Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6745|Noizyland

I say this becuse I get the strange feeling that FIFA officials remind me of my own mother. Psudo-technologically-able, certainly able to learn but completely unwilling to do so or accept technology just... because. Some unspoken principle that I've never fully understood. I mean, my generation was the one that grew up with the Terminator movies so what's got up their collective arses?

I ask why because it seems, increasingly, that referees are getting it wrong. I suppose I chose now to write this even though I've been planning to write it for a while, but the England goal-or-not-to-goal against Germany is a prime example of when technology could help. Another example is the hated practice of diving, the Italians doing so in two ways that world champion teams seem to do, (har har.) I used to blame referees but their job is bloody hard and the only help they get are from people who're standing even further away from the action than they are.

But it doesn't have to be hard. I'm not sure how many of you have heard of HawkEye, a system to near flawlesly, (I say near even though by my reckoning it is flawless,) determine whether a goal has been scored or if fouls have been committed.

But FIFA won't have a bar of it and they've given many reasons, none of which are satisfactory.

First of all it was this gem from Sepp Blatter regarding the aforementioned HawkEye system:
"Other errors in appreciation of distances, television cameras cannot do it because they are from different angles and that's why in football the goal-line technology, and the system of the HawkEye, is not accurate."
He said this, obviously, without actually looking into the system or it's capabilities. I won't go into them but suffice to say, the HawkEye system is not just a high-speed camera pointing at the goal line.

So poor HawkEye I guess. But there are other technologies, some that probably aren't as good as HawkEye but would certainly help the accuracy of decisions. Most sports have video umpires. But Sepp's not interested.
"The laws of the game are 124 years old and the referee's decision has always been final."
This is where I think he shows his most promising streak of old-man-ism and also completely kicks himself in the nads. The referees decision may be final on the playing field but referee decision making is scrutinised for years in the media, at the pub, by teams, coaches, announcers, officials, FIFA itself. Referee's decisions are hardly respected any more.

Furthermore the referee's decision would still BE final if technology were introduced. The HawkEye system, (I know I keep returning to this one,) does send a beep to the Ref's earpiece to tell him a goal's been scored but even then the Ref would have the final say. And really contested goals don't come around that often really, most of the time referees make correct decisions regarding when goals are scored at least. It just makes their job that little bit easier.

But FIFA are against technological improvements in a 124 year old game. Never mind that since the game began rules have changed as has technology regarding playing surface, the ball, the players, their uniforms not to mention tactics and training. The game is not played the same today as it was 124 years ago and the only bit of technology that has really remained unchanged is the referee's bloody whistle.

Goal scoring isn't even really the real problem in my opinion anyway, it's the shameless diving and crying to get penalties, in fact it seems to be the only way certain teams can even get goals any more. Time and time again refereees have been duped by people falling down in ways that would suggest they were allergic to the other team, ways that look so fake it couldn't possibly fool anyone. But refs are still duped and I don't blame them, there are a lot of things to consider, they looking away, the are distracted and the won't neccesarily see some guy blatantly fall over clutching his untouched ankle to try and get a penalty. Think how simple it would be to have a video ref point out deliberate dives. No fancy system needed really, the dives aren't exaclty subtle.

But FIFA won't even entertain that and while their reaons are numerous, (and they have included cost, practicality, tradition, accuracy of technology and somehow lessening a referee's power among others,) really there is no reason not to have such technology in play, especially for a competition that, in many people's view, outclasses the Olympics in terms of its importance.

The only explination I can see is just a complete dislike of technology and I don't see it as okay for this group of old men to let this personal opinion inflict on the masses enjoyment of the game.

I don't think much will change really. I mean Hell, in the NZ game against Italy Shane Smeltz's goal probably wouldn't have been allowed but nor would have Daniele De Rossi's shameful act of taking a dive, England still would have probably lost against Germany and Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell probably would still have found a way to get suspended, (not neccesarily on the field,) at least if I know Aussies the way I do... but this sour feeling after important matches shouldn't happen. Sure, a disappointment at a loss and eleation at a win, (or in NZ's case a "not loss",) but not the doubt that "oh this and that call was wrong and this guy fell down intentionally etc. etc. etc." or the regret that if not for a mistaken referee's unaided decision something great could have happened.

