Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
Archived Boards => 2010 World Cup - South Africa => Topic started by: davyjenny1 on June 10, 2010, 04:02:06 PM
-
Once again we are all face with referees decisions that will not sit well with fans but favors the opposing team in-addition, to the likes and dislikes of development and advancement for the modern game which is currently on the rise not forgetting changes and experiments during the tournament. Let's all see how successful or unsuccessful things will be in the end.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Just like i said that red card on SA goalkeeper is questionable however, more calls like that to come during the wc.
A major one soon to come
-
Just like i said that red card on SA goalkeeper is questionable more to come during the wc.
SA would have lost that game even if a yellow card was given as it was definitely a penalty call!
Red card may have been OTT but a yellow instead would not have changed the result!
-
Just like i said that red card on SA goalkeeper is questionable however, more calls like that to come during the wc.
A major one soon to come
I believe the letter of the law was applied by the referee.
He blew for a penalty
As the goalie was literally the last man, and the attacker had a "clear path to goal", what else could the ref have done but award a penalty?
Had the ref awarded the penalty and given the goalie a yellow card, it would have people bawlin favouritism because SA is the home team.
Cyah win either way.
I feel once he blew for the penalty, and to me it was a penalty even though the Uruguayan embellish it, de keeper had to go.
Harsh, but I think daz de law.
-
If it was a penalty, then it would have to be a red by the strictest interpretation of the rule. The keeper prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity with a foul. In the 4 years between cups, refs in the leagues tend to be a lot more lenient with the cards, but a lot more likely to give a foul for the slightest touch and dive.
There is also the factor of refs being from different footballing cultures than the teams and thus there is a clash there while everybody figure out the styles.
I haven't seen any truly egregious calls made thus far.
-
If it was a penalty, then it would have to be a red by the strictest interpretation of the rule. The keeper prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity with a foul. In the 4 years between cups, refs in the leagues tend to be a lot more lenient with the cards, but a lot more likely to give a foul for the slightest touch and dive.
There is also the factor of refs being from different footballing cultures than the teams and thus there is a clash there while everybody figure out the styles.
I haven't seen any truly egregious calls made thus far.
tim cahill
-
You want to see a controversial call?
Check out the slight touch at 3:48
http://www.youtube.com/v/mPiChx0FkkU
-
tim cahill
Dem was getting licks already, that eh alter the course of the game ::)
Yeah, yuh right. That was a crap call
-
If it was a penalty, then it would have to be a red by the strictest interpretation of the rule. The keeper prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity with a foul. In the 4 years between cups, refs in the leagues tend to be a lot more lenient with the cards, but a lot more likely to give a foul for the slightest touch and dive.
There is also the factor of refs being from different footballing cultures than the teams and thus there is a clash there while everybody figure out the styles.
I haven't seen any truly egregious calls made thus far.
It is not the strictest interpretation of the rule, it is the law of the game. The player was fouled denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, therefore, the ref had no choice. If he didn't he would be graded down and he might have been done for the tournament as a ref.
-
Ref had no choice...hard luck....real undeserved.
-
Just like i said that red card on SA goalkeeper is questionable more to come during the wc.
SA would have lost that game even if a yellow card was given as it was definitely a penalty call!Red card may have been OTT but a yellow instead would not have changed the result!
I dunno about that "definitely" a penalty talk... there was contact, which the defender sought out, he dragged his trailing leg in a way so as to ensure the contact... then went down twisting like they shot him in the chest.
By the letter of the ruling... perhaps a soft penalty, common sense officiating would played on or given a corner to Uruguay. Whether SA would have still lost or not is besides the point... they've lost their starting keeper for the third game, and had to play a man down. Being less than full-strenght made it difficult for them to pull a goal back... goal differential may yet loom large at the end of the group stage.
-
If it was a penalty, then it would have to be a red by the strictest interpretation of the rule. The keeper prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity with a foul. In the 4 years between cups, refs in the leagues tend to be a lot more lenient with the cards, but a lot more likely to give a foul for the slightest touch and dive.
There is also the factor of refs being from different footballing cultures than the teams and thus there is a clash there while everybody figure out the styles.
I haven't seen any truly egregious calls made thus far.
In hindsight was it a clear goal scoring opportunity as the ball was moving away from the goal? Had play been allowed to continue for a couple more secs a defender was close enough to show that there wasn't a clear path but Forlan sold it well and the referee bought it. Tough call to make in a split second.
-
Once again we are all face with referees decisions that will not sit well with fans but favors the opposing team in-addition, to the likes and dislikes of development and advancement for the modern game which is currently on the rise not forgetting changes and experiments during the tournament. Let's all see how successful or unsuccessful things will be in the end.
Just my 2 cents.
Just like i said that red card on SA goalkeeper is questionable more to come during the wc.
SA would have lost that game even if a yellow card was given as it was definitely a penalty call!Red card may have been OTT but a yellow instead would not have changed the result!
I dunno about that "definitely" a penalty talk... there was contact, which the defender sought out, he dragged his trailing leg in a way so as to ensure the contact... then went down twisting like they shot him in the chest.
By the letter of the ruling... perhaps a soft penalty, common sense officiating would played on or given a corner to Uruguay. Whether SA would have still lost or not is besides the point... they've lost their starting keeper for the third game, and had to play a man down. Being less than full-strenght made it difficult for them to pull a goal back... goal differential may yet loom large at the end of the group stage.
If it was a penalty, then it would have to be a red by the strictest interpretation of the rule. The keeper prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity with a foul. In the 4 years between cups, refs in the leagues tend to be a lot more lenient with the cards, but a lot more likely to give a foul for the slightest touch and dive.
There is also the factor of refs being from different footballing cultures than the teams and thus there is a clash there while everybody figure out the styles.
I haven't seen any truly egregious calls made thus far.
In hindsight was it a clear goal scoring opportunity as the ball was moving away from the goal? Had play been allowed to continue for a couple more secs a defender was close enough to show that there wasn't a clear path but Forlan sold it well and the referee bought it. Tough call to make in a split second.
To me the real issue here isn't, The Letter of the Law nor The Spirit of the Law but rather The Grey Area of Refuge wherein referees love to hide bka " The Referee's Discression. " To avoid suspicion of Bias,some referees would rather feign ineptness to avoid being stigmatized with the label of 'Racist'. Case in point; The collision involving the keeper and the attacking forward in the Spain - Switzerland game which caused the goal to score.The keeper clearly and wrecklessly tackled the swiss player causing him to flip three times and roll to a stop before the Cape Verdean #10 poked it in to score.
Now the referee allowed the advantage rule to develop into a goal and completely ignored giving the keeper a RED card for the vicious foul.We have learned that some refferees refuse to be or cannot be objective in their discressionary duties.Some of them are F**king racists and nothing is being done about them.Sometimes we have to look beyond the Pablum Puking Rules behind which Referees Hide.
-
i thought casillas had gotten ball in that tackle..i go hadda watch again..was a big collision but as i saw it he tackled the player and ball bounced off the swiss player...
-
i thought casillas had gotten ball in that tackle..i go hadda watch again..was a big collision but as i saw it he tackled the player and ball bounced off the swiss player...
Ah jess geh ah chance to review the replay & this is what it revealed.
Punted downfield,#19 Eren Derdiyok backheaded the ball to # 16 Gelson Fernandes and joined in the attack who in
turn get the ball back from Fernandes.Derdiyok took the ball into the box and was immediately met by the cat-
spraddled keeper Casillas.Derdiyok quickly pulled the ball to his left which hit #3 Gerard Pique,jumping
simultaneously to avoid the crunch.But to no avail cuz he too was cat-spraddled.The ball deflected off of Pique
then Derdiyok who bungle the ball deeper into the area where Pique stumbled over the ball & possibly
handling it.In comes Fernandes to toe it in for the goal.This is the best I could do from a different angle slomotion
replay @ ESPN 3.
Now I admit this account could be rong but to the best of my eyesight,Casillas never touched the ball. Pique
might have.
-
hear nah... it have any other peoples does use "catspraddle"?
:rotfl:
i almost get in trouble using that word in NY
-
hear nah... it have any other peoples does use "catspraddle"?
:rotfl:
i almost get in trouble using that word in NY
Ha ! Probably, but they hadda to keep it quiet before de yanks
have ah good laugh.Sometimes I does slip an use ah lil Patois
an dey does give me strange looks. :D
-
Ref had no choice...hard luck....real undeserved.
