Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Nov '09 22:00
    Look, I understand there are bad calls. But, there are bad calls and there are BAD CALLS.

    Are you telling me that 4 officials missed the guy basically playing volleyball around the net in the last minutes of the game when 2 guys were obviously offsides as well??

    Please.

    What a joke!
  2. 19 Nov '09 22:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    Look, I understand there are bad calls. But, there are bad calls and there are BAD CALLS.

    Are you telling me that 4 officials missed the guy basically playing volleyball around the net in the last minutes of the game when 2 guys were obviously offsides as well??

    Please.

    What a joke!
    yes there is a very feeble argument for these types of discrepancies, which are tantamount to injustice, in that it shall result in loss of fluidity to the game! it is of course nonsense, for a panel of video judges could easily render an opinion within minutes if not seconds, of a controversial moment, are better poised to make a decision of such grave importance and have all the technology at their disposal. It also may be argued, that in football 'soccer to you', the refereeing decisions are an integral part and would detract from the game, if power was handed elsewhere, even this is nonsense, for in Rugby Union, the referee has recourse to the video panel, only when he cannot come to a positive conclusion himself. They have it in American football, Rugby Union, cricket, why not football? Only cheats benefit in its absence.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Nov '09 02:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes there is a very feeble argument for these types of discrepancies, which are tantamount to injustice, in that it shall result in loss of fluidity to the game! it is of course nonsense, for a panel of video judges could easily render an opinion within minutes if not seconds, of a controversial moment, are better poised to make a decision of such g ...[text shortened]... merican football, Rugby Union, cricket, why not football? Only cheats benefit in its absence.
    Instant replay is especially critical in soccer/football since each goal is SO huge. If ANY sport needs replay, it's that one.
  4. 20 Nov '09 03:08
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes there is a very feeble argument for these types of discrepancies, which are tantamount to injustice, in that it shall result in loss of fluidity to the game! it is of course nonsense, for a panel of video judges could easily render an opinion within minutes if not seconds, of a controversial moment, are better poised to make a decision of such g ...[text shortened]... merican football, Rugby Union, cricket, why not football? Only cheats benefit in its absence.
    That's why soccer is less and less attractive as a sport. These calls are almost criminal and should be investigated. There is no way the officials did not see what transpired! Ireland was robbed!
  5. 20 Nov '09 09:59
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    That's why soccer is less and less attractive as a sport. These calls are almost criminal and should be investigated. There is no way the officials did not see what transpired! Ireland was robbed!
    Football less attractrive as a sport ? Its the most popular sport in the world !!
    Its what the game is all about . People talk about 1966 , did it cross the line ? Maradonna with his cheating hand ! Now its the hand of frog from T Henry.
    All good stuff , people will be debating in the pubs for years .
    It will be a sad day for football if they introduce camera's and video play backs .
    As for cheats like Maradonna and Henry , well they have got to live with that for the rest of their lives , i wouldn't fancy that !!
  6. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    20 Nov '09 10:13
    Originally posted by phil3000
    Football less attractrive as a sport ? Its the most popular sport in the world !!
    Its what the game is all about . People talk about 1966 , did it cross the line ? Maradonna with his cheating hand ! Now its the hand of frog from T Henry.
    All good stuff , people will be debating in the pubs for years .
    It will be a sad day for football if they int ...[text shortened]... , well they have got to live with that for the rest of their lives , i wouldn't fancy that !!
    Hard to take anything you say seriously.

    I can't believe you watch football solely for the refereeing aberations!

    The ridiculous wages we're paying the players, the corruption at the top of the game, and the ineptitude of the officials has seriously affected my love of the game.

    D
  7. 20 Nov '09 10:25
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Hard to take anything you say seriously.

    I can't believe you watch football solely for the refereeing aberations!

    The ridiculous wages we're paying the players, the corruption at the top of the game, and the ineptitude of the officials has seriously affected my love of the game.

    D
    I think you misunderstood , i dont watch football for refereeing decisions .
    I think it is a part of the game though ,it has been for a years .
    Have to agree with you about players wages its got stupid ,thats why there are so many cheats now in football .
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Nov '09 11:04
    Originally posted by sh76
    Look, I understand there are bad calls. But, there are bad calls and there are BAD CALLS.

    Are you telling me that 4 officials missed the guy basically playing volleyball around the net in the last minutes of the game when 2 guys were obviously offsides as well??

    Please.

    What a joke!
    Well, 2 officials missed it.

    The fourth official is not there to assist the ref about in-game plays and the other linesman (assistant referee) is on the other half of the pitch. Moreover, the linesman that was on the right half of the pitch, was on the opposite side of where the play happened and the ref also had many players between him and Henry.

