|
FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa Discussion (pg. 101)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| noikeee |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
They won in 2004. 6 years ago. |
And since then, they've only won a single match in a major tournament... which was last Thursday. Didn't even qualify for World Cup 2006.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It doesn't really need a good argument. You prove yourself wrong by admitting that there's nothing you can appropriately compare to time-outs in the sport you're making a terrible comparison with, and so your "great example" is clearly not a great example in the slightest.
But seriously: do you think the powers that be are sat in FIFA headquarters scratching their heads and saying "We'd love to implement the technology, but we just can't figure out a workable method"? There are better examples of other sports that use video technology in ways that could be applied to football than your half-assed suggestion. FIFA haven't implemented video technology for a reason. |
FIFA argues that technology would take the "passion" out of football. The reality is that the inevitable controversies generated by poor refereeing decisions attract a lot of attention post-matches, therefore get people talking about football. And a cynic would also say that it's much easier to manipulate results this way.
Personally I think they should introduce tech in the game, I find it ridiculous that people around the world instantly find out that a ref's decision is wrong and the ref stands oblivious to it without access to the information. Fairness should be above all. However gehzumteufel's idea is terrible, completely inadequate for football. I'd much rather simply have a video-ref that sits in a room with access to all the cameras, and is in constant communication with the ref on the pitch. Apparently that's how it works in rugby and works fine.
Perhaps they could also copy rugby's idea of having the ref explaining controversial decisions to the crowd, although that would need to be very well thought of to not disrupt the flow of the game. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It doesn't really need a good argument. You prove yourself wrong by admitting that there's nothing you can appropriately compare to time-outs in the sport you're making a terrible comparison with, and so your "great example" is clearly not a great example in the slightest. |
How does it not need a good argument? In the NFL, a timeout is just as important as a sub in footy. They use them in their whole strategy of the game. As such, it is just as important to have a time-out as is the subs.
You seem stuck on the small nuances that differ between the two games, and aren't even considering the fact that the SYSTEM of the way that instant replay works and challenging a call with the NFL, can even be applied to the international football. That is just preposterous. Losing a time-out can be quite detrimental. You may not think so, but you would be quite wrong.
Also, do I think that the penalty of losing a sub may be extreme? Quite possible, but again, what the hell else are you going to take away? You can't give an individual player a card because this is something that has to count against the whole team. So that is out. You can't eject the coach, because again, you are not hitting the whole team, just a specific person on/with the team.
Suggest something before just calling something stupid or idiotic.
| quote: | | But seriously: do you think the powers that be are sat in FIFA headquarters scratching their heads and saying "We'd love to implement the technology, but we just can't figure out a workable method"? There are better examples of other sports that use video technology in ways that could be applied to football than your half-assed suggestion. FIFA haven't implemented video technology for a reason. |
The powers that be have been resisting ANY changes for many years. Even when everyone wants the damn changes. We all know this. I mean , look at how long people have been bitching about diving, HORRIBLE yellow/red cards, calls like the one that disallowed the goal for the US in the game yesterday, etc. The list goes ing on forever. Yet we get this HORRIBLE excuse about "Oh you think they aren't trying to do about it" or whatever excuses. |
|
|
| noikeee |
What the hell is the benefit in using a "challenger" type system, over having someone watch the cameras and communicate with the ref all the time?
It'd completely up the flow of the game - WAIT FOR THE CHALLENGE DRUMDRUMDRUMDRUM -, overcomplicates everything, not to mention it's completely unfair. Let's say the ref's s up your team with 3 poor calls, and there you go, you have no subs anymore. :stongue: |
|
|
| LoveHate |
| danes were terrible, cameroon dominated the second half, too bad their out, along with my fav player samuel eto.:confused: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
FIFA argues that technology would take the "passion" out of football. The reality is that the inevitable controversies generated by poor refereeing decisions attract a lot of attention post-matches, therefore get people talking about football. And a cynic would also say that it's much easier to manipulate results this way. |
No, FIFA want the game played the same at all levels. An organised football match requires the same things. They consider it elitist to introduce technology only available for the rich. This is both a philosophy that football is for the people and anti-elitist, and it's fair. It wouldn't be right that Manchester United had video calls ensuring they got everything they deserved, but lower league teams or teams from poorer countries were still the victims of errors because they aren't lucky enough to be Manchester United.
