World Cup 2010

[Paelos]

They want the rules of the game to be simple enough that everyone can follow them. Replay is not.

See, when you post things like this in a sports context, I really have to just assume you're trolling. We can debate replay on how it affects the speed of the game, the historical purity, or even where it should be applied.

However, there isn't a single addition of replay in sport that hasn't made the game fairer and less complicated. You default to the field call if it's 50/50. Done.

[HaemishM]

The THEORY of the offsides rule is simple. The way it's actually called though? Total shit, completely inconsistent and not at all simple. Hell, it's not even called like the laws of the game says (i.e. the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt).

[stu]

Lack of replay isn't the problem. Lack of refs is. It irritates the hell out of me to hear guys in the booth on ESPN to be lobbying for replay because they know better. The sport's biggest advantage is simplicity in play and rules which is something that replay would hinder. Getting convoluted is not the way to go.

The issue has less to do with fairness and more to do with concerns at the lowest levels of the sport, where money isn't directly involved. Until junkyard games start getting replay, it's not going to happen.

More refs please.

[WayAbvPar]

American football has 7 referees, and they still constantly miss things. FIFA needs to add at least 3 more- 1 on each byline on the side of the goal opposite the linesman (ideally they would be in raised seat behind the goal ala a tennis judge or hockey goal judge, but that would never happen), and a second on field ref that roams the park in the opposite diagonal from the head ref.

[ghost]

(i.e. the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt).

Unless you're Argentina.

[Paelos]

The NHL only had one ref for a long time, and it was a stupid system. They added two refs, and things got better, but they still had replay on goals.

When goals are even rarer in soccer, it makes zero sense not to have a replay official. People can argue until they are blue in the face about human error as part of the game, but only baseball and FIFA are fighting the tide and they are losing.

I mean can you imagine taking replay out of NFL football right now? It has shown that the amount of calls missed by even 7 well-placed officials is simply staggering.

[Jobu]

Here's a great article talking about the problem's with England's system:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/0629/1224273557820.html

[Hoax]

They want the rules of the game to be simple enough that everyone can follow them. Replay is not.

See, when you post things like this in a sports context, I really have to just assume you're trolling. We can debate replay on how it affects the speed of the game, the historical purity, or even where it should be applied.

However, there isn't a single addition of replay in sport that hasn't made the game fairer and less complicated. You default to the field call if it's 50/50. Done.

FIFA believes that part of the reason it is the world's game is the simplicity of the rules and of play. Replay runs contrary to all of this. The point that the world cup is a big enough deal to have replay is valid but I think its a simpler and better idea to add more refs. I'm not trolling I have played the game throughout my life in a variety of places and skill levels and I have at least been a linesman and center ref for some games though nothing at anywhere near even class 1 tournament level you weekend warrior types who don't give a fuck about football and only are interested once every four years telling the world the game is run wrong and should be more like hockey? Ehl oh fucking ehl.

[ghost]

FIFA calls the rules of football "simple", but there are very few areas where the rules of football aren't quite gray.

Ball going over the line (out of bounds or goal) and hand balls are the only non-judgment calls made by the referees.  So it's not quite as simple as FIFA would like it to be.

[HaemishM]

My point is that trying to pretend a game with the kind of money and media attention that the World Cup or any of the top tier leagues is played the same as it is at the park level is ludicrous. It's NOT the same, no matter how you try to make the rules the same and pretending it is otherwise is only cheapening the game that is meant as an ambassador to the world (i.e. the World Cup). FIFA would rather pretend their refs can't make mistakes or be subject to criticism than look at possible ways to use technology to improve the game at the highest level. A good compromise is the UEFA addition of the extra refs, but I think in an event as big as the World Cup, treating it the same way you do sandlot games is an insult to the fans and the players.

[Hoax]

FIFA calls the rules of football "simple", but there are very few areas where the rules of football aren't quite gray.

Ball going over the line (out of bounds or goal) and hand balls are the only non-judgment calls made by the referees.  So it's not quite as simple as FIFA would like it to be.

Compared to what exactly? Lets put it this way, to learn the actual rules of the game takes you about 10 minutes of reading time. To learn how to properly enforce them and not be fooled by players takes a lifetime but so what?