Because to me that has more chance of ruining football than the addition of any technology. Get with the fucking times FIFA.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6780|Nårvei

FIFAs point and why they recent video judging is based on that there should be equal rules for all fotball matches ... so if video is introduced in the world cup it should also be introduced in ALL other matches, and what local fotball team in 8th division has the money to install videocameras?

I don't agree however, they could easily use video or a goal-referee in world cups and similar and leave the national leagues to decide for themselves ... fotball is such big business that the least that can be expected is to know for sure if it is a goal or not ...

FIFA must discuss these issues sooner or later ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
KingCheese
Paul Scholes
+77|6555|England

Varegg wrote:

FIFA must discuss these issues sooner or later ...
They did, just before the World Cup.  Apparently, Blatter says no .  In a flat out, refusal, no chance kinda way.  And the man is a complete twat.  He will never listen to any arguments for technology.  I'm not a fan of the idea of replays, but I'm willing to listen to reasonable ideas.  He's just a pompous self important ballbag.

Last edited by KingCheese (2010-06-28 05:53:38)

"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6780|Nårvei

KingCheese wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FIFA must discuss these issues sooner or later ...
They did, just before the World Cup.  Apparently, Blatter says no .  In a flat out, refusal, no chance kinda way.  And the man is a complete twat.  He will never listen to any arguments for technology.  I'm not a fan of the idea of replays, but I'm willing to listen to reasonable ideas.  He's just a pompous self important ballbag.
Hence my first paragraph ... the latter was meant to shed light on the recent incidents in the world cup the last days as yet an example as to why they must adress it again ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Toilet Sex
one love, one pig
+1,775|6542

One of the papers (can't remember which) suggested having sand in the goal so in Lampard's case, the ball wouldn't have bounced back up out of the sand.

The sand would go everywhere though with players sometimes going in the goal lol
Metal-Eater-GR
I can haz titanium paancakez?
+490|6242
Half the fun of supporting a football team is bitching about the referee's decisions tbh. Gives fans an alibi.
my two cents. Although I see your point.
KingCheese
Paul Scholes
+77|6555|England
My only problems with replays (as I mentioned in the World Cup thread) are these :  (a) where do you draw the line as to what is deemed replay worthy, and (b) how do you restart the game after a replay if an infringement hasn't taken place.  If those two questions could be answered reasonably I'd be happy to see them.

Metal-Eater-GR wrote:

Half the fun of supporting a football team is bitching about the referee's decisions tbh.
This too.  I fucking love a good moan.

Last edited by KingCheese (2010-06-28 06:10:15)

"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
CammRobb
Banned
+1,510|6100|Carnoustie MASSIF
Where were these threads when France cheated their way into the World Cup?

Oh woe is Ingerland, they were cheated...oh noes.
Toilet Sex
one love, one pig
+1,775|6542

KingCheese wrote:

My only problems with replays (as I mentioned in the World Cup thread) are these :  (a) where do you draw the line as to what is deemed replay worthy, and (b) how do you restart the game after a replay if an infringement hasn't taken place.  If those two questions could be answered reasonably I'd be happy to see them.

Metal-Eater-GR wrote:

Half the fun of supporting a football team is bitching about the referee's decisions tbh.
This too.  I fucking love a good moan.
Yeah it's all good having replays but a team could just ask for one when it isn't necessary. Who knows, I doubt FIFA will ignore it any longer though
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6591|London, England
Their style of thinking is that if it can't be replicated in the Belgian third division (for various reasons) then it shouldn't be there for any game.

I can agree with that.


I think the best way forward is to have the extra referee on the touch lines at either end, like they did in the Europa/UEFA Cup. This should give more control over the game and since their job is to focus on the goals and shit that happens in the box.

The extra ref would have come in useful for the US against Slovenia, Italy against Slovakia and England.