Furthermore, the reality is that even video technology does not remove human interpretation and fallability. How many tackles do we see in endless slow motion replay, and yet opinion on whether it was fair still varies from TV pundit to TV pundit, fan to fan? Didier Drogba smashed a free kick against the underside of the crossbar in the FA Cup final and nobody was sure if it had crossed the line. Clive Tyldsley, the commentator, watched the replay and smugly declared it a goal: "How long did it take us to decide that?" A minute later after another replay from a different angle and he'd realised it probably wasn't a goal after all.
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
How does it not need a good argument? In the NFL, a timeout is just as important as a sub in footy. |
Let's ignore everything I've written above for a moment. Imagine a team had made two substitutions in a match, then a controversial decision is made. If the team uses their remaining sub to get that call, they cannot replace players who get injured. So the call is useless. Someone has made all three subs, then a controversial call is made. They're screwed. And what if they do get the replay, and it turns out the manager is just short-sighted or was wrong? They've just lost a sub and a call. No justice was done. What if something controversial happens but the referee continues play, and the other team break and score. Can the manager call a replay? When? Can he stop the play? If not, what happens to all the play that happened between controversy and replay? Does it get wasted, does it get added to injury time?
Just imagine if the US coach yesterday had used his two replay calls and then the disallowed goal still happened. He threw away two subs and there would still be outrage and calls for overhauls of rules. And that's after you've ed with the rules, the tactics and the flow of a sport so a few top teams can gamble with decisions.
| quote: | | Also, do I think that the penalty of losing a sub may be extreme? Quite possible, but again, what the hell else are you going to take away? |
Nothing, because the idea clearly will not ing work. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
Perhaps they could also copy rugby's idea of having the ref explaining controversial decisions to the crowd, although that would need to be very well thought of to not disrupt the flow of the game. |
That's the problem though, it doesn't really work as it should. Rugby and Rugby League is an even better example. Cricket too.
The officials are so afraid of getting calls wrong that they refer absolutely everything to the video ref. It's totally killed off the flow of the games in all of the sports and actually made the officials worse as their first point of call is to turn to the video ref instead of making a tough decision.
ps. It was a red for Harry Kewell. Once again, I'm sick of the armchair experts who don't know about anything. It was unlucky and not really intentional but at the end of the day his arm was out to the side and it prevented a clear goal. That's a red. If that was a yellow card offence it would be open to abuse.
Aussies played better though and were fantastic with 10 men. Deserved the win.
Now I doubt we will beat Serbia by anything more than a goal (if we even do beat them) so we need either Germany to absolutely demolish Ghana by 4 or more goals, or for Ghana to win. FUUUUUUUUUU- |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| You guys are apparently confused. The penalty assessed to the team is ONLY if you challenged the call by the ref and your team is still found to be at fault. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
And since then, they've only won a single match in a major tournament... which was last Thursday. Didn't even qualify for World Cup 2006.
|
Yes, my point precisely. |
|
|
| Lira |
What the hell are you guys talking about?
The only best way to make football even more popular is dropping the concept of fair-play and let teams have robots instead of humans. Can you imagine how more awesome it would be to see the Terminator kill all the defenders with fire and score a goal right from the midfield?
I need to write a letter to FIFA, hold on... |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
You guys are apparently confused. The penalty assessed to the team is ONLY if you challenged the call by the ref and your team is still found to be at fault. |
Doesn't really change anything I've said. Subs are precious because they're the only way you can replace injured players. You can't use them as blinds in a gamble with the referee. Limited video calls will still leave countless injustices, and people will demand further rule changes to remove them. Minutes can go by without stoppages so you risk removing large chunks of play based on calls that happened several minutes ago. The system clearly will not translate to this sport.
And again, that's completely setting aside the real reasons why FIFA won't consider it. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Doesn't really change anything I've said. Subs are precious because they're the only way you can replace injured players. You can't use them as blinds in a gamble with the referee. Limited video calls will still leave countless injustices, and people will demand further rule changes to remove them. Minutes can go by without stoppages so you risk removing large chunks of play based on calls that happened several minutes ago. The system clearly will not translate to this sport.
And again, that's completely setting aside the real reasons why FIFA won't consider it. |
Dude, you can never get away from injustices, but having instant replay, and the way that I suggested, can work. You just can't go back on your position, as you have previously mentioned, that once you commit, you will go through to the bitter end. Even if you are wrong. So really, nothing I can say, will ever change your public mind. Even if you do think that the possibility is there. God this is pointless. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| Yay, we drew with Ghana! That's like a win, right America? :p |
|
|
|
|