....ref is a sucker......or he wanted to be suckered....
-
40' min Yellow on Findley against Slovenia a sh*t call by the ref.
When will the officials get it right?
-
Yeah, stupid ref..he miss ah deliberate elbow from Demsey in the 1st few mins..dat shoulda be ah yellow card ::)
Big Up!
-
i thought casillas had gotten ball in that tackle..i go hadda watch again..was a big collision but as i saw it he tackled the player and ball bounced off the swiss player...
When the Swiss touched the ball to his left Casillas got a touch on it with his foot before it hit Pique.
It was not a foul for me.
-
Questions surrounding the third U.S goal that was disallowed
-
... and questions surrounding that entire germany v serbia game
-
They talking bout that Mali ref all over the sports news.
-
They talking bout that Mali ref all over the sports news.
especially on the espn alexi lalas show. Dem people don't know how to take tings in stride boy. Is always the biggest injustice in the world when the same things that happen to everybody else, happen to them. I watchin' the game now and seeing the ref make some bad calls in favour of the us, too. I could understand if the ref was just making wholesale bad calls against them alone. Slovenian now get a yellow off a altidore theatric....bocanegra get way like de midnight robber......take allyuh point and be happy eh!
-
Dempsey getting away with a blatant elbow is not controversial though right?... If the U.S. had to play the game with 10 men they probably would be sitting at the bottom of the group with 1 point and a minus 3 goal difference.
-
Dempsey getting away with a blatant elbow is not controversial though right?... If the U.S. had to play the game with 10 men they probably would be sitting at the bottom of the group with 1 point and a minus 3 goal difference.
My fault....I say bocanegra and is dempsey it was supposed to be.
-
Slovenia 4 yellow cards...BooSA 1 but some how the ref was bias against them..go figure ::)
Big Up!
-
Slovenia 4 yellow cards...BooSA 1 but some how the ref was bias against them..go figure ::)
Big Up!
I doh really like to just look at the raw statistics because yuh know it's quite possible that maybe Slovenia committed 7 or 8 yellow-cardable offenses and the us committed none. ::) (well, at least, according to espn and lalas and harkes (and who ever else in te world wants to drink their Kool-Aid.)
-
I wish they did win de facking game...
all on nightline dey bawling dey was robbed... every facking channel... this ting send meh in meh bed early
-
All ruud guulit and roberto martinez earning their u$ and going on to no end about the ref.....and how he from Mali....like if he is from a country that precludes him from being qualified enough to officiate a WC game. (or, to be cynical, as if there is some connection to his country and the us that he would want to rob them of a WC victory......Must be have plenty Al-Qaeda in Mali then.) BIG, LOUD, FACKING STEUPS!
EVERY TIME there's a corner or free kick being played into the box, there's jostling and tugging and pulling that ca be called against either team and the referee thought he saw something that could be called against the us....I could respect the americans (lalas, harkes and tommy smyth) if they could at least say that! but NO, it's as if this referee orchestrated the attack on 911 after one of his forefathers orchestrated the attack on pearl harbour!
-
All ruud guulit and roberto martinez earning their u$ and going on to no end about the ref.....and how he from Mali....like if he is from a country that precludes him from being qualified enough to officiate a WC game. (or, to be cynical, as if there is some connection to his country and the us that he would want to rob them of a WC victory......Must be have plenty Al-Qaeda in Mali then.) BIG, LOUD, FACKING STEUPS!
EVERY TIME there's a corner or free kick being played into the box, there's jostling and tugging and pulling that ca be called against either team and the referee thought he saw something that could be called against the us....I could respect the americans (lalas, harkes and tommy smyth) if they could at least say that! but NO, it's as if this referee orchestrated the attack on 911 after one of his forefathers orchestrated the attack on pearl harbour!
It have any US officials in this tournament? All dem imports dos do a disservice to the game when they get on American tv spouting shite because dey tryin tuh cowtow tuh American audiences. Dey dos dummy it down a little to much!
-
Here's an interestin take on the call. It appears as if the NY Times columnist is defending the Malian referee (or it could be a sort of satirical piece).
What do you guys think?
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/in-defense-of-koman-coulibaly-sort-of/?ref=sports
-
Here's an interestin take on the call. It appears as if the NY Times columnist is defending the Malian referee (or it could be a sort of satirical piece).
What do you guys think?
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/in-defense-of-koman-coulibaly-sort-of/?ref=sports
I think he was tryin tuh make a case for why the ref could have made the call. Shite happens!
-
Yes, the referee saw a foul, one of many
SIMON HAYDON THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 19, 2010
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/sports/professional/professional_soccer/article/WCUP19S_20100618-223009/352134/
JOHANNESBURG -- Modern soccer has turned the penalty area into a wrestling ring, and that's what cost the United States victory in its World Cup match against Slovenia yesterday.
Maurice Edu committed no foul as he scored from just more than 6 yards out.
However, just about every other player in the penalty area was holding, grabbing, pulling or pushing as the U.S. free kick descended into the 18-yard zone.
Referee Koman Coulibaly of Mali saw one of several fouls. Unluckily for the U.S., he saw the only one committed by an American, defender Carlos Bocanegra.
Bocanegra had his arms around Slovenia substitute Jejc Pecnik and was preventing him from jumping for the ball.
Coulibaly was ideally placed to see the foul he called. He was 10 yards from Edu as the striker hit the ball home, but the Bocanegra-Pecnik grappling took place just a yard away, in the referee's direct line of sight.
The 39-year-old referee, who has been officiating in tough African competitions for 17 years and called the final of the African Cup of Nations between Ghana and Egypt earlier this year, didn't hesitate to do his job.
But he couldn't see everything in the penalty area. So Coulibaly missed two American players being held and grabbed in different parts of the penalty area by Slovenian players.
Unjust? Certainly, but who's to blame? The referee or the players?
Referees are under orders from FIFA, the sport's governing body, to clamp down on the plague of fouls in the penalty area. But most referees are unwilling to penalize the defending team, preferring to reject goals rather than award them.
This is what Coulibaly did yesterday and it cost the United States a victory that would have lifted the Americans to the threshold of participation in the next round.
Instead, the U.S. must now play a high-stakes game Wednesday against Algeria.
The referee's job is impossible in these situations. FIFA has rejected the use of video technology, preferring to try to maintain the spontaneous nature of soccer and, in the process, inherently rejecting U.S. sports such as football and, to a lesser extent, baseball, that have incorporated replay into their games.
The only concession FIFA has made is to allow the use of two extra assistants to help the referee police the penalty area in some European competitions.
Who knows if they would have helped Coulibaly reach his decision yesterday in Johannesburg?
-
This should be the soundtrack of this thread...
http://www.youtube.com/v/9m0smgVgbwM
-
This should be the soundtrack of this thread...
http://www.youtube.com/v/9m0smgVgbwM
:rotfl:
Nice clip.
-
Dempsey getting away with a blatant elbow is not controversial though right?... If the U.S. had to play the game with 10 men they probably would be sitting at the bottom of the group with 1 point and a minus 3 goal difference.
My fault....I say bocanegra and is dempsey it was supposed to be.
Nah I wasn't commenting on your mistake. I wasn't even responding to your post... I hear what you're saying... I was just being facetious along the same line. Listening to this coverage you would think that this is the only bad call that has ever been made in the game. The U.S. benefited from a bad call in the game as well so while I understand the frustration, they ought to just look at the big picture and swallow it up....sometimes it works for you, sometimes against you- c'est la vie. In the CONFED Cup last year Brazil scored a goal that Howard literally pulled out of the net. True Brazil came back to win so it was moot, but yuh didn't hear a peep, and if the U.S. went on to win that game yuh woudlna hear nuttin except for how the U.S. beat the mighty Brazil....
I eh no USA hater, but sh*t like this is the kinda stuff that turns people against the American team...
-
Dempsey getting away with a blatant elbow is not controversial though right?... If the U.S. had to play the game with 10 men they probably would be sitting at the bottom of the group with 1 point and a minus 3 goal difference.
My fault....I say bocanegra and is dempsey it was supposed to be.
