|
FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa Discussion (pg. 96)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sunsnail |
| haha sorry, I just didn't know |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Aside from the fact that soccer is the only sport where the clock never stops? Look at a game like the Germany one today. Can you imagine that called posthumously? It'd have been 3+ hours long if everything were debated. Part of the sport is the endurance aspect, which IR would kill.
Just make a method to overturn idiotic calls. 3 refs, something... |
Dude, you sound like all those retard purists that don't want it at all. We have a ing AMAZING example of how instant replay can be done without sacrificing hours. It's called the NFL. You have 2 chances in a game to challenge. No more and no less. If you are wrong, you lose a timeout. Since there are no timeouts in football, they could make you lose a sub. Easy as ing pie. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Dude, you sound like all those retard purists that don't want it at all. We have a ing AMAZING example of how instant replay can be done without sacrificing hours. It's called the NFL. You have 2 chances in a game to challenge. No more and no less. If you are wrong, you lose a timeout. Since there are no timeouts in football, they could make you lose a sub. Easy as ing pie. |
:wtf: |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
:wtf: |
What? You have any better ideas? |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Dude, you sound like all those retard purists that don't want it at all. We have a ing AMAZING example of how instant replay can be done without sacrificing hours. It's called the NFL. You have 2 chances in a game to challenge. No more and no less. If you are wrong, you lose a timeout. Since there are no timeouts in football, they could make you lose a sub. Easy as ing pie. |
No. Just....no. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
No. Just....no. |
Why? You have any other better suggestions? Oh wait, everyone just keeps suggesting adding 100 more people to watch. Because, you know, human eyes are better than slowing down 50 different angles from a ing camera. :/
No one wants to add it, yet they bitch and moan about refing being total e. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| You do what Fifa planned to do anyway. Stick one more linesman next to the goal and another on the other side. That gives you 6 officials instead of 4 and allows the officials to have another angle at looking at penalties, dives, handballs etc. Forget challenges. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
You do what Fifa planned to do anyway. Stick one more linesman next to the goal and another on the other side. That gives you 6 officials instead of 4 and allows the officials to have another angle at looking at penalties, dives, handballs etc. Forget challenges. |
And here I will say it again:
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Because, you know, human eyes are better than slowing down 50 different angles from a ing camera. :/ |
And here is the way it works in the NFL, and it works beautifully without causing tons of delays:
You have 2 chances in a game to challenge. No more and no less. If you are wrong, you lose a timeout. Since there are no timeouts in football, they could make you lose a sub. Easy as ing pie. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
I'm not against testing some matches with a video-helped refereeing. The reason why it is not used everywhere yet is because the Board (the people who can change the rules) doesn't want to create a gap between amateur and pro.
And I :wtf:ed because a sub is much more important in football than a timeout in hockey. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Since there are no timeouts in football, they could make you lose a sub. Easy as ing pie. |
You're an idiot. |
|
|
| djhaziel |
| OK game on in a few minutes :) |
|
|
|
|
