penalty area, solve almost all the line call problems and offer another eye on offsides (that angle would have made the Tevez mistake obvious today).


I would start watching soccer just to witness this.

#8 Jnai


  • is not worried about sex with goats


  • 9,490 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:31 PM

Yellow cards should also be reviewable, just like NBA technical fouls. There have been some pretty clear mis-calls that should be cleared up before the next game, especially since only a few yellows means you're out of the next match.

#9 scotian1


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,259 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:27 PM

It is hard to take this tournament seriously with the missed calls, cheating players and simply wrong referee decisions that are taking place. All without FIFA taking any responsibility for this mess.

#10 Toe Nash

  • 3,113 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 10:29 PM

The weird thing to me that I think is lost in all this is just simply how bad the officiating has been. There's no reason to miss Argentina's offside goal or the Lampard goal in real time, especially when you're right down on the field. The weird decision not to allow replay on goals just compounds this, but no professional ref should make these kinds of mistakes. The last time I remember being this upset over the officiating in soccer (and I watch the EPL religiously and some MLS) was...the last World Cup, though that was more outrage on letting games like the Portugal / Netherlands game get out of hand.

I know the stakes are higher so the diving, embellishing and the pressure to get the calls right are at a peak. But the refs are supposed to also be the best in the world and able to rise to the occasion.

Yes, replay would help, but the refs who have made mistakes should be embarrassed for their performance, and FIFA should be embarrassed for hiring them.

#11 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9,675 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 11:03 PM

QUOTE (Toe Nash @ Jun 27 2010, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I know the stakes are higher so the diving, embellishing and the pressure to get the calls right are at a peak. But the refs are supposed to also be the best in the world and able to rise to the occasion.

Yes, replay would help, but the refs who have made mistakes should be embarrassed for their performance, and FIFA should be embarrassed for hiring them.


Is it possible that officiating effectively at this level of play is simply not possible? As players get faster and more responsive to what officials will and will not call, it becomes harder and harder to call a game effectively? This is the theory I subscribe to with NBA officiating at least (players too fast/strong/big relative to before), so it seems like it may apply here?

#12 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,357 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 11:11 PM

QUOTE (Toe Nash @ Jun 27 2010, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I know the stakes are higher so the diving, embellishing and the pressure to get the calls right are at a peak. But the refs are supposed to also be the best in the world and able to rise to the occasion.


The refs aren't chosen to be the best in the world, though; geographic distribution is much more of a selection criterion than any measure of how good a ref someone is. That might be something to look at-a ref who constantly works the EPL, Serie A, or even Ghana is a lot more likely to keep up than an MLS or Malawian league ref.

#13 mikeford


  • woolwich!


  • 17,872 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 12:35 AM

QUOTE (SumnerH @ Jun 28 2010, 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The refs aren't chosen to be the best in the world, though; geographic distribution is much more of a selection criterion than any measure of how good a ref someone is. That might be something to look at-a ref who constantly works the EPL, Serie A, or even Ghana is a lot more likely to keep up than an MLS or Malawian league ref.

This is starting point numero uno, IMO.

How often do we see this level of egregious blown calls in the Champions League? I feel like it is almost never. Too much credence given to geographic fairness in picking the referees seems to be at the root of a lot of the problems with officiating at the World Cup. You get refs who are in over their heads (US/Slovenia game comes to mind, as does that clusterfuck in 2006 NED/POR someone previously referenced) or guys who are just plain not very good.

I understand the idea behind the geographic distribution and the need for it, but in the past 2 World Cups it hasn't looked like it has been working to the sports advantage on the global stage. So it may be time to tweak this to a certain degree.

#14 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,597 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:33 AM

QUOTE (Toe Nash @ Jun 27 2010, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The weird thing to me that I think is lost in all this is just simply how bad the officiating has been. There's no reason to miss Argentina's offside goal or the Lampard goal in real time, especially when you're right down on the field.