[Amarr HM]

The game has been through severely abject changes throughout it's 150 year history, introducing technology wouldn't even compare to the paradigm shifts football has gone through.  It wasn't until the offside rule was changed to the one we know now did football start hitting the mainstream and it also make a huge impact on tactics and how the game was essentially played. Pre the rule (1924) teams used to play formations like 1-2-7 and 2-2-6 and the game was basically like Rugby with a round ball and using your feet to run with ball, amazing thing was after the introduction the goal per game ratio went up despite teams playing slightly more orthodox formations like 3-2-5 and 3-3-4.

Anyway FIFAs complete unwillingness to implement technology stems from them thinking that controversy should rule the sport more than the enjoyment of the game itself. It has little or nothing with them try to keep the purity of the game intact, they reckon controversy sells papers and keeps Football the number one sport.

[ghost]

It's a bit telling that most of the major, moneymaking sports in the US are going to video review.  And very, very good refs make bad calls.

[Paelos]

you weekend warrior types who don't give a fuck about football and only are interested once every four years telling the world the game is run wrong and should be more like hockey? Ehl oh fucking ehl.

Yeah, it's just know-nothings, rite? There's no international call from the players for replay that FIFA is ignoring.  

FIFPro, the group that represents pro players worldwide, issued a statement afterward saying that referees should have access to high-tech assistance.

"The entire football world once again reacted with disbelief to FIFA's stubborn insistence that technology does not belong in football," FIFPro said. "The credibility of the sport is at stake."

[Amarr HM]

It's a bit telling that most of the major, moneymaking sports in the US are going to video review.  And very, very good refs make bad calls.

What's just as or even more telling is that Tennis which is steeped in history and tradition has easily shifted into the modern era. In fact it has enhanced the tactical element of the sport as each player gets 3 video challenges per set. If they use up the challenges too early the onus is then shifted on to the player even if the officials make a mistake, or you could say the player is to blame for wasting their challenges and the official is somewhat reconciled.

[ghost]

Hah.  Yeah, and video replay won't interrupt play any more than some of these idiots writhing around in pain from perceived slights.   

[HaemishM]

Hah.  Yeah, and video replay won't interrupt play any more than some of these idiots writhing around in pain from perceived slights.   

Or what I've taken to calling "The Chelsea Huddle." You know, when all 11 players on the team surround the ref like he's a piece of meat after he's just shown a yellow to a player committing a foul so obvious it could be spotted from orbit.

[WayAbvPar]

Hah.  Yeah, and video replay won't interrupt play any more than some of these idiots writhing around in pain from perceived slights.   

That is what they should be using video replay for. Hand out cards after the game for simulation if replay clearly shows you weren't touched or that your greatly embellished minimal contact. It is a deliberate attempt to deceive the referee and gain an advantage, which is obviously cheating. Also it is the cuntiest of behavior and the quicker it is drummed out of the sport the better. Especially if you want NASCAR fans to tune in more than once every 4 years.

[Paelos]

Do they even want Americans to tune in? I was pretty sure FIFA had a fuck-you attitude to us and our money.

[ghost]

If you want NASCAR fans to tune in just introduce fighting like hockey.  That would actually take care of a good deal of the flopping, now that I think of it......

[Chimpy]

How is having a way to review goal related calls at the highest level of the sport somehow making it so the "world cannot play the game"?

Last time I checked, no pee-wee football league in the US has 7 officials or instant replay. No high school tennis team plays on a court with a cyclops machine monitoring boundary lines.

The higher the stakes, the more tools the officials need to make the correct decision. The linesman and referee in the Mexico/Argentina match were both obviously upset after the Tevez goal was replayed on the big screen. But they had no option within the existing officiating regime but to uphold the call as it was on the field if they had wanted to change it.

Soccer's ruleset is simple enough, and the area of focus that replay would need to cover in goal award/disallowal is so small, that it makes almost no sense why they would not have implemented some form of quick review process by now at the professional and international level.

I remember the hue and cry when they first used the cyclops at Wimbeldon and how it was "taking away from the game" yadda yadda. But that faded pretty fast and as others have noted, they have increasingly been adding technology to assist the officials at the highest levels of the game.

[sigil]

[01101010]

 

[Chimpy]

  to the air-zela inventor.

[Jeff Kelly]

After professionally dealing with the FIFA types for nearly a decade now I can say that they are dead opposed to any rule changes or technical systems. They have shot down any proposed system. Tracking of the ball (invented by a german company), goal line technology to detect if the ball is over the line, goal cameras, another official, anything. A lot of people have sunk a lot of money into making the game less suceptible to bad calls and the FIFA has always shot them down.

