Soccer - Time to bring in new technology???? (24)
leostartingover: Well here we are in the thick of the 2010 Soccer World Cup, and as usual, there have been a number of incidents where the match referee made a poor decision causing lots of controversy....What do you think about it?
Technology is neither a solution nor is it necessary. The problem is the number of eyeballs.
Hockey (the real game, played on ice) has four on-ice officials for twelve players, and two goal judges behind the net.
Basketball has two referees for ten players.
Football (the North American game) has six officials for 22 players in the US and seven for 24 players in Canada.
Baseball has four umpires (six during the playoffs) for four bases and never more than thirteen players on the field at once.
Tennis has at least three on-court officials for two or four players, sometimes more.
...And yet football (the world game) has only one referee for 22 players, and two linesmen who do nothing but call offsides. And then people wonder why the officiating sometimes sucks or they miss calls. (I'm surprised rugby officiating isn't worse with one referee for thirty players.)
Football either needs goal judges, or it needs to give the linesmen more authority (although the referee retains the final decision). And having two referees as hockey does, one for each half, means a referee is always close to the action without having to run as far.
.
------ This thread is Archived ------
leostartingover: Well here we are in the thick of the 2010 Soccer World Cup, and as usual, there have been a number of incidents where the match referee made a poor decision causing lots of controversy. The USA match where they weren't given the third goal comes to mind, as do the two latest foul ups.... England - Frank Lampard's disallowed goal and last night Argentina's offsides goal against Mexico.
Why oh WHY are these guys being so pedantic about not using new technology to replay footage and ensure that it is all fair and square? If not, at the very least can't they put one or two linesmen behind the goals to ensure the correct decision is made? It amazes me that Seth Blatter was actually sitting in both the England and Mexico matches so can't he see that these bad decisions = upset players and even more upset fans?
What do you think about it?
Why oh WHY are these guys being so pedantic about not using new technology to replay footage and ensure that it is all fair and square? If not, at the very least can't they put one or two linesmen behind the goals to ensure the correct decision is made? It amazes me that Seth Blatter was actually sitting in both the England and Mexico matches so can't he see that these bad decisions = upset players and even more upset fans?
What do you think about it?
I think the rest of the teams should go home and call this season quits, that should send a message to those idiot at FIFA
------ This thread is Archived ------
leostartingover: Well here we are in the thick of the 2010 Soccer World Cup, and as usual, there have been a number of incidents where the match referee made a poor decision causing lots of controversy. The USA match where they weren't given the third goal comes to mind, as do the two latest foul ups.... England - Frank Lampard's disallowed goal and last night Argentina's offsides goal against Mexico.
Why oh WHY are these guys being so pedantic about not using new technology to replay footage and ensure that it is all fair and square? If not, at the very least can't they put one or two linesmen behind the goals to ensure the correct decision is made? It amazes me that Seth Blatter was actually sitting in both the England and Mexico matches so can't he see that these bad decisions = upset players and even more upset fans?
What do you think about it?
Why oh WHY are these guys being so pedantic about not using new technology to replay footage and ensure that it is all fair and square? If not, at the very least can't they put one or two linesmen behind the goals to ensure the correct decision is made? It amazes me that Seth Blatter was actually sitting in both the England and Mexico matches so can't he see that these bad decisions = upset players and even more upset fans?
What do you think about it?
This has been discussed at length here, the general opinion is, that it will slow down the game and will take the fun out of football. Did you know that during the Mexico match they showed the offside position on a big screen, but according to FIFA rules the refs were not allowed to decide on the screen pictures......just not on. Some of the refs should nothave been sent to South Africa. The second English goal was seen as in by everybody incl. Blatter at the time, one can only shake one's head!!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
K_rational: Technology is neither a solution nor is it necessary. The problem is the number of eyeballs.
Hockey (the real game, played on ice) has four on-ice officials for twelve players, and two goal judges behind the net.
Basketball has two referees for ten players.
Football (the North American game) has six officials for 22 players in the US and seven for 24 players in Canada.
Baseball has four umpires (six during the playoffs) for four bases and never more than thirteen players on the field at once.
Tennis has at least three on-court officials for two or four players, sometimes more.
...And yet football (the world game) has only one referee for 22 players, and two linesmen who do nothing but call offsides. And then people wonder why the officiating sometimes sucks or they miss calls. (I'm surprised rugby officiating isn't worse with one referee for thirty players.)