You cannot blame the head referee of either match. Well you can, but you'd be wrong.

The head referee in the ENG-GER match was ~15 yards away and shielded by bodies. There is no human being alive who could have made that call, from that angle. But it was obvious when you saw the camera view on the goal line.

The head referee in the ARG-MEX match was BEGGING for someone to whisper in his ear. He was watching the ball. How the line judge missed Tevez being 3 yards in front of the defenders is baffling. The head referee looked like he wanted to overturn the call, asking the LJ "are you sure?" but since it wasn't his call and he wasn't really watching (again, he's watching the ball) he couldn't overturn the call.

FIFA screwed the referees as badly as the referees screwed the teams. Both of those "replays" would have been obvious to the 4th (video) referee in about a combined 20 seconds. Unfathomable how FIFA can insist that "the human element" bear the brunt of their failure to assist the officials in the barest sense of the word.

#15 Maalox


  • full of shit, and proud of it


  • 49,118 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:05 AM

QUOTE (Chemistry Schmemistry @ Jun 27 2010, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd build a cage over each goal and put a referee in them.

I'd put strippers in it.

#16 Philip Jeff Frye


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,370 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:23 AM

QUOTE (bowiac @ Jun 28 2010, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is it possible that officiating effectively at this level of play is simply not possible? As players get faster and more responsive to what officials will and will not call, it becomes harder and harder to call a game effectively? This is the theory I subscribe to with NBA officiating at least (players too fast/strong/big relative to before), so it seems like it may apply here?

And the NBA has 3 officials, covering half has many players in an area 1/15th the size of a soccer field, compared to soccer which has one guy, sometimes aided by two other guys, neither one of whom can leave his half of the field.

If you don't want to add replay, why not at least put two or three more officials on the field? Big break with tradition, sure, but what's more important?

#17 EastCoasterOutWest


  • Viva zapatos!


  • 3,867 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:41 AM

QUOTE (Chemistry Schmemistry @ Jun 27 2010, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Diving is a huge problem. I don't know any good way around it. One suggestion is to make players wait at least five minutes before returning to the game after there's a non-foul-related injury stoppage. Or allow them to take a yellow and return to the game immediately.

Or let the play go on as it is currently, but use technology to review plays thoroughly and suspend players for diving later (like the guy who grabbed his face Marcia-Brady style when he ran into Kaka's shoulder).

As for the goal calls and offsides calls and foul calls in the penalty area? That's difficult, too. Soccer depends on its flow. Stopping for video review is impossible except during a natural break in play. They do that in hockey, but the breaks are really too long.

I'd build a cage over each goal and put a referee in them. That would clean up the penalty area, solve almost all the line call problems and offer another eye on offsides (that angle would have made the Tevez mistake obvious today).


And if they get a knock (one that wouldn't require them to leave the game, but would sting for a minute or two) because someone else made a bad tackle, their team gets punished by going a man down for 5 min? What's to say this doesn't lead to riskier challenges to gain an advantage when your team is down with 5 minutes to go?

I think a better solution is straight red for diving, not a yellow. Make it a risk vs reward decision for the diver.

Add a linesman to the end lines.

Fire Sepp Blatter.

For all the "it will slow down the game" talk about replay, how long did the ref and the linesman talk about the Tevez goal? Two, three minutes with all the interruptions? How long would it take to review that play and get the call correctly? Maybe 10 seconds. How long would it have taken for them to review the uncalled goal in the England-Germany game? 10 seconds. If we can see the replay on live television immediately after the event, they can do the same in the stadium. The goal the US had called back for offsides would have been corrected before the keeper kicked the ball away.

Edited by EastCoasterOutWest, 28 June 2010 - 10:42 AM.


#18 SeoulSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,651 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:54 AM

FIFA is a corrupt, old-boys-network organization, conservative and slow-changing.