They always get back to to points of which only one is valid.

1. They don't want to interrupt the flow of the game. Any interruption stalls the game and might the teams cause to lose momentum. That's actually a valid complaint because it's one of the attributes of football. Football with interruptions and time outs wouldn't be football anymore something a lot of you don't seem to understand.

Interrupting the game to review calls could seriously fuck up the play on the pitch and might be used by the teams to disrupt the opposing teams territorial play and strategy on and off the ball. Something the teams already try to do now by tactical fouls, dives, back passing to the goal keeper and so on. Rules regarding passing the ball back to the goal keeper and offsides have been especially created to stop that shit as has the rule that injured players have to be treated off the pitch while the game resumes.

But there are measures that wouldn't do that to the game the FIFA is also opposed to because of reason 2:

They want a single set of rules that are valid for all leagues, from the third rate minor league in some godforsaken town to the premier leagues. Only premier teams would be able to afford the additional measures so they argue that you'd have a different game if you play there than you would have in the second or minor leagues. I think it's bullshit but it has been the stance of FIFA for nearly two decades now. All officials that don't subscribe to that line are politically isolated (see Platini).

I suppose that the real reason is that they want a certain amount of uncertainty and potential for abuse. If you look closely who has the most influence on FIFA decisions than you don't wonder why that might be.

[Amarr HM]

1. They don't want to interrupt the flow of the game. Any interruption stalls the game and might the teams cause to lose momentum. That's actually a valid complaint because it's one of the attributes of football. Football with interruptions and time outs wouldn't be football anymore something a lot of you don't seem to understand.

You obviously have never heard of the "Chelsea Huddle".

[Fordel]

Every Goal is followed by a minute of players celebrating, they can't fit a review in that window? 

[caladein]

Yes, I can understand flow-of-the-game arguments if they also tacked on delay-of-game penalties every time a player flops, or argues with a ref, or celebrates excessively.  Except they don't.

For some reason, it's perfectly okay to interrupt the flow-of-the-game if you're being a doucebag, but not to make sure the "right" call was made.  That I do not understand in the slightest.

[Chimpy]

Yes, I can understand flow-of-the-game arguments if they also tacked on delay-of-game penalties every time a player flops, or argues with a ref, or celebrates excessively.  Except they don't.

For some reason, it's perfectly okay to interrupt the flow-of-the-game if you're being a doucebag, but not to make sure the "right" call was made.  That I do not understand in the slightest.

This.

[Jeff Kelly]

You obviously have never heard of the "Chelsea Huddle".

Well I said that in the next sentence after the one you quoted.

[Sir T]

Well what are refs supposed to do, red card the entire team? That would really open up the flow of the game. Create a record for highest score in a world cup match too (unless it was Beckham shooting at the goal  )

[Jeff Kelly]

For some reason, it's perfectly okay to interrupt the flow-of-the-game if you're being a doucebag, but not to make sure the "right" call was made.  That I do not understand in the slightest.

The don't penalise it but that's what aditional time is for.

[Paelos]

Adding on time doesn't remotely correct all the time-wasting late in games with goalies walking to kicks, trading off throwins, taking forever to milk the clock. Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument that football has to be free-flowing to be football. All it has to have is a ball, two goals, and some dudes. The current rules or lack thereof, reward the worst behaviors while espousing the fact that it's the beautiful game.

[ghost]

I'm not sure why a review of a goal situation should interrupt time at all, in most instances.  If they call it a goal and the player was offsides, why does play need to stop to remove the goal from the scoreboard? 

[HaemishM]

For some reason, it's perfectly okay to interrupt the flow-of-the-game if you're being a doucebag, but not to make sure the "right" call was made.  That I do not understand in the slightest.

The don't penalise it but that's what aditional time is for.

Which they can certainly add on to the end of the game for any stoppages in time due to replays. That's why I suggested a TMO like Rugby has. Put someone in a booth with a shitton of cameras, someone who is not subject to the on-field pressure of the Chelsea Huddle, who can review the goal footage in a 2-minute period and relay goal/no goal to the ref. If he can't figure it out in 2 minutes, fuck it, move on. For something like the England goal, there wasn't much doubt. You could sink that shit with one good look at the replay. By the time the players have finished cunt flapping at the ref, the decision is made correctly.

Shit, games lose more time and momentum to Italian Play-Acting than could be lost to replay. I understand about momentum, but again, there's plenty of things that skirt the edge of the rulebook to disrupt momentum.