Football either needs goal judges, or it needs to give the linesmen more authority (although the referee retains the final decision). And having two referees as hockey does, one for each half, means a referee is always close to the action without having to run as far.
.
Hockey (the real game, played on ice) has four on-ice officials for twelve players, and two goal judges behind the net.
Basketball has two referees for ten players.
Football (the North American game) has six officials for 22 players in the US and seven for 24 players in Canada.
Baseball has four umpires (six during the playoffs) for four bases and never more than thirteen players on the field at once.
Tennis has at least three on-court officials for two or four players, sometimes more.
...And yet football (the world game) has only one referee for 22 players, and two linesmen who do nothing but call offsides. And then people wonder why the officiating sometimes sucks or they miss calls. (I'm surprised rugby officiating isn't worse with one referee for thirty players.)
Football either needs goal judges, or it needs to give the linesmen more authority (although the referee retains the final decision). And having two referees as hockey does, one for each half, means a referee is always close to the action without having to run as far.
.
Thanks for the info! You some good points!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
K_rational: Technology is neither a solution nor is it necessary. The problem is the number of eyeballs.
Hockey (the real game, played on ice) has four on-ice officials for twelve players, and two goal judges behind the net.
Basketball has two referees for ten players.
Football (the North American game) has six officials for 22 players in the US and seven for 24 players in Canada.
Baseball has four umpires (six during the playoffs) for four bases and never more than thirteen players on the field at once.
Tennis has at least three on-court officials for two or four players, sometimes more.
...And yet football (the world game) has only one referee for 22 players, and two linesmen who do nothing but call offsides. And then people wonder why the officiating sometimes sucks or they miss calls. (I'm surprised rugby officiating isn't worse with one referee for thirty players.)
Football either needs goal judges, or it needs to give the linesmen more authority (although the referee retains the final decision). And having two referees as hockey does, one for each half, means a referee is always close to the action without having to run as far.
.
Hockey (the real game, played on ice) has four on-ice officials for twelve players, and two goal judges behind the net.
Basketball has two referees for ten players.
Football (the North American game) has six officials for 22 players in the US and seven for 24 players in Canada.
Baseball has four umpires (six during the playoffs) for four bases and never more than thirteen players on the field at once.
Tennis has at least three on-court officials for two or four players, sometimes more.
...And yet football (the world game) has only one referee for 22 players, and two linesmen who do nothing but call offsides. And then people wonder why the officiating sometimes sucks or they miss calls. (I'm surprised rugby officiating isn't worse with one referee for thirty players.)
Football either needs goal judges, or it needs to give the linesmen more authority (although the referee retains the final decision). And having two referees as hockey does, one for each half, means a referee is always close to the action without having to run as far.
.
I beg to differ on a few points T old son. Soccer linesman also flag for fouls. Rugby linesman the same and for foul play, they can also 'suggest' to the ref if a player should be yellow carded or red carded for foul play or incidents.
Tennis has Hawkeye (technology) that determine if the ball is in or out.
Cricket has technology for run outs, stumpings, LBW and catches.
Rugby has technology as explained already in my earlier post.
Ice Hockey has instant replay too.
Football MUST join the rest of the sports and use it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: I beg to differ on a few points T old son. Soccer linesman also flag for fouls. Rugby linesman the same and for foul play, they can also 'suggest' to the ref if a player should be yellow carded or red carded for foul play or incidents.
Tennis has Hawkeye (technology) that determine if the ball is in or out.
Cricket has technology for run outs, stumpings, LBW and catches.
Rugby has technology as explained already in my earlier post.
Ice Hockey has instant replay too.
Football MUST join the rest of the sports and use it.
Tennis has Hawkeye (technology) that determine if the ball is in or out.
Cricket has technology for run outs, stumpings, LBW and catches.
Rugby has technology as explained already in my earlier post.
Ice Hockey has instant replay too.
Football MUST join the rest of the sports and use it.
I agree with you Steve!
------ This thread is Archived ------
I cant see any reason why the fourth official, whose job is still a mystery to me, cant be watching a monitor to assist the referee when needed. For instance, when Thierry Henry handled the ball in the now infamous world cup qualifier, had the fourth official been monitoring the play and was in contact with the referee, the goal would not have stood...simple. Also the fourth official could be a referee who has retired due to age but still has all the experience needed to officiate.
I believe this would clear up many of the contentious decisions without the need, in most cases, to slow the game down at all.
The technology for this is already in place and being used, it seems like a no brainer to me.