Sepp Blatter, at the head of this bunch, is way too stubborn to make any reasonable changes happen.

The problem is the refs cannot make decisions near the spot of the foul, especially near the last 1/3 of the pitch. Too slow, too unfit, and often times blocked by athletes that are stronger, faster, and bigger than years ago.

No technology? Fine - put a judge at the line of each of the goal line, to each side just pass the corner kick spot. Or simply put them behind the net.

I'd be shocked if anything happened in 2014 however.



#19 j44thor

  • 4,238 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:14 AM

QUOTE (EastCoasterOutWest @ Jun 28 2010, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And if they get a knock (one that wouldn't require them to leave the game, but would sting for a minute or two) because someone else made a bad tackle, their team gets punished by going a man down for 5 min? What's to say this doesn't lead to riskier challenges to gain an advantage when your team is down with 5 minutes to go?

I think a better solution is straight red for diving, not a yellow. Make it a risk vs reward decision for the diver.

Add a linesman to the end lines.

Fire Sepp Blatter.

For all the "it will slow down the game" talk about replay, how long did the ref and the linesman talk about the Tevez goal? Two, three minutes with all the interruptions? How long would it take to review that play and get the call correctly? Maybe 10 seconds. How long would it have taken for them to review the uncalled goal in the England-Germany game? 10 seconds. If we can see the replay on live television immediately after the event, they can do the same in the stadium. The goal the US had called back for offsides would have been corrected before the keeper kicked the ball away.


No they can simply stay in the game and not pretend they were shot in the leg. If you are healthy in a minute or two, you didn't need the trainers to come out in the first place. Sure you might not be 100% but that is called playing sports. What % of the players that act like they have literally been hit with a baseball bat in the knee or face only to return a minute later are actually injured vs. doing it as a tactic to draw a call or delay time?

I do agree with everything else you said.

FIFA is a fucking joke.

#20 Jimy Hendrix

  • 2,640 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:22 AM

This is possibly an ignorant American's question, for which I apologize, but are there any guidelines or procedures that determine how much stoppage time refs add, or is it completely a judgment call? The way the game is announced makes it seem like the latter, and if that is the case, it seems slightly ridiculous to me that it wouldn't be more systematized to try and minimize stalling/diving by a team who are ahead.

#21 Toe Nash

  • 3,113 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:34 AM

QUOTE (soxfan121 @ Jun 28 2010, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You cannot blame the head referee of either match. Well you can, but you'd be wrong.

I didn't blame the head referee. I blamed the referees.

And it doesn't change my other point about the refereeing in the World Cup being far worse than Champion's League or EPL games.

#22 EastCoasterOutWest


  • Viva zapatos!


  • 3,867 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:41 AM

QUOTE (j44thor @ Jun 28 2010, 09:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No they can simply stay in the game and not pretend they were shot in the leg. If you are healthy in a minute or two, you didn't need the trainers to come out in the first place. Sure you might not be 100% but that is called playing sports. What % of the players that act like they have literally been hit with a baseball bat in the knee or face only to return a minute later are actually injured vs. doing it as a tactic to draw a call or delay time?

I do agree with everything else you said.

FIFA is a fucking joke.


I'm saying that making a player who has a legitimate issue (kicked in the ankle and goes down) shouldn't be punished by being made to sit out 5 minutes as CS suggests. If he needs a minute to get up, fine, but he gets up and going with a limp instead of having his team go down a man as if he dove. Mandatory time out is a tricky proposition because it could lead to some dangerous play if a player is trying to gain a man advantage late on by giving an opponent a knock that would force him out for 5 minutes, or worse, making a tackle that would get himself a yellow, for the trade off of possibly winning a game.

Every time someone goes down and stays down isn't a dive. I love how people say "get back up and play" to a guy who just got studs to the top of the foot/ankle/shin/thigh or an elbow to the face.