Nah I wasn't commenting on your mistake. I wasn't even responding to your post... I hear what you're saying... I was just being facetious along the same line. Listening to this coverage you would think that this is the only bad call that has ever been made in the game. The U.S. benefited from a bad call in the game as well so while I understand the frustration, they ought to just look at the big picture and swallow it up....sometimes it works for you, sometimes against you- c'est la vie. In the CONFED Cup last year Brazil scored a goal that Howard literally pulled out of the net. True Brazil came back to win so it was moot, but yuh didn't hear a peep, and if the U.S. went on to win that game yuh woudlna hear nuttin except for how the U.S. beat the mighty Brazil....
I eh no USA hater, but sh*t like this is the kinda stuff that turns people against the American team...
it was not even a bad call... de man call what he see... go and watch de pics in the NYT article... yankees was fouling too... is a hard luck...
stop crying bitches
-
I think I saw the phantom foul. If anyone gets a chance (or cares enough) to take a look at it again...Michael Bradley (ironically while being hugged by his marker) shoved the no 11 defender in the back when making his forward run. The defender jerked forward under the push, and I'm almost 100% sure that that is what the ref saw and called.
-
I think I saw the phantom foul. If anyone gets a chance (or cares enough) to take a look at it again...Michael Bradley (ironically while being hugged by his marker) shoved the no 11 defender in the back when making his forward run. The defender jerked forward under the push, and I'm almost 100% sure that that is what the ref saw and called.
....according to the NYT article, that might not even have been the foul, either. apparently (or allegedly) bocanegra was pulling a Slovenian to the ground approximately a yard or two directly in the ref's line of sight.
-
I think I saw the phantom foul. If anyone gets a chance (or cares enough) to take a look at it again...Michael Bradley (ironically while being hugged by his marker) shoved the no 11 defender in the back when making his forward run. The defender jerked forward under the push, and I'm almost 100% sure that that is what the ref saw and called.
....according to the NYT article, that might not even have been the foul, either. apparently (or allegedly) bocanegra was pulling a Slovenian to the ground approximately a yard or two directly in the ref's line of sight.
Wait, so are you saying there were a possibility of at least 2 fouls on Slovenian players, but none of the US media saw it (after multiple replays, cause to be fair I did not see any either in real time) but still harping on the recalled goal and saying the US was "ROBBED" steupss
Big Up!
-
Come nah man... steups. Allyuh talking about fouls on the slovenian but when yuh look at the pictures of the play ever Slovenian arm wrap arung man like dey tiefing ah wine? The ref fack up... nutten wrong with admitting that. All this equivocating about "well, de Slovenians geh fouled too..." steups.
De ref fack up de scenes... is not de first time and it won't be the last. Refs are humans and humans make mistakes... time tuh move on.
-
Come nah man... steups. Allyuh talking about fouls on the slovenian but when yuh look at the pictures of the play ever Slovenian arm wrap arung man like dey tiefing ah wine? The ref fack up... nutten wrong with admitting that. All this equivocating about "well, de Slovenians geh fouled too..." steups.
De ref fack up de scenes... is not de first time and it won't be the last. Refs are humans and humans make mistakes... time tuh move on.
Tell dat to the Yanks, is dem who intend on keeping this in the news ;D
Big Up!
-
Tell dat to the Yanks, is dem who intend on keeping this in the news ;D
Big Up!
And there's nothing wrong with that... soccer continues to grow at an encouraging clip here in the U.S. more people are starting to watch and so it only makes sense that the game will linger a bit longer in the national spotlight. According to ESPN (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5306631/ce/us/us-slovenia-draws-most-espn-households-soccer?cc=5901&ver=us) the game was watched by more American households than any other in US history, and counting viewers, not households, was the third most-watched game in US history, behind Italy's 2-0 defeat of Germany in extratime in 2006, and Germany's quarterfinal defeat of the US in 2002.
The growing profile of the sport means that more people are watching yes, but more people who don't follow the game as closely as we do, so controversies such as this, which we know to take in stride is cause for major umbrage for many Americans. Especially when you consider that this is a sporting society weaned on replay and "getting the call right". Baseball is the last holdout among the US big four, and even that has limited replay, which is sure to expand in the wake of the blown call that robbed the sport of a no-hitter three weeks ago.
They are "whiners" just as we were whiners after the England game (which plenty people here on this site still ent get over yet), them just carrying on longer because the media actually paying attention to the sport for a change.
-
Come nah man... steups. Allyuh talking about fouls on the slovenian but when yuh look at the pictures of the play ever Slovenian arm wrap arung man like dey tiefing ah wine? The ref fack up... nutten wrong with admitting that. All this equivocating about "well, de Slovenians geh fouled too..." steups.
How many of the pics and camera angles that we see, are we seeing from the referee's perspective? As I said before, any time a corner or free kick is played into the box, in any game in any league or tournament in the world, the officials can call a foul (or multiple fouls) against either team. We have seen it many, many times before, whether a goal resulted (and was disallowed) or not. In this case, the ref made a call that he saw. He didn't necessarily f**k up as some people (or all americans) are so charged up to charge. He blew for a foul that he saw. plain and simple. He signaled and blew the whistle before the ball was played into the net. According to the ref (and other neutral observers) "the Slovenians DID get fouled". He just doesn't have to include the "too" if that's what he saw first and there's only one foul he can officially penalize and his decision is what counts. Yet again, I beg the question, where were his assistants in all this?
The americans and their supporters would be reasonably justified if (1) none of their players committed any fouls and (2) if they weren't going on so much about it, OR if they would try to be a little more objective about it.
-
Come nah man... steups. Allyuh talking about fouls on the slovenian but when yuh look at the pictures of the play ever Slovenian arm wrap arung man like dey tiefing ah wine? The ref fack up... nutten wrong with admitting that. All this equivocating about "well, de Slovenians geh fouled too..." steups.
How many of the pics and camera angles that we see, are we seeing from the referee's perspective? As I said before, any time a corner or free kick is played into the box, in any game in any league or tournament in the world, the officials can call a foul (or multiple fouls) against either team. We have seen it many, many times before, whether a goal resulted (and was disallowed) or not. In this case, the ref made a call that he saw. He didn't necessarily f**k up as some people (or all americans) are so charged up to charge. He blew for a foul that he saw. plain and simple. He signaled and blew the whistle before the ball was played into the net. According to the ref (and other neutral observers) "the Slovenians DID get fouled". He just doesn't have to include the "too" if that's what he saw first and there's only one foul he can officially penalize and his decision is what counts. Yet again, I beg the question, where were his assistants in all this?
The americans and their supporters would be reasonably justified if (1) none of their players committed any fouls and (2) if they weren't going on so much about it, OR if they would try to be a little more objective about it.
THIS ^
I want to know how de man fack up? The refs are instructed to crack down on the free kick/corner jostling and pulling... he call what he see first and blow de whistle... how he tief?
dey need to get over it... happens all de time all over...
We had more rights to whine about Crouch in 2006 because that was the only foul happening in dat moment... even so, i fine we cry like bitches then too... lol.. dat shit does happen
-
De ref fack up de scenes... is not de first time and it won't be the last. Refs are humans and humans make mistakes... time tuh move on.
That's what I'm saying. Time to move on. This ent the first, nor the last time a ref is gonna make a big mistake. Calls like that are especially commonplace- the only difference is that the players followed through and the ball ended up in the net. Many a time a ref makes a call in a scrum of players on a dead ball play and the play sorta stops because the whistle was early...and when yuh look at the replay, yuh can't see no definite foul...all yuh seeing is one setta hard back men wining on each other and climbing on each others' backs... This time the whistle was early too...for whatever reason (probably the damn vuvuzelas ;D), the players followed through on the play- it's not like the ref blew after the ball ended up in the net...He thought he spotted an infringement and blew the whistle- on the replay no clear infringement is seen. Because the U.S. is involved, we're watching U.S. coverage, and as yuh say, they not used to these kinds of human errors in sports, this has become some kinda national outcry...Imagine today (Sunday) they still carrying on about it...My guess is that in the U.S. camp, dem fellas move on and readying themselves for the next game- it's only the story seekers still paying this any mind.
-
THIS ^
I want to know how de man fack up? The refs are instructed to crack down on the free kick/corner jostling and pulling... he call what he see first and blow de whistle... how he tief?
dey need to get over it... happens all de time all over...