I believe this would clear up many of the contentious decisions without the need, in most cases, to slow the game down at all.
The technology for this is already in place and being used, it seems like a no brainer to me.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bodleing:
The technology for this is already in place and being used, it seems like a no brainer to me.
The technology for this is already in place and being used, it seems like a no brainer to me.
But you ain't a 74 year old geriatric stuck in the days of where footballs that are still laced up.
To be a 'no brainer' one needs a brain and an open mind. Blatter is lacking in both areas.
They are meeting in July, in Wales. Should be fun!
------ This thread is Archived ------
bodleing: I cant see any reason why the fourth official, whose job is still a mystery to me, cant be watching a monitor to assist the referee when needed. For instance, when Thierry Henry handled the ball in the now infamous world cup qualifier, had the fourth official been monitoring the play and was in contact with the referee, the goal would not have stood...simple. Also the fourth official could be a referee who has retired due to age but still has all the experience needed to officiate.
I believe this would clear up many of the contentious decisions without the need, in most cases, to slow the game down at all.
The technology for this is already in place and being used, it seems like a no brainer to me.
I believe this would clear up many of the contentious decisions without the need, in most cases, to slow the game down at all.
The technology for this is already in place and being used, it seems like a no brainer to me.
Me too!
I'm glad to hear they are re-considering their stance.------ This thread is Archived ------
bodleing: I cant see any reason why the fourth official, whose job is still a mystery to me,
His main role is as a reserve official. If the ref has to go off with an injury, which does happen, the senior linesman takes over and the 4th official becomes a linesman. he also monitors the technical areas that managers must remain inside and also as a time keeper plus substitution checker of studs, jewellery etc.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: His main role is as a reserve official. If the ref has to go off with an injury, which does happen, the senior linesman takes over and the 4th official becomes a linesman. he also monitors the technical areas that managers must remain inside and also as a time keeper plus substitution checker of studs, jewellery etc.
Thanks for that Steve, maybe they could stretch to a fifth official then, if the game was sufficiently important.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In our college soccer they use to have two referee both with whistles on the field. It was no major change to having one referee and two lines men. They still missed offside calls and fouls.))
But that said.....the common thinking is that if you add technology....video review of the play....to the game. It will change the flow of the game. I think that is largely accurate if
video is used for play between the two penalty boxes. Using it in the penalty box on goals or on the request of a team.....maybe not. The flow of play has stopped...ball is in the goal or off the field. So a restart is needed.
I can support in the box video replay. But breaking the flow of play in between the 18s..... I would be against. Look at the call back goals that are in question on this WC. They were plays inside the 18 and they all had restarts.jmo
But that said.....the common thinking is that if you add technology....video review of the play....to the game. It will change the flow of the game. I think that is largely accurate if
video is used for play between the two penalty boxes. Using it in the penalty box on goals or on the request of a team.....maybe not. The flow of play has stopped...ball is in the goal or off the field. So a restart is needed.
I can support in the box video replay. But breaking the flow of play in between the 18s..... I would be against. Look at the call back goals that are in question on this WC. They were plays inside the 18 and they all had restarts.jmo
------ This thread is Archived ------
bodleing: Thanks for that Steve, maybe they could stretch to a fifth official then, if the game was sufficiently important.
They don't need it Bod...rugby has a '4th' official..the video ref. Football could use their existing '4th' official to look at a TV monitor. it would be a total waste of time and money to employ someone who MIGHT not be used throughout the game.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ttom500: In our college soccer they use to have two referee both with whistles on the field. It was no major change to having one referee and two lines men. They still missed offside calls and fouls.))
But that said.....the common thinking is that if you add technology....video review of the play....to the game. It will change the flow of the game. I think that is largely accurate if
video is used for play between the two penalty boxes. Using it in the penalty box on goals or on the request of a team.....maybe not. The flow of play has stopped...ball is in the goal or off the field. So a restart is needed.
I can support in the box video replay. But breaking the flow of play in between the 18s..... I would be against. Look at the call back goals that are in question on this WC. They were plays inside the 18 and they all had restarts.jmo
But that said.....the common thinking is that if you add technology....video review of the play....to the game. It will change the flow of the game. I think that is largely accurate if
video is used for play between the two penalty boxes. Using it in the penalty box on goals or on the request of a team.....maybe not. The flow of play has stopped...ball is in the goal or off the field. So a restart is needed.