#23 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,927 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 12:27 PM

QUOTE (soxfan121 @ Jun 28 2010, 05:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You cannot blame the head referee of either match. Well you can, but you'd be wrong.

The head referee in the ENG-GER match was ~15 yards away and shielded by bodies. There is no human being alive who could have made that call, from that angle. But it was obvious when you saw the camera view on the goal line.


they showed a replay before today's game showing the ref having an unobstructed view, and staring straight at the play.



#24 Bleedred

  • 4,046 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:22 PM

QUOTE (Tony C @ Jun 28 2010, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
they showed a replay before today's game showing the ref having an unobstructed view, and staring straight at the play.


The officiating errors in World Cup play (Britain/Germany goal that was no-goal; Argentina/Mexico off-sides header goal; US/Slovakia famous no-goal) are horrific examples of a terribly flawed officiating regimen. These mistakes literally can cost a team their chance at the world cup. The fact that the powers that be will not acknowledge the need for review of some sort, and the limited implementation of reforms, makes a mockery of their game. As an admittedly casual fan who tunes in for World Cup play only, my take-away from viewing weeks of world cup soccer is this: Great athletes, incredibly fit and skilled, playing a game that is hopeleslly flawed and ruled by folks who don't give a shit.

#25 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,927 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:59 PM

yeah, but don't you mean that the hopeless flaw is that it's ruled by people who don't give a shit?

The greatness of soccer is obviously the fitness/skill, but many sports will have that. As a viewer what makes soccer special is the incredible tension that rises as inevitably tight games wait for just one breakthrough to tip the balance. This is why a purist thinks the best baseball games are low-scoring pitching duels -- the tension becomes palpable. But the flow is that if too many of these tight, tense moments are decided by refs, then it takes on a pointless, arbitrary element...which sucks the sport out of it.





#26 loshjott

  • 3,789 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:06 PM

Is it just me, or does it seem that the refs have not been so quick to whistle dives in the knockout round as they were in the opening round. Watching games over the weekend, it seemed like this aspect of the refereeing was actually better than the opening round.

#27 Bleedred

  • 4,046 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:54 PM

QUOTE (Tony C @ Jun 28 2010, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
yeah, but don't you mean that the hopeless flaw is that it's ruled by people who don't give a shit?


Yes, no doubt. All sports, business, etc., have problems, but if management doesn't give a shit, then it's hopelessly flawed.



#28 Chemistry Schmemistry


  • has been programmed to get funky/cry human tears


  • 7,743 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:39 PM

QUOTE (EastCoasterOutWest @ Jun 28 2010, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm saying that making a player who has a legitimate issue (kicked in the ankle and goes down) shouldn't be punished by being made to sit out 5 minutes as CS suggests. If he needs a minute to get up, fine, but he gets up and going with a limp instead of having his team go down a man as if he dove. Mandatory time out is a tricky proposition because it could lead to some dangerous play if a player is trying to gain a man advantage late on by giving an opponent a knock that would force him out for 5 minutes, or worse, making a tackle that would get himself a yellow, for the trade off of possibly winning a game.

Every time someone goes down and stays down isn't a dive. I love how people say "get back up and play" to a guy who just got studs to the top of the foot/ankle/shin/thigh or an elbow to the face.


I agree with you. It would very tricky to enforce fairly and properly, and I'm not confident in the referees handling their current responsibilities well.

Sometimes I think they're their own worst enemies. Could Chile have made a decent run at Brazil today if they weren't flopping around like salmon in a stream? If your mind's on acting, you might not finish a potential scoring chance.

I want a solution for players like the Ivory Coast actor who ran into Kaka and wound up costing one of the best players in the world a match penalty. I would also like the referee to go up to someone flopping around, possibly from a legitimate foul and mild injury, and say "you're not getting a free kick because you have a reputation for diving, and it's too hard to tell whether there was an obvious foul."