We had more rights to whine about Crouch in 2006 because that was the only foul happening in dat moment... even so, i fine we cry like bitches then too... lol.. dat shit does happen
Who say he "tief"? Allyuh saying de ref call what he see first. How de ass allyuh could know what he see first? Allyuh live inside he head... or did he send allyuh ah text message explaining who he call de foul on... because to date there has been no explanation, and likely won't be until after tomorrow. He "fack up" because in light of all the shit that was going on in that box with fouls all over the place the proper thing to do would have been to stop play and have the kick re-taken. The goal would have still been disallowed but at least there would be some understanding that he was taking control of the situation rather than penalizing one team over the other.
All that aside, it is fair to say that in situations like that more fouls are likely committed by defenders than by attacking players as defenders are more insistent on inhibiting free movement of the attacking players. All attacking players have to do is get open, easier accomplished without fouling, than it is for defenders to do their job (inhibiting free runs) without fouling.
-
My guess is that in the U.S. camp, dem fellas move on and readying themselves for the next game- it's only the story seekers still paying this any mind.
Dem fellas is professionals and I sure most of them... especially those playing in Europe, used to refs making mistakes (as the players see it) in games. Yuh juss have to take it in stride and move on tuh de next objective... winning ah game and advancing to the next round.
-
Who say he "tief"? Allyuh saying de ref call what he see first. How de ass allyuh could know what he see first? Allyuh live inside he head... or did he send allyuh ah text message explaining who he call de foul on... because to date there has been no explanation, and likely won't be until after tomorrow. He "fack up" because in light of all the shit that was going on in that box with fouls all over the place the proper thing to do would have been to stop play and have the kick re-taken. The goal would have still been disallowed but at least there would be some understanding that he was taking control of the situation rather than penalizing one team over the other.
All that aside, it is fair to say that in situations like that more fouls are likely committed by defenders than by attacking players as defenders are more insistent on inhibiting free movement of the attacking players. All attacking players have to do is get open, easier accomplished without fouling, than it is for defenders to do their job (inhibiting free runs) without fouling.
Try and doh be ah facking arsehole nah... if you been following this ting or even slightly well read.. which i am sure you are... you would be seeing the following words regularly in the media: robbed, robbery, stolen, unfair, bias, TEIF... and right here on this board too...
now of course we can't read minds.. but if you suggesting that he ignored fouls by slovenians to call the foul that he did... then you are suggesting bias or for the very least, incompetence... ( I know you never suggest this)
You can't say for sure, but we can't say he broke any rules or ignored the spirit of the game... so how can you say he facked up?
allyuh men love america too much... not that there is anything wrong with dat... just not my cup of tea
:beermug:
-
Try and doh be ah facking arsehole nah... if you been following this ting or even slightly well read.. which i am sure you are... you would be seeing the following words regularly in the media: robbed, robbery, stolen, unfair, bias, TEIF... and right here on this board too...
now of course we can't read minds.. but if you suggesting that he ignored fouls by slovenians to call the foul that he did... then you are suggesting bias or for the very least, incompetence... ( I know you never suggest this)
You can't say for sure, but we can't say he broke any rules or ignored the spirit of the game... so how can you say he facked up?
allyuh men love america too much... not that there is anything wrong with dat... just not my cup of tea
:beermug:
Try and doh be ah facking presumptive asshole nah... this has nothing to do with "liking" America, in fact to the contrary, it have everything to do with 'hating' America, which many of the detractors on here willfully admit. So much so that it clouding allyuh objectivity. England is my squad... I not even rooting for the Americans, why would I when that would be against the benefit of my favored squad? Last time I even root for the Americans was 4 years ago when they get tief against the Italians, and that was only because I dislike the Americans a lot less than I dislike the Italians.
At no point did I suggest that he ignored fouls committed by the Slovenians to call the one he called on the Americans... the best we can say is that IF he did see a legitimate foul on the Americans he had to be looking extremely close at that one sapling in a forest of trees because there damn sure were a lot of fouls being committed by the Slovenians. It shows that the ref failed to properly assess the totality of the circumstances as they were taking place in that box. Any ref under any circumstance where there is a near brawl taking place in the box, who makes a call where one team is disproportionately penalized would come in for criticism. The US were disproportionately penalized, for whatever reason... I personally don't care. It is beyond hypocritical to say that Americans are going on too much about this when four years later man on here still carrying on about Crouch.
Shit, I know how Americans feeling because I thought the ref called shit on we in Guatemala causing them to get the free kick that lead to the last-minute equalizer in Guatemala City 18 months ago. I still vex about Crouch and to this day I rooting against Argentina because ah Maradona in '86. At least the people showing some passion fuh ah sport I love so me eh see nutten wrong with them feeling "robbed".
-
come nah bakes.. yuh love america... nutten wrong with dat..
doh take it personal :-*
-
come nah bakes.. yuh love america... nutten wrong with dat..
doh take it personal :-*
ha ha... nah fack dem. I will give dem dey due but me eh no fan. Ref was probably vex with heself fuh giving Altidore de shit free kick tuh begin with and say, "yuh know what... fack dat, ah blowing mih whistle again" lol
-
The referees decisions of errors in this tournament just keep piling up
-
controversy 1: The vuvuzelas
controversy 2: The Jabulani
controversy 3: Refereeing decisions (disallowed US goal, Klose sending off, NZ offside goal/Italy penalty, Kaka sending off/Fabiano double handball ah miss any?)
controversy 4: France team imploding, Anelka getting send home
controversy 5: ???
Alyuh realise since the action heat up the refs start making plenty high profile mistakes/debatable decisions? Or maybe is the other way around :devil:
-
Down to today ah geh tex bout dis like I iz a damn UEFA rep, men sayin to meh "ah like how all yuh tief we", ah say to him, all yuh? Since when I iz a FIFA ref., ah wonder if de replays will still be runnin time de final come around? Would not doubt it nah
-
So many camera angles. Use instant replay to resolve the most serious issues
-
Somebody should do an inquest into all dem ugly plastic looking tugs on display!
-
Somebody should do an inquest into all dem ugly plastic looking tugs on display!
hahahaha when boots first come out with that material, everybody use to call it "imitation" "Chinee boots" "Shit Boots" etc. Then Nike bring it out with a little advertising and all of a sudden its the rage. Cheap material quadruple your profits. ;D
-
Somebody should do an inquest into all dem ugly plastic looking tugs on display!
hahahaha when boots first come out with that material, everybody use to call it "imitation" "Chinee boots" "Shit Boots" etc. Then Nike bring it out with a little advertising and all of a sudden its the rage. Cheap material quadruple your profits. ;D
Nah, is science. When the boots new and the ball new, then the shiny material has more grip on the ball (which is the opposite of what you think would happen)
Of course, if you playing with old equpment, then you might as well have on some imitation chinee boots.
-
No surprise, but certainly a lot of controversy today alone.
Lots of people (and everyone on ESPN) are calling for video reviews of goal line decisions. I disagree. One of the few arguments where I would take FIFA's side. Why?
1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.
2. A chip in the ball, or a goal-line camera helps England equalize vs Germany. But what would you do for Tevez's offside goal? Put a chip in the players? Where do you draw the line at what can be reviewed? Is it only goals? What about if he was about to break free? What about if the whistle blow before the kick (like the USA "goal" vs Slovenia) Do you review fouls in the area too? Handballs? Diving? Do coaches get to call for a review? Is there a timeout? It's a slippery slope.
I think there is one area where FIFA can and should use reviews, and that is for diving. I think after every game, if you see a player holding his head and rolling around after he gets a tap on the shin, that you should give him a yellow retroactively. Since this will affect playing time in future games, I think it would go a long way to doing away with diving on the whole. It doesn't directly affect the game in progress, but provides a powerful incentive for players to stop the simulation.
Just my 2 cents
-
No surprise, but certainly a lot of controversy today alone.
Lots of people (and everyone on ESPN) are calling for video reviews of goal line decisions. I disagree. One of the few arguments where I would take FIFA's side. Why?
1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.
2. A chip in the ball, or a goal-line camera helps England equalize vs Germany. But what would you do for Tevez's offside goal? Put a chip in the players? Where do you draw the line at what can be reviewed? Is it only goals? What about if he was about to break free? What about if the whistle blow before the kick (like the USA "goal" vs Slovenia) Do you review fouls in the area too? Handballs? Diving? Do coaches get to call for a review? Is there a timeout? It's a slippery slope.
I think there is one area where FIFA can and should use reviews, and that is for diving. I think after every game, if you see a player holding his head and rolling around after he gets a tap on the shin, that you should give him a yellow retroactively. Since this will affect playing time in future games, I think it would go a long way to doing away with diving on the whole. It doesn't directly affect the game in progress, but provides a powerful incentive for players to stop the simulation.
