jefferiah

Annie Hall was alright. For Woody movies I would pick Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbands and Wives, Bullets Over Broadway, and the Curse of The Jade Scorpion. Everybody Says I Love You was pretty good too.

Great topic. I actually do not like many movies at all. I do not like many of the movies mentioned here. I don't like Star Wars, I don't like Avatar. I don't like Goodfellows. I don't care for Tarantino. Fight Club...I can't understand how anyone enjoyed that. I actually do like a few Woody Allen movies I've seen. Hannah and Her Sisters comes to mind. Out of movies that came out in the past few years the only one I really liked was Zombieland, which I never expected as it is not what I usually like. I think I prefer TV shows more. Though there are not many that I like in recent years. I really loved Frasier and I still watch reruns today. Seinfeld, Cheers, Newhart. Those were great shows. The great thing about a tv show is it comes in smaller portions. Half hour stories. Yet at the same time the overall story continues for several years. I like the familiarity of seeing characters I love. There is greater opportunity for character development in a tv show than in a 2 hour movie.

The same Tommy Douglas who advocated sterilization of the mentally defective?

That is certainly no motivation for Argentinians to cheer for Argentina.

Actually I think the NHL officiating in this regard is a concern to many fans. "Letting the boys play" in the third period is not exactly a pleasant thing for a team down a goal which took the bulk of penalties in the first two periods on borderline calls which resulted in power play goals for the opponent. And it often seems like there is a different rule book for popular star players.

No doubt about it. I don't think you have to ref a game to realize the common sense behind that. The no goal yesterday was certainly not the ref's fault.

I would like to address this point on its own. I would say if the ball ends up in the other teams net, do the review then. And count both goals. Would the second goal have happened if the first goal were counted in the first place???? I dont know. But the way it stands, the second goal will count anyway and the first one won't. I'd say this would be an improvement.

In general I would say the NHL goal review lasts about 1 - 2 minutes. There are ones which are longer. I think it would be far less frequent in football, especially if you use a limited challenge system. My main argument to this is that catching a definite goal like yesterday's is more important than a could-be goal. My guess is that 99 per cent of the time a goal official on the line would be sufficient to make the calls, and 99 per cent of the time where review is concerned it's safe to say another goal would not have happened. I think reviewing during the next stoppage would be fine.

I doubt it would take 5 minutes. I am sure it never takes 5 minutes in hockey. I have not seen every goal review. Some are longer than others. And the team itself does not get to pick which angles are reviewed. They just make their case and a video goal judge would review it. That said, I think a goal official would suffice 99 percent of the time and may be all that is needed. In hockey I have no problem with the number of reviews since it is a game which includes stoppage anyways. In football I think it deserves a shot though. 99 percent of the calls could be made by a goal official. Given the nature of the game, I think a limited challenge system would work. I think a single challenge per team/per game would suffice. I think you would rarely see it. I understand your problem though about the stoppage when the defending team now has the opportunity to transition with the other team's defense out of defensive position. In hockey, as I said before, they wait until the next stoppage. The problems you addressed with this (that it may be a long time, and that another goal may be scored) are also present in hockey. Sometimes it can be a while before the review actually comes. Also it can affect the amount of time a team spends on the powerplay. So I mean, if anything like this were to be employed it would have to be discussed. And among soccer fans. To me these are the most convincing arguments against it. Not the time. IMO limiting it to whether or not ball crosses the line would be reasonable. Those reviews themselves would very very rarely be time consuming, and I think reviews in and of themselves would be rare. But I do not know how the euro football fan club would perceive these changes that I recommend. I know I would probably not take too kindly to Euro football fans making recommendations I do no like about hockey. I watch hockey and tennis, so maybe I am just so used to things this way, and this could be my own bias. To me it seemed quite incredible to have missed that. I am not outraged or anything. I could care less how England does. It just really stood out to me. Probably there are some things in hockey that die-hard fans have learned to accept which would be mysterious to fans of other games. For me, one thing that comes to mind about hockey is the inconsistency in how strictly the game is officiated. And this is something we comment about as if it is almost completely normal. Hockey fans may even praise it. Things like: It's the third period and this is the playoffs and these refs have decided to put their whistles away and let these teams go at it.

To me though, this is what would make it so maddening if I was a soccer fan. Like I mean I could find an obvious goal in hockey that is called back because perhaps the ref blew the whistle thinking the goalie had frozen the puck. Those cannot be reversed. That is a refs mistake. I might complain about it in hockey. But I know the ref can only call what he sees. I grasp that. But to me it seems odd that the "league" which governs the "World's Game" when it is played on the World Level could be so "bush league" as to not have a way to see that goal. It seems very unprofessional. Add in the multi-million dollar factor and I'm scratching my head even more at it.

I would disagree with this line of thinking. Once again though, soccer is not my sport. For me it's not what the majority of controversial calls are. I think determining if the ball crosses the goal line would be a rare occurence, but even so that's pretty important. I am looking at this as a hockey fan though. There are any number of things which can happen before a goal which could affect whether or not the goal would have been scored, and these things are often not called. They are not subject to review, because only the nature of the goal itself is subject to review. Goaltender interference is a fine example. I've seen goals scored after obvious offsides. Those non-calls happen more often and can be controversial. I myself get pretty angry at these bad calls. But I deal with it. If they could not determine an obvious goal like yesterday's I would be livid, though. I mean compared to other sports that looks pretty pathetic.