The good news: FIFA can react quickly to controversy. The bad news: FIFA's solution to the egregious Tevez offsides call was to ban instant replay on stadium scoreboards.

#29 EastCoasterOutWest


  • Viva zapatos!


  • 3,867 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:53 PM

QUOTE (Chemistry Schmemistry @ Jun 28 2010, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree with you. It would very tricky to enforce fairly and properly, and I'm not confident in the referees handling their current responsibilities well.

Sometimes I think they're their own worst enemies. Could Chile have made a decent run at Brazil today if they weren't flopping around like salmon in a stream? If your mind's on acting, you might not finish a potential scoring chance.

I want a solution for players like the Ivory Coast actor who ran into Kaka and wound up costing one of the best players in the world a match penalty. I would also like the referee to go up to someone flopping around, possibly from a legitimate foul and mild injury, and say "you're not getting a free kick because you have a reputation for diving, and it's too hard to tell whether there was an obvious foul."

The good news: FIFA can react quickly to controversy. The bad news: FIFA's solution to the egregious Tevez offsides call was to ban instant replay on stadium scoreboards.


My cynical side says they banned the in-stadium replays to avoid the ref seeing it and reversing a linesman's call (because Blatter absolutely is opposed to technology in the game, and that would constitute using technology) more so than any kind of safety concerns.

#30 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,542 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:07 PM

QUOTE (Bleedred @ Jun 28 2010, 08:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The officiating errors in World Cup play (Britain/Germany goal that was no-goal; Argentina/Mexico off-sides header goal; US/Slovakia famous no-goal) are horrific examples of a terribly flawed officiating regimen. These mistakes literally can cost a team their chance at the world cup. The fact that the powers that be will not acknowledge the need for review of some sort, and the limited implementation of reforms, makes a mockery of their game. As an admittedly casual fan who tunes in for World Cup play only, my take-away from viewing weeks of world cup soccer is this: Great athletes, incredibly fit and skilled, playing a game that is hopeleslly flawed and ruled by folks who don't give a shit.

Not to pick you out specifically, but can Obama give a primetime nationwide speech to Americans explaining that BRITAIN DOES NOT HAVE A SOCCER TEAM; THE FOUR CONSTITUENT HOME NATIONS FIELD SEPARATE TEAMS.

Wales has a team.

Northern Ireland has a team.

Scotland has a team.

England has a team.

There is no British team.

#31 snowmanny

  • 2,567 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:17 PM

It sounds as if most folks on this board would expect, if FIFA were suddenly run by David Stern, Bud Selig, Gart Bettman or Roger Goodell, that replay would be obviously and automatically invoked for:

1) Close calls on the goal lines;
2) Offsides determination after a goal is scored;
3) After the game Reviews of yellow cards for fouls and/or determination of flagrant flopping.

I wonder if Europeans see this the same way as we do, or our immersion in the process in the four major sports gives us a different perspective. I mean, in tennis there's that weird cartoon replay for lines calls but I don't know if the rest of the world sees booth review as a normal part of sport yet.

#32 snowmanny

  • 2,567 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:18 PM

QUOTE (Spacemans Bong @ Jun 28 2010, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not to pick you out specifically, but can Obama give a primetime nationwide speech to Americans explaining that BRITAIN DOES NOT HAVE A SOCCER TEAM; THE FOUR CONSTITUENT HOME NATIONS FIELD SEPARATE TEAMS.

Wales has a team.

Northern Ireland has a team.

Scotland has a team.

England has a team.

There is no British team.


Are you sure wales has a team?

#33 cjdmadcow

  • 1,268 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE (Spacemans Bong @ Jun 28 2010, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
England has a team.


That is undoubtably a matter of opinion being given considerable airtime / newsprint in the last 24 hours.

#34 Statman

  • 594 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:40 PM

QUOTE (snowmanny @ Jun 28 2010, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Are you sure wales has a team?