I can support in the box video replay. But breaking the flow of play in between the 18s..... I would be against. Look at the call back goals that are in question on this WC. They were plays inside the 18 and they all had restarts.jmo
I too am against any uneccessary stoppages in play and that's why i said, a review (replay) is ONLY used to determine if the ball crossed the line, when it is in doubt or to check if there was any offside - Tevez against Mexico. However, there will be a stoppage in play in the case of the England 'goal'...but if the 4th official's job was to watch the monitor, he would have seen in an instant it was a goal and being 'miked' to the referee, he could have told him.
It will be a contentious argument and FIFA did not like being ridiculed yesterday in a press conference.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: I too am against any uneccessary stoppages in play and that's why i said, a review (replay) is ONLY used to determine if the ball crossed the line, when it is in doubt or to check if there was any offside - Tevez against Mexico. However, there will be a stoppage in play in the case of the England 'goal'...but if the 4th official's job was to watch the monitor, he would have seen in an instant it was a goal and being 'miked' to the referee, he could have told him.
It will be a contentious argument and FIFA did not like being ridiculed yesterday in a press conference.
It will be a contentious argument and FIFA did not like being ridiculed yesterday in a press conference.
I agree. No need to be a long decision!------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: I too am against any uneccessary stoppages in play and that's why i said, a review (replay) is ONLY used to determine if the ball crossed the line, when it is in doubt or to check if there was any offside - Tevez against Mexico. However, there will be a stoppage in play in the case of the England 'goal'...but if the 4th official's job was to watch the monitor, he would have seen in an instant it was a goal and being 'miked' to the referee, he could have told him.
It will be a contentious argument and FIFA did not like being ridiculed yesterday in a press conference.
It will be a contentious argument and FIFA did not like being ridiculed yesterday in a press conference.
A little riduculing of FIFA is good for their egos. Occassionaly, the managers of the world's greatest game need to rethink and to
reevaluate. Having fairly played and fairly judged matches has to be a prime objective of FIFA.
With the recent Europe professional REFs scandle. These bad calls in
international play only add fuel to the fire that elements of FIFA are corrupt. They can answer that with video replay in the 18.
Not only that....we would get an idea of how many bad penalty kicks they call....when the player takes a dive.....Maradonna made a career of them
I am like you. Breaking the flow of play, is not the way to go.
With replay in American football, that is exactly what you have.
------ This thread is Archived ------
time to change referees too
------ This thread is Archived ------
leostartingover: Well here we are in the thick of the 2010 Soccer World Cup, and as usual, there have been a number of incidents where the match referee made a poor decision causing lots of controversy. The USA match where they weren't given the third goal comes to mind, as do the two latest foul ups.... England - Frank Lampard's disallowed goal and last night Argentina's offsides goal against Mexico.
Why oh WHY are these guys being so pedantic about not using new technology to replay footage and ensure that it is all fair and square? If not, at the very least can't they put one or two linesmen behind the goals to ensure the correct decision is made? It amazes me that Seth Blatter was actually sitting in both the England and Mexico matches so can't he see that these bad decisions = upset players and even more upset fans?
What do you think about it?
Why oh WHY are these guys being so pedantic about not using new technology to replay footage and ensure that it is all fair and square? If not, at the very least can't they put one or two linesmen behind the goals to ensure the correct decision is made? It amazes me that Seth Blatter was actually sitting in both the England and Mexico matches so can't he see that these bad decisions = upset players and even more upset fans?
What do you think about it?
I personally don't like the fact that when Ireland called for technology after the Herny handball that denied us a chance to go to the world cup, Blatter shrugged it off and said "that's football"!!!!! But when a big country like England or Mexico has a blatent mistake against them he apologizes and says he will consider it???????????? Talk about double standards!!!!!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
Democrats destroyed America
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
biggest lie
See It All The Time
who shaped your life?
Unions support Democrats!
beauty of the heart
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
960 Views
23 Comments
in Sports
Created: Jun 2010
Last Viewed: Apr 24
Last Commented: Jun 2010
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- Democrats destroyed America
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- biggest lie
- See It All The Time
- who shaped your life?
- Unions support Democrats!
- beauty of the heart
- What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Why oh WHY are these guys being so pedantic about not using new technology to replay footage and ensure that it is all fair and square? If not, at the very least can't they put one or two linesmen behind the goals to ensure the correct decision is made? It amazes me that Seth Blatter was actually sitting in both the England and Mexico matches so can't he see that these bad decisions = upset players and even more upset fans?
What do you think about it?