    I think the offside was probably the less excusable of the missed calls. Still, I think that if they were out to rob Ireland, they would have called the penalty on Anelka a few minutes earlier. I think it was a penalty, others disagree, but certainly it was the perfect moment to benefit France if that's what he was out to do. Maybe that missed call made him give the benefit of the doubt to the French and, in doubt, didn't call the handball.

    It's sad that it ended like that, especially because Ireland was the best team on the pitch, but I don't think it was a conspiracy.
  9. 20 Nov '09 11:22
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Well, 2 officials missed it.
    It works in rugby and cricket so there's no reason it wouldn't work in football, where, incidents like these are far more likely to decide the outcome of a match.

    .. but if all 3 officials miss it then who refers it to the 4th/5th? The players can't ask for a video replay in rugby, is there something in Cricket where they can?
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Nov '09 11:26
    Originally posted by Angry Boy
    It works in rugby and cricket so there's no reason it wouldn't work in football, where, incidents like these are far more likely to decide the outcome of a match.

    .. but if all 3 officials miss it then who refers it to the 4th/5th? The players can't ask for a video replay in rugby, is there something in Cricket where they can?
    I don't know anything about rugby or cricket, sorry. I think getting one challenge per team per game where the fourth official checks the video could be a possibility.

    I think FIFA wants to keep the rules the same for every game in every level, so this would be a big difference between lower and upper tiers (where this is financially viable). Personally, I think that's a lame excuse.
  11. 20 Nov '09 11:32
    Originally posted by Palynka


    I think FIFA wants to keep the rules the same for every game in every level, so this would be a big difference between lower and upper tiers (where this is financially viable). Personally, I think that's a lame excuse.
    Agree entirely
  12. 20 Nov '09 11:40 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Angry Boy
    It works in rugby and cricket so there's no reason it wouldn't work in football, where, incidents like these are far more likely to decide the outcome of a match.

    .. but if all 3 officials miss it then who refers it to the 4th/5th? The players can't ask for a video replay in rugby, is there something in Cricket where they can?
    There has been something trialled. But in my opinion it's been a complete mess. I'd prefer to use technology where it doesn't intrude excessively*, but to have everything under the control of the referee. The referee/umpire should decide when to refer, and on what grounds. It seems to work reasonably well in rugby (although even then there are things missed - there reaches a point where you really do have to just accept it).

    * I do think, though, that some of the worries about slowing down the game are valid. Football is a more fluid game than rugby and cricket (and most other sports) - and (in my opinion, again) it's one of the characteristics that make the sport so popular. But as long as it's not overdone there should be a way of making it work.
  13. 20 Nov '09 11:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by mtthw
    There has been something trialled. But in my opinion it's been a complete mess. I'd prefer to use technology where it doesn't intrude excessively*, but to have everything under the control of the referee. The referee/umpire should decide when to refer, and on what grounds. It seems to work reasonably well in rugby (although even then there are things misse ...[text shortened]... - and (in my opinion, again) it's one of the characteristics that make the sport so popular.
    sometimes when a player is injured it takes several minutes to remove him from the field of play. on what are your suspicions that the game would loose fluidity founded?
  14. 20 Nov '09 11:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    sometimes when a player is injured it takes several minutes to remove him from the field of play. on what are your suspicions that the game would loose fluidity founded?
    Just a personal opinion. Injured players also interrupt the flow, but there's little you can do about that. FIFA have tried in the past (so they recognise the issue) - without much success. For example, the rule they had where an injured player had to leave the pitch was supposedly intended to do this, bizarre though the logic seems.

    Getting the balance right depends on two things:

    - how long it takes for a decision to be made (a few seconds is acceptable, a few minutes isn't)
    - how often you use it (you'd probably want to limit it to goal-scoring opportunities)
  15. 20 Nov '09 12:10
    Originally posted by mtthw
    Just a personal opinion. Injured players also interrupt the flow, but there's little you can do about that. FIFA have tried in the past (so they recognise the issue) - without much success. For example, the rule they had where an injured player had to leave the pitch was supposedly intended to do this, bizarre though the logic seems.

    Getting the balance ...[text shortened]... sn't)
    - how often you use it (you'd probably want to limit it to goal-scoring opportunities)
    yes, this is sound. in the cricket games that i have watched, the decisions by the third umpires for run outs etc are called fairly quickly, in Rugby union, for disputed tries, they are called even quicker. one of course must weigh, as you say, the two in the balance, fairness and the decision making process with fluidity and enjoyment of the game. it seems now however, that its integrity is really being called into question. deliberate diving, hand balls, false penalty claims, off the ball incidents etc etc. i really should be arguing that these make it more entertaining, but i dunno, injustice is injustice and who can stomach it?