Yes.

http://en.wikipedia....l_football_team

#35 Chemistry Schmemistry


  • has been programmed to get funky/cry human tears


  • 7,743 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:51 PM

QUOTE (snowmanny @ Jun 28 2010, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Are you sure wales has a team?


Sadly, it's harvested every time it has to play Japan.

#36 Toe Nash

  • 3,113 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE (Statman @ Jun 28 2010, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think snowmanny was making a joke.

#37 loshjott

  • 3,789 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 07:12 AM

FIFA President Apologizes for Refereeing Errors

Blatter opens the door for video on goal-line calls only.

Edited by loshjott, 29 June 2010 - 07:12 AM.


#38 lostjumper

  • 939 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 08:19 AM

QUOTE (Chemistry Schmemistry @ Jun 28 2010, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I want a solution for players like the Ivory Coast actor who ran into Kaka and wound up costing one of the best players in the world a match penalty. I would also like the referee to go up to someone flopping around, possibly from a legitimate foul and mild injury, and say "you're not getting a free kick because you have a reputation for diving, and it's too hard to tell whether there was an obvious foul."


I think flops are pretty hard for the referee to call in real time. The play is so fast its tough to see if a foul was committed, or a dive took place. The best solution I can think of is to not change anything during the match, but review dives after the match, and reward a yellow card for every dive. You could use a panel of referees, and they would have full access to all the slow motion replays they needed to correctly assess the call. The would also have the power to remove cards given as the result of a dive.

So with regard to the Kaka play, he would still get that 2nd yellow card and have to leave the match, but would have it rescinded and be able to play in the next game. It would not interrupt the flow of matches, but would correct the egregious mistakes. I think after the first round of games when a player gets 4 yellow cards for diving and has to sit for the next 2 matches you would see diving stop immediately.

#39 DeltaForce

  • 2,902 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:28 AM

QUOTE (Spacemans Bong @ Jun 28 2010, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not to pick you out specifically, but can Obama give a primetime nationwide speech to Americans explaining that BRITAIN DOES NOT HAVE A SOCCER TEAM; THE FOUR CONSTITUENT HOME NATIONS FIELD SEPARATE TEAMS.

Wales has a team.

Northern Ireland has a team.

Scotland has a team.

England has a team.

There is no British team.

Northern Ireland isn't part of Great Britain.

#40 EastCoasterOutWest


  • Viva zapatos!


  • 3,867 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:43 AM

QUOTE (lostjumper @ Jun 29 2010, 06:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think flops are pretty hard for the referee to call in real time. The play is so fast its tough to see if a foul was committed, or a dive took place. The best solution I can think of is to not change anything during the match, but review dives after the match, and reward a yellow card for every dive. You could use a panel of referees, and they would have full access to all the slow motion replays they needed to correctly assess the call. The would also have the power to remove cards given as the result of a dive.

So with regard to the Kaka play, he would still get that 2nd yellow card and have to leave the match, but would have it rescinded and be able to play in the next game. It would not interrupt the flow of matches, but would correct the egregious mistakes. I think after the first round of games when a player gets 4 yellow cards for diving and has to sit for the next 2 matches you would see diving stop immediately.


I think four is three two many and of the wrong color. You dive, you miss two games. Straight red.

It would be interesting to see Serie A games played 4 on 5.

#41 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,542 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:44 AM

QUOTE (DeltaForce @ Jun 29 2010, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Northern Ireland isn't part of Great Britain.

rolleyes.gif

#42 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,357 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:58 AM

QUOTE (DeltaForce @ Jun 29 2010, 10:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Northern Ireland isn't part of Great Britain.


Wait, I'm confused. Is Cornwall a part of Albion, and do they field their own team? What language does the Manx side use to communicate? And how does Guernsey fit into the FIFA hierarchy?