Just my 2 cents
But yuh can't use video replays in Aranguez Savannah ::)
No offense, dis not directed at you but at the argument... repeated by FIFA defenders.... point number 1 is a shit argument. Many people all over the world are unable to play the game with a clock... nor can they play with 4 officials, or on a regulation pitch. How dem does manage to play by the rules? How come people in Nettoville in Arima able to play basketball without video review? How come many colleges and high schools here in the US could play American football without review?
It is outright scandalous that FIFA can't institute goal line technology in big competitions, with so much invested (emotionally, financially) in the game.
-
1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.
Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.
-
1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.
Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.
What I meant to convey is not that you can't deviate from the rules - clearly that happens. But that you can play under the same rules as the world cup without needing additional equipment or adjustments. Once you start adding technology, then you will begin to see two different forms of the game develop.
-
1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.
Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.
What I meant to convey is not that you can't deviate from the rules - clearly that happens. But that you can play under the same rules as the world cup without needing additional equipment or adjustments. Once you start adding technology, then you will begin to see two different forms of the game develop.
Can they play with with wireless earpieces in the officials' ears in Aranguez Savannah? How about an electronic substitution/additional time board? Why FIFA even using that when it not available for everybody? Why not bristol board and crayons on the sidelines and have the officials communicate to each other with hand signals?
I'm sorry... I just don't find that a very compelling argument. If people in the favelas an other parts of the developing world can adapt and deviate from the rules as played in the World Cup, then they can adapt and deviate from the use of technology as well.
-
1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.
Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.
What I meant to convey is not that you can't deviate from the rules - clearly that happens. But that you can play under the same rules as the world cup without needing additional equipment or adjustments. Once you start adding technology, then you will begin to see two different forms of the game develop.
Can they play with with wireless earpieces in the officials' ears in Aranguez Savannah? How about an electronic substitution/additional time board? Why FIFA even using that when it not available for everybody? Why not bristol board and crayons on the sidelines and have the officials communicate to each other with hand signals?
I'm sorry... I just don't find that a very compelling argument. If people in the favelas an other parts of the developing world can adapt and deviate from the rules as played in the World Cup, then they can adapt and deviate from the use of technology as well.
These items are peripheral to the game. Speeding or streamlining communication is not the same as making a change that directly impacts the play on the field. If the assistant ref see something he would get the ref attention and then the ref could always walk over and talk to the linesman or 4th official.
What we talking about is either putting a chip in the ball and a system in place to detect if it crosses the goal line and/or a video review system to review controversial goal-line plays. That is a different level of technological involvement than holding up a sign saying is 3 minutes of stoppage time.
-
Oho... so in other words we want the game played under the same rules in the favelas and Aranguez Savannah as in the World Cup... except when we decide is okay to not play under the same rules. To paraphrase George Orwell... all rules are created equal, but some rules are more equal than others.
Gotcha.
-
Come nah man, If you could equate holding up a board with numbers on it to doing a video review of a controversial call then this conversation eh going nowhere. If you can tell me how being able to talk to the ref via wireless makes the officiating of the game different, or how knowing the (estimated) stoppage time changes the result I'll be glad to listen.
If the assistant ref sees a play that contradicts the call that the referee has made, then he/she would have to gain the attention of the referee and inform him regardless of the use of a headset. The existing technology as it is currently applied, does not affect play or directly influence the decisions of the referee. The technology merely serves to make the game more efficient and to provide more information to the viewers.
-
I'm not trying to equate them at all... I'm trying to illustrate for you how ridiculous the rationale is. FIFA doesn't have to make it mandatory... just mandatory for international competitions or matches sanctioned by FIFA confederations. It has nothing to do with the little guy kicking a ball in Aranguez savannah. Years ago when MLS was first formed they had their own shitty rules, with shootout and unlimited subs. Somehow FIFA didn't have a problem with that because the USSF played by FIFA rules.
As long as the Federations play by the rules that's all that's necessary, TTFF doh get involved in Eddie Hart business any more than it gets involved in Pro League business... which is to say none at all. So FIFA need to come again with that bullshit talk. Man taking a small goal sweat down by the ellipse in DC or in Prospect Park doh need goal line technology anymore than they need 4 officials... and there's no way you can tell me that the FIFA Confederations can't implement goal line technology evenly around the football world. So exactly what is the argument... tenuous as it may be?
-
Hey Bitter if I was you I would tell Bakes to take win at this point yes!
But knowing you I expect you to argue your point to the bitter end! ;)
Whey d pop-corn? 8)
-
If you read my original post, you can see clearly what I'm saying. With a subsequent clarification. My opinion on the matter was stated as well; that the application of technology directly affecting game play begins to separate the game as it is played at the highest levels from that at the lowest.
Right now, I can play a game in the savannah using the world cup rules. With the addition of chips, sensors, replays etc, then I cannot. It is my opinion that the ability to play a game anywhere using the same rules is part of what makes up the appeal of football.
Your response was to point out the uses of technology now. Uses that are applied on the periphery of the game. Now you are stating that your point is to illustrate that technology can be applied to games around the world. I never argued that such a thing was not possible.
Perhaps you can address what technology you would apply and under what conditions. This would make for a more productive exchange.
-
Hey Bitter if I was you I would tell Bakes to take win at this point yes!
But knowing you I expect you to argue your point to the bitter end! ;)
Whey d pop-corn? 8)
I does play to the final whistle. ;D
-
If you read my original post, you can see clearly what I'm saying. With a subsequent clarification. My opinion on the matter was stated as well; that the application of technology directly affecting game play begins to separate the game as it is played at the highest levels from that at the lowest.
Right now, I can play a game in the savannah using the world cup rules. With the addition of chips, sensors, replays etc, then I cannot. It is my opinion that the ability to play a game anywhere using the same rules is part of what makes up the appeal of football.
Your response was to point out the uses of technology now. Uses that are applied on the periphery of the game. Now you are stating that your point is to illustrate that technology can be applied to games around the world. I never argued that such a thing was not possible.
Perhaps you can address what technology you would apply and under what conditions. This would make for a more productive exchange.
I saw your position as being consistent with that of FIFA, that the game should be playable at the World Cup the same as it can anywhere else in the world.
My point is that that's a nonsense argument and I provided two separate analyses to illustrate why.
1. The game in theory can be played the same everywhere but practical limitations mean that it isn't. Everyone cannot afford to play on regulation pitches; with the limited technology FIFA has in place now (the earpieces etc.); Four officials etc.
Therefore if there are already limitations to the game being played the same on every level (notwithstanding the theoretical possibility) then the issue is moot.
You responded by arguing that the obstacles I point out are minor and peripheral. My response is that minor and peripheral as they may be they are real in making it practically impossible to do what FIFA insists must remain a theoretical possibility.
2. I argued in the alternative that the game needs not be played the same on every level, FIFA need to focus on what is within its control, which are the games sanctioned by it and its local Federations. If FIFA insists that the game should be playable on every level under the same rules then it runs into the practical limitations outlined in point #1. Let people play their pick-up soccer as they see fit and let FIFA worry about the bigger picture and not get lost in minutiae... which is what we arguing here right now.
My position hasn't changed... maybe you just lost track but my stance has been the same, it's a nonsense argument to further insist that goal line technology not be implemented. FIFA often has this head-in-the-clouds perspective that football is bigger than everything and that it should be a movement for world peace and all this bullshit. Who really cares if the game can be played the same everywhere? It can't, that's fact. Now the only remaining issue is what do we do to maintain the integrity of the sport so that people not lose faith in the product on the field? To reduce controversies and to make the outcomes of games fairer and more consistent? That should be the focus, not this hubristic notion about keeping the game playable by the same rules on every level.
-
If you were to study the laws of the game, you would realize that they allow for the minor differences as they now exist without compromising the rules of play. That you consider my opinion that one of the appealing things about football is the ability for any game to be played with the same rules nonsense is valid. Your long-winded argument that this potential is not reflected in reality is both obvious and irrelevant.
I did invite you to put forward any ideas on how you would implement your desired technological enhancements. I look forward to that discussion, rather than your continued pursuit of a narrow argument.
-
If you were to study the laws of the game, you would realize that they allow for the minor differences as they now exist without compromising the rules of play. That you consider my opinion that one of the appealing things about football is the ability for any game to be played with the same rules nonsense is valid. Your long-winded argument that this potential is not reflected in reality is both obvious and irrelevant.
