FIFA continues to make a joke of itself

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5312460/ce/us/fifa-satisfied-world-cup-officiating?cc=5901&ver=us

As far as FIFA is concerned, they're watching just fine.

"We are very, very satisfied with the performance of the referees," Jose-Marcia Garcia-Aranda, head of refereeing for the sport's governing body, said Monday.

-snip-

"In some ways it's really heartening to see how much people care," Landon Donovan said.

Part of the problem, particularly for U.S. fans, is that soccer refs aren't required to -- and rarely do -- explain their decisions. If there's a bad call in the NBA, NFL or Major League Baseball, someone will weigh in within a few hours. Even if it's just to say it's being examined.

FIFA? Not so much.

"The duty of the referees is not to explain their decision ... [but to] try to do their best on the field of play," Garcia-Aranda said. "[Otherwise] they are not focused on the game, they are focused on the media."

While some refs said they wouldn't mind explaining themselves and can even see the merit of it, don't expect it to happen anytime soon. Ditto for other measures that could bring a little more transparency to questionable calls.

-snip-

"We're all accustomed to the fact that if it's an NFL playoff game and there's a call that's in question, there will be a statement by the league from the referees, but FIFA operates differently," U.S. coach Bob Bradley said. "From our end, we get used to that. And we all have friends and family who ask us the same questions that most of you ask, and you end up saying that's just how it is sometimes, and then you move on and you get ready for the next game."




Rather than asking Americans why we don't understand your holy "football" and how it operates, try answering this question from a Yank sports fan: Why do YOU put up with this crap? Why don't you demand accountability and competence in the largest exhibition of "your" sport on the World stage?

Garcia-Aranda, head of refereeing for the sport's governing body, said Monday.

-snip-

"In some ce in the largest exhibition of "your" sport on the World stage?[/b]

you see my dear friend, the problem is , that you are so used to having decisions explained to you. Take American football for example, the officials confer and the referee explains to the entire stadium via his mouthpiece and the public address system why such and such a decision was reached, what is more, you have the option of challenging aforesaid decision by throwing a little yellow? towel on to the pitch. We who have been watching soccer for years have come to realise that there is a human element to the game, in the form of the referee. Look at it like the chance card you get in monopoly, sometimes its favourable, sometimes its not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you see my dear friend, the problem is , that you are so used to having decisions explained to you. Take American football for example, the officials confer and the referee explains to the entire stadium via his mouthpiece and the public address system why such and such a decision was reached, what is more, you have the option of challenging aforesa ...[text shortened]... ook at it like the chance card you get in monopoly, sometimes its favourable, sometimes its not.

This type of naivete breeds corruption and match-fixing.

I think it's great when a referees confer and explain their call to the crowd. I can't understand how this could be viewed as a negative whatsoever.

Originally posted by darvlay
This type of naivete breeds corruption and match-fixing.

i see, so according to your statement, a referees propensity for making mistakes (i call it the human element) is directly proportional to his usage by corrupt officials and gambling syndicates, how vewy intwesting!

Originally posted by darvlay
I think it's great when a referees confer and explain their call to the crowd. I can't understand how this could be viewed as a negative whatsoever.

i think it detracts from the game, is clinical and produces no scandal.

Originally posted by darvlay
This type of naivete breeds corruption and match-fixing.

Is an incorrect decision less wrong when it is explained to you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you see my dear friend, the problem is , that you are so used to having decisions explained to you. Take American football for example, the officials confer and the referee explains to the entire stadium via his mouthpiece and the public address system why such and such a decision was reached, what is more, you have the option of challenging aforesa ...[text shortened]... ook at it like the chance card you get in monopoly, sometimes its favourable, sometimes its not.

We explain our sporting decisions so we don't have to explain anything else we do.

T

Originally posted by hopscotch
Is an incorrect decision less wrong when it is explained to you?

Make your point, if you have one.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think it detracts from the game, is clinical and produces no scandal.

How does it detract from a game like football that is already slow and clinical?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i see, so according to your statement, a referees propensity for making mistakes (i call it the human element) is directly proportional to his usage by corrupt officials and gambling syndicates, how vewy intwesting!

No, I think the attitude that refs do not need to explain or admit their mistakes because it's simple human error makes corruption and match-fixing that much easier.

It's the same in basketball. Refs call so many fouls and so much of it is a grey area, corrupt referees could easily affect the score or outcome of a game.

Originally posted by darvlay
How does it detract from a game like football that is already slow and clinical?

it is like this, we could have laser beams and tracking systems, video cameras and software to produce decisions, but we like the human element, it adds something to the game. Yes the decisions are sometimes questionable, sometimes they are clearly wrong, sometimes players are able to play and fool the referee, but we realise that its part of the game. If we were to eradicate it through technology and make it utterly clinical, it would take way this human element and ironically detract from the game. i realise of course you may indeed argue to the contrary, but i was only trying to explain to the OP, why we accept it.

Originally posted by darvlay
No, I think the attitude that refs do not need to explain or admit their mistakes because it's simple human error makes corruption and match-fixing that much easier.

It's the same in basketball. Refs call so many fouls and so much of it is a grey area, corrupt referees could easily affect the score or outcome of a game.

yes isn't it wonderfully human 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is like this, we could have laser beams and tracking systems, video cameras and software to produce decisions, but we like the human element, it adds something to the game. Yes the decisions are sometimes questionable, sometimes they are clearly wrong, sometimes players are able to play and fool the referee, but we realise that its part of the ga ...[text shortened]... dicate it through technology and make it utterly clinical, it would take way this human element.

You espouse the same beliefs as Major League Baseball who have the same traditionalist attitude. But what you're describing is extreme. I know replay in football (US) is as extreme as it gets and I do understand that it can detract from the game. but surely there is a middle ground. A tweaking, as they say, that can be done to make the game less prone to error.

Originally posted by darvlay
Make your point, if you have one.

My (rather clear) point is that it makes no difference whether the referee explains it or not. The decision has been made, life goes on. You can't go back and change the scoreline.

Players are meant to respect the referee's decisions, good or bad, and opening them up for questioning is disrespectful.