#43 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,370 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:01 AM

QUOTE
The major stumbling block, rather, is the nature of the game, the very thing that makes soccer the most watched sport in the world, and that is its fluidity. Almost all other sports are comprised of a series of discrete actions. Test cricket, for instance, is made up of 540 separate moments of play -- balls -- each day; tennis is a series of points; rugby has regular breakdowns.

In football, though, the play can often go uninterrupted for two to three minutes, and one of the key tactical elements is deciding how many players to commit to the attack, knowing that to push too many forward (as England did against Germany) is to leave yourself vulnerable to a counter. Say there's a penalty appeal at one end; when does the referee call for a replay? If he does so straight after the alleged foul, then he may prevent the defending team, having perhaps won the ball legitimately, from sweeping forward in a counterattack, the possibility of which is one of the joys of the game.

But if he waits until the ball goes out of play, he might find himself with a lengthy passage of play to cancel out involving who knows how many additional incidents. (Imagine the furor if he had to rule out a goal at one end to award a penalty at the other, or, even more weirdly, if he had to rule out a goal to give the team who had just scored a penalty for which they had appealed two minutes earlier.) Once a move has been stopped, it cannot be restarted; so if a player who is onside is incorrectly called offside and the attack stopped, how could technology help him? Some refereeing mistakes cannot be rectified by being overturned.

Just as big an issue is that so much in soccer is down to interpretation. Two players jostle for a ball; which way the foul is often down to aggression of intent, and that is something probably best judged by the instinct of a referee than by endless replays that cannot give a definitive answer anyway. The fear is that football ceases to be a game of relentless fluency, and becomes instead one punctured by long delays as officials examine replays. At the moment there is a reluctance even to use videos retroactively other than to prove acts of violent conduct, when it would seem that it could be used, for instance, to help stamp out simulation. The argument is made that whether something is a dive or not is not always clear from replays. That is true, but some are, and those who are clearly guilty surely should be punished. Just because some murderers go unpunished doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting killers altogether.

Nonetheless, in terms of the use of technology during play, there is a balance to be found between getting decisions right and maintaining the flow of the game. Certain calls -- such as line decisions -- are absolute, and it seems hard to believe technology cannot be developed to determine whether the ball has or has not crossed the line (whether it is worth the cost given the comparative rarity of such issues is another matter). Indeed, Dr. Paul Hawkins, the developer of the Hawkeye technology used in tennis and cricket, said after Lampard's non-goal that his system could be implemented in soccer immediately.

"Goal-line incidents are the only decisions which are entirely definitive and the answer can be provided to the referee within 0.5 seconds of the incident happening," he said. "This makes a clear distinction between goal-line and other decisions. Referees want goal-line technology. It would be there to help them, not to replace them."

Other incidents are rather more difficult, partly because many are down to interpretation and partly because of the lack of breaks in soccer. It has been suggested that a team should be allowed a certain number of challenges -- as is the case in tennis and cricket -- by which they can ask for a video to be reviewed and a referee's decision potentially to be overturned, but again the question is when the challenge could be made. It must not become a means by which a manager can cynically check an opposition breakaway.

In the Europa League, UEFA has experimented without great success, with extra officials to the side of each goal, My own view is that it would be rather more useful to have just one additional official watching a television monitor and drawing the referee's attention to anything he's missed, in the same way a linesman does already. Again, though, there could be an issue with offenses that become apparent only on viewing a third or fourth replay -- after how long could a referee go back and change a decision?

Still, a simple glance at a monitor would have ensured the two key calls on Sunday were corrected; then again, as David James pointed out, given Lampard's shot went about two feet over the line, and given Carlos Tevez was at least three yards offside, those were decisions it shouldn't take technology to get right.

Read more: http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz0sLIUJTVf

I am for use of technology, but I do think the best argument against is that it's going to disrupt the flow of the game. Wilson makes a good summary of it.


#44 EastCoasterOutWest


  • Viva zapatos!