I did invite you to put forward any ideas on how you would implement your desired technological enhancements. I look forward to that discussion, rather than your continued pursuit of a narrow argument.
One of the first things I said in response to you was that I wasn't addressing nothing to you specifically:
No offense, dis not directed at you but at the argument... repeated by FIFA defenders.... point number 1 is a shit argument.
but rather at FIFA's official position on the matter. Yet you coming with this talk about what I consider your argument to be... but whatever.
You act as though simple comprehension escaped you when I made my point the first time... I go on to elaborate so as to clear up any confusion and you respond with talk about my argument being "long-winded". Of course I could respond that your responses to my points have been just as "long-winded", but where would that leave us?
In your final comic act you come with this talk about how to implement my "desired technological enhancements"... despite the fact that I've already addressed that briefly. The local Federations can implement them for FIFA sanctioned games (using the chip in the ball and sensors around the goal mouth which when the ball crosses the goal line activates either a lamp or a camera. You don't need anything more elaborate than that for the time being.
I will just leave it at that and say let's agree to disagree because according to you it will only resort in more "long-winded" talk.
-
So you would implement a goal-line system to determine if the ball crosses the line.
What about the non-offside on Tevez? Shouldn't technology not be used to correct this injustice?
-
So you would implement a goal-line system to determine if the ball crosses the line.
What about the non-offside on Tevez? Shouldn't technology not be used to correct this injustice?
You can't prevent every instance of injustice on the field. Start with the bigger items which are practically within your reach and go from there.
-
FIFA says the goal line technology is too expensive to implement. Alright, but for starters how about video replays only for incidents where a controversial disallowed goal or allowed goal (e.g. the Tevez goal) is involved? For FIFA to sit back and do nothing is ridiculous.
The funny thing is that ball over the line incident didn't even need video replays, so some of these officials just damn wotless which is another debate entirely!!!
On another but related note, the ball over the line incident kinda sidelining the Tevez offside issue. At half time yesterday, the "expert" at TV 6 seemed to suggest it was a good goal because of where the keeper was positioned. Sad thing is though that he didn't explain himself properly so I was left a little confused.
So here goes (yet again), was Tevez offside or not?
-
So here goes (yet again), was Tevez offside or not?
We continue to misunderstand the rule. The rule is very simple, a player is in an offside position if he is in his opponents' half of the pitch and is closer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and all but zero or one of his opponents at the time the ball is played. It has nothing to do with the keeper's position. There could be two defenders on the line and the keeper at half line and the player will not be offside.
Sadly in this case, Tevez was clearly offside. A game changer but the better team won.
Blessing
-
So here goes (yet again), was Tevez offside or not?
We continue to misunderstand the rule. The rule is very simple, a player is in an offside position if he is in his opponents' half of the pitch and is closer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and all but zero or one of his opponents at the time the ball is played. It has nothing to do with the keeper's position. There could be two defenders on the line and the keeper at half line and the player will not be offside.
Sadly in this case, Tevez was clearly offside. A game changer but the better team won.
Blessing
Well boy as far as I could see, the man was offside. But to hear the "expert" on TV 6 tell he mentioned something about the keeper as if to suggest that the keeper's position may have kept him onside. Thing is the man didn't explain himself properly so I couldn't really tell if he was arguing for or against the offside....and he is the "expert"....
As for the better team winning, sssshhhh doh let them English fans hear yuh.....
-
They created the rules and are hunted by them especially the offside rule that plague the game for decades. A total disgrace of errors that thickens what a shame.
-
FIFA says the goal line technology is too expensive to implement. Alright, but for starters how about video replays only for incidents where a controversial disallowed goal or allowed goal (e.g. the Tevez goal) is involved? For FIFA to sit back and do nothing is ridiculous.
The funny thing is that ball over the line incident didn't even need video replays, so some of these officials just damn wotless which is another debate entirely!!!
On another but related note, the ball over the line incident kinda sidelining the Tevez offside issue. At half time yesterday, the "expert" at TV 6 seemed to suggest it was a good goal because of where the keeper was positioned. Sad thing is though that he didn't explain himself properly so I was left a little confused.
So here goes (yet again), was Tevez offside or not?
I doh get TV6 but the general consensus based on the feedback I heard is that the TV6 commentator was torkin' a pile.
-
FIFA says the goal line technology is too expensive to implement. Alright, but for starters how about video replays only for incidents where a controversial disallowed goal or allowed goal (e.g. the Tevez goal) is involved? For FIFA to sit back and do nothing is ridiculous.
the only way this make sense to me is they saying the cost-benefit of goal-line tech makes it too expensive to implement. i could see this point - the cost to implement tech to account for one lampard "goal" is not worth it. it doh happen enough, particularly in relation to the numbers of offside calls, yellow/red cards or simulations. there's not enough benefit to add this technology uniformly. even for one tournament it not worth it.
video replay is another thing altogether, as you point out brownsugar. they have this in hockey and american football whose concept of a game clock is entirely different.
-
World Cup Doesn't Need Replay; It Needs Fairplay
10:41 am
June 27, 2010
by BILL CHAPPELL
http://www.npr.org/blogs/showmeyourcleats/2010/06/25/128117648/world-cup-doesn-t-need-replay-it-needs-fairplay
With the World Cup's Round of 16 under way, a rash of bungled calls — and the near-disastrous effect they had on the U.S. team — has Americans fuming. Disallowed goals and "mystery fouls" are now the norm. And referees have come to resemble Sphinxes — quiet, powerful and full of riddles.
Another example came in Sunday's Germany-England match, when officials missed noticing that Frank Lampard's shot had entered Germany's goal for a potential equalizer in the first half.
That's led many people to call for instant replay. But that's a silly idea, one that would drain the sport of the beautiful momentum that can make a 0-0 game fascinating. Still, I don't agree with FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who justifies the status quo by saying, "Society is not perfect, football is not perfect."
Aside from giving me something cool to say when I'm having a "discussion" with my girlfriend (just insert "Bill" for "football"), that statement is useless; it borders on the perverse. And it ignores a basic truth: It's time for the soccer-powers-that-be (or, the football-powers-that-etre) to change how they officiate games.
The problems go beyond Koman Coulibaly of Mali, who threw out American Maurice Edu's goal against Slovenia. Even before the final stage of the Cup, a referee missed handballs and other transgressions by France, in a match that gave them a spot and kept Ireland out. And in Brazil's first-round win over Ivory Coast, referee Stephane Lannoy was seen laughing with Luis Fabiano after missing his handball on a scoring play.
Are all these guys on the take — or maybe just evil? No — it's just that their flaws are magnified by a system that’s both broken and slanted. Here are some of the problems I see in World Cup soccer:
Four officials cover a space that’s larger than a football field. By contrast, the NFL uses seven officials to rule a field that's smaller by 20,000 square feet (77,625 sq. ft. for soccer vs. 57,600 for football).
And only one official — the referee — roams the field. Combine that with the perpetual motion mentioned above — or, to put it another way, 90 minutes of near-continuous chaos — and you realize that only a superhero could keep these games fair and under control.
Having one man follow the ball all over the pitch is like baseball's homeplate umpire chasing baserunners around the diamond, calling balls and strikes along the way. Because don't forget, the main responsibility of half of soccer's officiating crew is just to jog along the sideline and raise a checkered flag once in a while.
And that leads to the next point: Since soccer officials rarely collaborate on calls, the "wisdom of crowds" approach is out the window. Until recently, the "fourth official," who manages time and substitution issues, wasn't even expected to speak to the match referee.
My last point is related more to confidence and inclusion. Consider this: the U.S. doesn’t have a single referee in the Cup, but tiny Seychelles does – and they’re not even in the tournament. And Uruguay, for whatever reason, has six; Mexico has five.
I'm sure most of those guys are qualified — but the idea that America doesn't have a single official capable of refereeing — or, for the love of Pele, able to raise a checkered flag once in a while — is ludicrous. Being left out of the referee mix just feeds the paranoia of fans who think games are rigged.
Take all those points together, and you get a picture of a system that’s paternalistic, exclusionary and destined to fail — in short, it's not unlike several economies in Europe.
Maybe that's why U.S. coach Bob Bradley and his team took the setbacks in stride. They actually seemed surprised by the uproar over the bad calls, and the lack of explanation for them.
"FIFA operates differently. Soccer is a different game," Bradley said. "From our end, we get used to that. We all have friends and family who ask us the same questions that most of you ask us, and you end up saying, 'That's just how it is sometimes', and you move on and get ready for the next game."
When an organization embraces opportunities for unfairness and ineptitude with the zest FIFA has shown, you really can't be shocked by the result.
The World Cup would be better off if FIFA bagged the talk about humanity and imperfection and took a few pages from the folks running Wimbledon — a tournament that openly pursues perfection. When a tennis match starts on Centre Court, there are 11 officials watching the field of play — the chair umpire and 10 line judges.
If you're hoping to see that many referees in soccer, don't hold your breath. But before we see video replay and other technology being used in the World Cup, it'd be nice to see how well the officials could do if they're put in a position to succeed.
-
Now Can We Have Instant Replay?
Two Horrendous Calls at the World Cup Show the Need for Technology—But Don't Tell the 'Slippery Slopers'
By JASON GAY
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704212804575333171091775534.html?mod=WSJ_worldCup_Left_TopStories
We know what the proper and sporting thing to say here is. Great game, Germany. You really stuck it to England in Sunday's World Cup match, you clearly had the fitter team, you dominated the pitch and deserved to win. Bravo, Deutschland. Fantastic hair, too.
Eh, yawn. This is no fun at all. Sorry, Deutschland. Let's talk about The Outrageously Blown Goal of the Century.
Did you see this madness? You have to have seen it by now! It's going to be replayed so often for the next four years they might as well print it on the £5 note. It's made England so mad that it has stopped insisting that its torpid and underachieving national team walk home from South Africa.
OK, kidding about that last part. England's still seething at its boys. Wayne Rooney probably wishes he played soccer for France.
But at least there's now a big video controversy to distract the angry mob. Down 2-1 in the first half of Sunday's round-of-16 match to dreaded rival Germany, England's Frank Lampard lifted a shot that hit the crossbar and appeared to land behind the German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer—and the white line.
Actually, it didn't appear to. It went in. You saw it. We saw it. Our cat saw it.
The referees did not see it, however, and play pushed on mysteriously in Bloemfontein.
It was bizarre. We were all supposed to awkwardly ignore Mr. Lampard's equalizer, like a guest who'd arrived at a formal dinner party not wearing any pants. Germany went on to dominate the second half and win efficiently and decisively, 4-1.
And then it happened again, just hours later. In the first half of the contest between Argentina and Mexico, referees missed a blatant offside call against Argentina in allowing a Carlos Tévez header goal that made it 1-0. Argentina wound up winning, 3-1.
If you're mannerly, scared or a high-ranking FIFA official, you need to keep telling yourself that England and Mexico weren't going anywhere, anyway, that even if Mr. Lampard's goal had been allowed or Mr. Tévez's had been denied, the complexion of the game wouldn't have dramatically changed, and the outcome would have been identical.
Probably true—but totally lame. We've officially reached our limit with a balky game that continues to deny basic modernity. If Larry King can become pals with Ryan Seacrest, then any sport can embrace some instant replay.
We thought the replay debate would end for good after a baseball umpire's ghastly call stole a perfect game to Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga. But this World Cup is making backward baseball look like "Blade Runner."
Who is left to defend the lack of replay in modern sport? Basically, it's down to The Romantics, The Slippery Slopers and the Laughably Impatient. Here's a rundown of each holdout camp:
The Romantics: Ruminative counterintuitive-ists, often literary, inclined to dress in tweed and grow unkempt facial hair. Insist that controversy is part of sport, that arguments over officiating mistakes actually boost fan passion and fuel mystique. See cosmic significance in England's getting stiffed on a call Sunday, 44 years after Englishman Geoff Hurst's controversial goal against Germany in 1966. Enjoy writing long and pretentious comments on Internet message boards, or starting loud, boorish disputes with strangers in airport bars.
The Slippery Slopers: Luddite Cassandras. Worry that any introduction of replay technology will send us spiraling downward to the point where all games will eventually played by soulless robots, just like pro golf. Argue that as soon as you start reviewing goals, you'll start reviewing offsides, then yellow cards, and then Diego Maradona's suits, and pretty soon you're wrestling Mr. Maradona on the floor at a press conference, and he's actually still very strong, but at least he smells like flowers and chocolate-chip cookies.
The Laughably Impatient: Always in a hurry. Come on! They have stuff to do. They have absolutely no time for any instant replay, for any official who wants to pause the clock and make things right. They watch TV standing up, feed themselves nachos intravenously and never even use the restroom. They want this World Cup game to be over right now, so they can go and spend 90 minutes reading ESPN.com and another 30 scouring vuvuzelas on eBay.
What do all of these anti-replay-ites have in common? They are not Frank Lampard. They don't play for Mexico. They may work for FIFA. They are happy to stand in the way of accuracy because they're stubborn. It's not petty or whiny to say that mistakes are overshadowing this World Cup. Instead of golden goals, we're getting too many garbled ones.
Early Cancellation
When Landon Donovan scored in stoppage time against Algeria on Wednesday to send the U.S. into the knockout round, we thought it would finally do away with the "Soccer is Boring" critics in this country, and at least briefly quiet the skeptics who love to dismiss the home team as second-rate. But now, here the cranks come again, after the U.S. dropped a 2-1 extra-time match to Ghana on Saturday. This is silly. The U.S. didn't get bounced because it lacked skill or heart. The Americans got bounced because they dangerously kept treating their matches like the prosecutors on "Law & Order": They didn't pay attention to the first half of the show. And like "Law & Order," they got cancelled and will be missed.
-
FIFA to 'Reopen the File' on Video Technology
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575336241137558042.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
FIFA President Sepp Blatter has apologized to England and Mexico for the refereeing errors that helped eliminate them from the World Cup and said FIFA will reopen the debate on introducing video technology.
Mr. Blatter said Tuesday that he said sorry to team officials, and that the delegations of both teams accepted his apology. "Naturally we deplore when you see the evidence of refereeing mistakes."
He said FIFA will "reopen the file" on video technology at a meeting of its rule-making panel in Wales next month, adding it would be "a nonsense" not to consider changes.
"Naturally we will take on board again the discussion about technology. Something has to be changed," Mr. Blatter said, while adding that the system could not be changed midway through the World Cup.
Mr. Blatter said he apologized to England and Mexico team officials at Sunday's matches.
"The English said 'thank you.' The Mexicans, they just go with the head," Mr. Blatter said, indicating that they nodded. "I understand that they are not happy. It was not a five-star game for refereeing."
England was denied a clear goal that would have leveled its match against Germany at 2-2, while Argentina took the lead against Mexico with a goal that was clearly offside.
Germany advanced 4-1 and Argentina won 3-1. The errors created a world-wide furor and put pressure on FIFA, which has long opposed allowing officials to use technology to assist in decision making.
FIFA also will update its referee training program.
Mr. Blatter said FIFA has set a deadline of October or November to create a new concept for improving match control at top tournaments.
He said the dossier is "on the presidential table."
He said FIFA spent $40 million on a program to prepare match officials world-wide before selecting 30 referees and 60 assistants to work in South Africa.
"They have their eyes, their perception of the game. So let's make that better and hope we are going forward," Mr. Blatter said.
Speaking to reporters at a briefing, Mr. Blatter said the controversy had not spoiled his enjoyment of the tournament.
"Generally I am happy with what I have seen," said Mr. Blatter, who has attended 20 of the first 54 matches since the World Cup opened June 11.
He singled out Ghana's 2-1 extra-time victory over the United States in the second round on Saturday as his most memorable match so far
-
Sepp, ah eh think referee training was the problem Sunday. Stevie Wonder coulda see England's goal was good and Tevez was offside. Maybe you needed to equip these officials with binoculars!!....steups!!
-
they need hawk eye tech for offside
-
I wouldn't go for instant replay but post an extra linesperson behind each goal. It keeps the human element while providing the officals with an extra set of eyes.
I also think the problem has been that to many officials and linespersons have been in place to make the calls but not making the calls.
They need tuh put them thru some CIA training and mentally toughen them up if they lack the balls to make the right call! :devil:
-
I wouldn't go for instant replay but post an extra linesperson behind each goal. It keeps the human element while providing the officals with an extra set of eyes.
I also think the problem has been that to many officials and linespersons have been in place to make the calls but not making the calls.