I agree with this assessment as well. And then there is poker which gets coverage on sports networks. Poker!!!

Well a goal official like Wyly mentioned would not be technological. But then I also have to admit there is a point to be made about fan whininess and how it could cause the slippery slope Wyly mentioned. I know for certain that a goal official is not going to stop complaints over calls.

Sure there has to be a balance between accepting imperfection and trying to improve things. For instance if they had the blind refereeing the soccer matches I am sure you would not say, "...well as long as he is trying" when there is a perfectly simple solution to that problem. I think we disagree on where the balance is. I have no stock in today's match nor any of them really. I just find it incredible that a goal like that could be missed in a pro sport. Oh yeah...I'm supposed to shut up about this. I forgot pretty quickly about that resolution I guess. Mmmmm....I know you can never have the perfect microscope. And I fully realize that football fans do not want to see a game where you have to scrutinize everything. But I really think the goal official is a reasonable middle ground at least. So it's nice that FIFA will have that next time around. Though, maybe it's not such a good thing. If this guy makes a mistake I suppose he could end up dead somewhere.

Yes I realize it is not easy for the ref to be everywhere, but I am referring to a goal cam. I know there are more players but I do think it would be easier to catch most of these goals. When its not definitive its not a goal. I think the goal judge would be a huge improvement. Nothing is ever perfect, but I find it hard to believe that such a goal as we saw today would be missed in such an important global sport. Handballs are against the rules in any situation, so I would file that under ref's jurisdiction. I dunno. I'll shut up now though, since it's not my game anyways.

Sure, I can accept that. But there is no reason nowadays why that goal should have been missed. And I see no reason to shake a stick at getting a few more goals called right. Seems reasonable to me. There will still be plenty of bad calls to go around.

In hockey you do it during the next stoppage. I would think it would only make a throw-in, corner kick, goal kick or free kick a few seconds longer....you know if you do the review at that time. In hockey there are situations where reviewing a goal can be time consuming. Not to mention the fact that it is usually the league in Toronto that does the review. And some goals are obviously more complex than others. Still though I think it would be ten times easier to review it in euro football than in hockey. Ball is bigger, net is bigger. Hockey has certain fine rules about scoring goals that can be challenging to review as well. Things like: Did the puck come off the players skate? If so, did he kick it in or did he redirect it with his skate? A redirect is allowed if you turn your skate. A kicking motion isnt. Was the puck knocked in with a high stick (which in the case of scoring means did the stick meet the puck above the crossbar)? In football it should be easier. And in a game where goals are few and far between, and where most of them are easily visible, it should be very rare. In hockey they dont even have to employ a system whereby a team is punished for making a false challenge. I think it should be less so in football. I think with football there would be little need to make a stoppage to review. Employ a goal judge and a video goal judge. Do not count fouls or offside. Even in the goal review. Those are ref's jurisdiction. If they are missed, they are missed. Does the ball cross the line? That's all. They could give teams a challenge limit after which time they would be penalized for any challenge which was incorrect. Or penalize all incorrect goal challenges. They could regulate it easily. Or don't allow challenges. Have a goal judge at the line. He should catch 99 percent of it. If he is in doubt he can whistle for review. Probably would happen once in a blue moon. I think there are several options, and I think it could be done very quickly. You obviously know the game better than I do and how the majority of fans would react to something like this. I do think they realistically could keep this quick and simple, and that it would be rare.

I think that is silly, though. Hockey, for instance, does not allow for reviews except for on goals. Goals are a pretty easy thing for people to agree on as a review point. I mean not that that would have necessarily changed the game for England, but its kind of pathetic that the ball goes about a foot behind the line, and FIFA has no way to guarantee that it will count. If that happens in the finals in a very tight game.....and it can easily be corrected in a few seconds. In a game where a team generally scores no more than 2 goals, getting goals right should be very important.

Spain....I went for Spain last time around.

And nothing to say about these goals which are being intentionally kicked in?? Refs in hockey would have caught those ones.

I said I watch games here and there. But it is still nothing compared to hockey. I would not be online during a hockey game. I already was sophisticated. You would think FIFA would catch up. Hockey has goal review. Another thing I keep noticing is a lot of these goals which are being counted are without a doubt being kicked in....distinct kicking motion!!!!

There should definitely be goal review. I know soccer is a game without stoppage, but you don't need to review fouls. Would not take long to check that.

Incidentally, are you a CFL or NFL man? I watch a few CFL games every year. I actually enjoy it when I do, but I've just never got into it to the point where I am a regular viewer.

What about that Australian regulation football. That looks pretty intense. I don't understand the rules. I'm not sure the game has rules. I see refs, but.....

No doubt about it. I played soccer when I was younger. You never stop moving. No line changes. And it is a great game to play. For a hockey fan, it's really quite similar in many ways. In winter we used to play indoor tournaments with five players and a keeper. Just for me, there is nothing quite like hockey. It is fast paced, and the scoring is just a bit higher, which is suited to me. I don't think scoring totals are everything. In basketball the novelty kind of wears of after the score reaches 3 million. I wonder if August realizes yet that Montreal fans will be booing Halak pretty soon.