  • 3,867 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 10:25 AM

QUOTE (Nick Kaufman @ Jun 30 2010, 07:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Read more: http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz0sLIUJTVf

I am for use of technology, but I do think the best argument against is that it's going to disrupt the flow of the game. Wilson makes a good summary of it.


That's why they should use a fifth official, in a booth, who reviews the plays as they happen and can use his headset to talk to the ref on the field. If we can see replays within 10 or 15 seconds of an incident on TV, they can see one in the same time in the stadium.

If there should have been a penalty and the call is made during an ensuing counter, the countering team has no right to complain because a correct call would have prevented them having a counter in the first place.

The erroneous argument about flow of the game is backed by a belief that there would constantly be stoppages because things are being reviewed. That simply isn't true, if done correctly. How many calls do you see in the average match that would be changed with a review? For this tourney, I think there have been three or four that would have benefited and not stopped the game; England's non-goal, US's recalled goal, Tevez's offsides goal, possibly Kaka's second yellow.

It's all a matter of setting in stone what kinds of plays will be reviewed by the booth/fifth official (and I say booth because he should not be on the field, exposed to fans, players, or managers). Use it for a season and then adjust if it's really causing an issue with the natural flow of the game, but not doing so for a possible issue is laughable.

Edited by EastCoasterOutWest, 30 June 2010 - 10:26 AM.


#45 Nick Kaufman


  • protector of human kind from spoilers


  • 8,370 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 12:33 PM

Ι agree with you, though I recognize there's a lot of devil in the details of practical implementation.

#46 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,927 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 01:06 PM

I've always thought something like this should be used not just in soccer, but also for other sports. A guy in the booth with a bank of camera shots, in constant radio contact with the head ref. If he sees something, he calls it. Offsides? Then call it. Not a review, just a call that is made from the booth. If someone is whistled for a yellow card but the guy in the booth can see it was a dive, he just whispers it in the ref's ear, and the yellow goes, instead, to the diver.

Again, nothing that disrupts the flow of the game as it is. Just another set of particularly well-placed eyes to complement the guys on the field.

It's a topic for another forum, but they NFL could use this, too.



#47 Kremlin Watcher

  • 2,698 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 01:51 PM

While I'm all in favor of the use of technology to make sure games are correctly called, it seems to me that the real problem is that the existing system of one on-field referee makes it impossible to get all of the calls right, from a purely physical perspective. Someone above made the excellent point that one of the most attractive features of the sport is the flow of the game. The point is that the flow creates the problem for the referees. It is physically impossible for one man, who although he may be in pretty good shape, to follow a ball being kicked around by world class athletes at great distances and speeds for 90 minutes, all the while maintaining accurate and complete vision of the entire field. There is simply no way the referee can be in the right spot for every call. And to my knowledge, this makes soccer the only major sport in the world that has only one official who is responsible for the game. I know, I know - the side judges make offsides calls, and this is clearly necessary, but they even get them wrong quite frequently.

So my question is: why aren't we talking about by far the easiest solution of putting, say, six referees on the field, each being responsible (like NFL or MLB officials) for a specific area? A football pitch is huge. Five more guys, each assigned to a specific quadrant of the field, would be actually close to the action as it happens, while at the same time being able to watch what happens off the ball. We'd have refs in front of and behind and beside the plays, making it much, much easier to catch what is actually happening. Don't want them to clutter up the field? Have four of them stick to within, say, 10 yards of the touch lines, with two rovers in the middle. There are so many ways FIFA could do this without screwing up any aspect of the game that I am surprised no one has publicly called for it with as much alacrity as for the use of technology. Even the NBA, with its tiny court, uses three guys (not that the officiating is any great shakes, mind you, but at least they recognize the necessity of having as many eyes as possible).

Is there some shadowy international referees' union that is somehow preventing this from happening? This seems like a relatively easy fix (unless there is a terrible shortage of refs). Just don't understand why this is not being addressed as a possible solution.