They need tuh put them thru some CIA training and mentally toughen them up if they lack the balls to make the right call! :devil:
Nah. Put and use cameras. Dem same linespersons yuh want to put behind de goal go be 'fraid to make the calls just like the ones they have now! as a matter of fact, fifa talkin' about "cost" it eh costing nothing when already, they have fourth officials that could see the feed in real time on the sidelines like everybody else. fifa fulla shit.
-
I wouldn't go for instant replay but post an extra linesperson behind each goal. It keeps the human element while providing the officals with an extra set of eyes.
I also think the problem has been that to many officials and linespersons have been in place to make the calls but not making the calls.
They need tuh put them thru some CIA training and mentally toughen them up if they lack the balls to make the right call! :devil:
Nah. Put and use cameras. Dem same linespersons yuh want to put behind de goal go be 'fraid to make the calls just like the ones they have now! as a matter of fact, fifa talkin' about "cost" it eh costing nothing when already, they have fourth officials that could see the feed in real time on the sidelines like everybody else. fifa fulla shit.
Yuh take the words right off mih keyboard.....
-
I wouldn't go for instant replay but post an extra linesperson behind each goal. It keeps the human element while providing the officals with an extra set of eyes.
I also think the problem has been that to many officials and linespersons have been in place to make the calls but not making the calls.
They need tuh put them thru some CIA training and mentally toughen them up if they lack the balls to make the right call! :devil:
Nah. Put and use cameras. Dem same linespersons yuh want to put behind de goal go be 'fraid to make the calls just like the ones they have now! as a matter of fact, fifa talkin' about "cost" it eh costing nothing when already, they have fourth officials that could see the feed in real time on the sidelines like everybody else. fifa fulla shit.
Yuh take the words right off mih keyboard.....
and come Friday, Brazil go pick all de oranje out yuh tree! :devil:
-
Great discussion on Fox Soccer Report on the replay/ technology issue.
Hopefully I'll be able to locate a copy of the video at some point.
-
I wouldn't go for instant replay but post an extra linesperson behind each goal. It keeps the human element while providing the officals with an extra set of eyes.
I also think the problem has been that to many officials and linespersons have been in place to make the calls but not making the calls.
They need tuh put them thru some CIA training and mentally toughen them up if they lack the balls to make the right call! :devil:
Nah. Put and use cameras. Dem same linespersons yuh want to put behind de goal go be 'fraid to make the calls just like the ones they have now! as a matter of fact, fifa talkin' about "cost" it eh costing nothing when already, they have fourth officials that could see the feed in real time on the sidelines like everybody else. fifa fulla shit.
Yuh take the words right off mih keyboard.....
and come Friday, Brazil go pick all de oranje out yuh tree! :devil:
Steups!!!.... ;D
-
come nah bakes.. yuh love america... nutten wrong with dat..
doh take it personal :-*
ha ha... nah fack dem. I will give dem dey due but me eh no fan. Ref was probably vex with heself fuh giving Altidore de shit free kick tuh begin with and say, "yuh know what... fack dat, ah blowing mih whistle again" lol
Oh sh*t :rotfl: :rotfl:...I only now see this lol- The original foul was a sh** call in troot! Anyhow lemme doh raise da hornets nest again. See what a 2 day break in games does cause
-
come nah bakes.. yuh love america... nutten wrong with dat..
doh take it personal :-*
ha ha... nah fack dem. I will give dem dey due but me eh no fan. Ref was probably vex with heself fuh giving Altidore de shit free kick tuh begin with and say, "yuh know what... fack dat, ah blowing mih whistle again" lol
Oh sh*t :rotfl: :rotfl:...I only now see this lol- The original foul was a sh** call in troot! Anyhow lemme doh raise da hornets nest again. See what a 2 day break in games does cause
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
Man going thru all kinda withdrawal...
Aye... allyuh please doh get Brownsugar started. She dun start calling mih Zeppo arready :rotfl:
-
From the Trinidad Guardian.
Blundering referees cut from list
Published: 30 Jun 2010
Italian referee Roberto Rosetti was one
of the four referees that was left off
the list of 19 referees announced by Fifa
yesterday to take part in the rest of
the competition. AP Photo
JOHANNESBURG—Uruguay’s Jorge Larrionda and Italy’s Roberto Rosetti, whose blunders have prompted Fifa to rethink using video technology, won’t play any further part in the World Cup. They were left off the list of 19 referees announced by Fifa yesterday to take part in the rest of the competition although football’s world governing body gave no explanation. Larrionda and his linesman failed to see an England shot clearly cross the line in a 4-1 loss to Germany in a second round game on Sunday. Frank Lampard’s shot hit the bar and bounced down behind the line before spinning back into play. It would have made the score 2-2. Rosetti wrongly awarded a goal to Argentina’s Carlos Tevez against Mexico when he took Lionel’s Messi’s pass in a clearly offside position. It was Argentina’s first in a 3-1 victory which put the team into the last eight.
Two more left out for the remainder of the competition were Koman Coulibaly of Mali, who disallowed a third United States goal in a 2-2 draw with Slovenia, and French ref Stephane Lannoy who harshly sent off Brazil’s Kaka for a second yellow after Ivory Coast’s Kader Keita ran into him while going for the ball. Those left on the list include some from countries no longer involved in the competition. England’s Howard Webb has become one of the favourites to referee the final and so has Frank De Bleekere of Belgium, which didn’t qualify. The amended list includes six from Europe, four from South America, three from Asia, three from North, Central America and the Caribbean (Concacaf), two from Africa and one from Oceania. From these, Fifa will select the officials for the last eight games from the quarterfinals onwards.(AP)
http://guardian.co.tt/sports/football/2010/06/30/blundering-referees-cut-list
-
Roberto Rosetti is related to the Baldwins?
(http://worldreferee.com/img/referee/rosetti_roberto2.jpg)(http://preview3.accesshollywood.com/content/images/51/230x306/51721_actor-stephen-baldwin.jpg)
-
check this list of rule changes all dese johnny-come-latelys proposing:
1) video replay of goals - so henry cyah bat ball
2) goal line technology - so england can lose by 2 instead of 3 goal
3) video replay of yellow/red cards - like all dat flopping help CR
4) goaltending for hand ball - a PK and red card eh enough any more
5) realtime video replay of offside calls - dem linesmen only taking up space
like allyuh think is NFL/NBA/tennis/baseball? ???
DE TANTIE OF ALL SSSSSSTTTTTEEEEEEUUUUUUUPPPPPPPSSSSSS
-
Look at it from several angles. Like i said before fifa created the rules and they still cyah get it right and are haunted by the effects of many ills of this world cup. federations need to make hash changes for the respect of the sport. handling the ball should be a reward just before it crosses the goal line and it should be a major punishment for the defending team.
-
FIFA IS AH BUNCH OF CORRUPTED FU*KERS THAT BREAK THE HEART OF KIDS AND THEIR PARENTS. THE SPONSORS WANT THEIR PRODUCT MARKETED AND USE FIFA DURING THE TOURNAMENT TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR FEAT AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT THE REPLICA KITS IS WHAT ALL SPONSORS RIDE ON. I JUST DO NOT HAVE NO FEELING TO WATCH THE REST OF THE WC TRUST MEH
-
check this list of rule changes all dese johnny-come-latelys proposing:
1) video replay of goals - so henry cyah bat ball
2) goal line technology - so england can lose by 2 instead of 3 goal
3) video replay of yellow/red cards - like all dat flopping help CR
4) goaltending for hand ball - a PK and red card eh enough any more
5) realtime video replay of offside calls - dem linesmen only taking up space
like allyuh think is NFL/NBA/tennis/baseball? ???
DE TANTIE OF ALL SSSSSSTTTTTEEEEEEUUUUUUUPPPPPPPSSSSSS
I like it might take a lil borrow now and then
-
THE WISE LIVING OFF THE FOOLISH THEY HAVE PEOPLE LOOKING UP TO THE SKY TO WORSHIP WHEN IT HAVE NOTTIN UP THEIR. FU**K THIS WORLD!!!
-
THE WISE LIVING OFF THE FOOLISH THEY HAVE PEOPLE LOOKING UP TO THE SKY TO WORSHIP WHEN IT HAVE NOTTIN UP THEIR. FU**K THIS WORLD!!!
???
-
Well finally the world cup finals finish with a question mark. Who to blame?