The answer isn't technology but extra refs, and it also fits in with FIFA's philosophy of football being able to be played the same all over the world.


They want to make football world sport. Unlike NFL or Tennis or F1 or Ice Hockey or Cricket were it's played by rich people with high speed cameras and hawk eye and all that shit.

Americans are naturally bemused by this and I've heard alot of them call football a "third world sport" - well I'll take that tbh, these people always obsessed with money and image.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-06-28 06:41:44)

Toilet Sex
one love, one pig
+1,775|6542

Mek for FIFA president
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
Line ref dealing only with the goal line or six yard box would be good enough IMO.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6709|Toronto | Canada

Its the same way with plenty of sports, baseball is very similar in their views of technology in the game.
Kez
Member
+778|5673|London, UK
Too much money apparantly, which is hilariously considering the amount of money FIFA will be gaining from the World Cup this year.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6591|London, England
The "rules of football" are determined by the IFAB, which consists of eight voting members. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have one vote, with "the rest of the world" (ie the Fifa executive) holding the remaining four
The Football Association of Wales and the Irish Football Association - in addition to the Fifa executive - have been opposed to GLT.
Wales and Ireland have small undeveloped and much less wealthy league systems, in essence they represent the footballing lesser world. No surprise then that they don't like it.

Also a side note. This is the reason we don't have one UK team. Because then Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland would lose their voting power lol. Everyone wants power just for the sake of having power.
liquidat0r
wtf.
+2,223|6597|UK

Mekstizzle wrote:

Their style of thinking is that if it can't be replicated in the Belgian third division (for various reasons) then it shouldn't be there for any game.
I don't really understand these arguments.

There are loads of sports that use more technology the higher the level of competition.
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

liquidat0r wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Their style of thinking is that if it can't be replicated in the Belgian third division (for various reasons) then it shouldn't be there for any game.
I don't really understand these arguments.

There are loads of sports that use more technology the higher the level of competition.
Which of these could you reasonably compare to football in terms of scope and league structure?
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6745|Moscow, Russia
https://i50.tinypic.com/28m1ax1.jpg
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5207|Cleveland, Ohio
why does getting it right have to be compared to league structure?
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

11 Bravo wrote:

why does getting it right have to be compared to league structure?
Because one of the appeals of football is that due to the league structure, the rules of football must be the same on all levels. Differentiation might work in franchise sports, and it might seem like a good idea to people who are used to unpopular franchise leagues like the MLS that don't mind changing the rules to fit their systems, but it just doesn't fit into how the sport operates. When you sign up with your friends to play in the lowest national division, then you're supposed to be able play under precisely the same rules and conditions as the best players in the world, because you could end up playing against them. It makes football accessible and transparent to everyone, and that is pretty widely considered to contribute greatly to the success of the sport.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5229|foggy bottom
mikkel why do you feel the need to constantly defend the sport that the whole world is supposed to love?
Tu Stultus Es
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

eleven bravo wrote:

mikkel why do you feel the need to constantly defend the sport that the whole world is supposed to love?
I don't. What's your point?
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5207|Cleveland, Ohio

mikkel wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

why does getting it right have to be compared to league structure?
Because one of the appeals of football is that due to the league structure, the rules of football must be the same on all levels. Differentiation might work in franchise sports, and it might seem like a good idea to people who are used to unpopular franchise leagues like the MLS that don't mind changing the rules to fit their systems, but it just doesn't fit into how the sport operates. When you sign up with your friends to play in the lowest national division, then you're supposed to be able play under precisely the same rules and conditions as the best players in the world, because you could end up playing against them. It makes football accessible and transparent to everyone, and that is pretty widely considered to contribute greatly to the success of the sport.
thats fine but you cant give everyone a trophy in this world.  if you cant afford a couple cameras then you shouldnt be allowed in the league to begin with.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5207|Cleveland, Ohio
or you could have it where the leauges that can afford it can use it, and fifa will pay for the big games like uefa and the world cup.  it doesnt change the rules of the game at all.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard