World Cup 2010

[msj]

I tend to agree. The idiotic nationalism of the World Cup is a thousand times worse than even the Olympics.

Maybe it's because I was so close to the 2010 Olympics and I am not very close to the World Cup that I think this statement is nonsense.

But I will get a taste for myself when I attend the WC in 2014.

And the officiating makes it hard to take the games seriously. I've been watching much of the tournament so far, and for the most part, enjoying it. But the officiating has gotten to the point of absurdity. There's no replay of anything, even when everyone in the stadium knows that the incorrect call has been made. And referees don't have to answer any questions after the games as to why they made certain decisions. Until FIFA corrects this situation, soccer will never take off in North America. It's far too frustrating.

More nonsense. When the U20 World Cup came to Canada back in 2007 I attended some games in Victoria and there is no way to "know" anything except under perfect 20/20 hindsight and with video replay.

The players and coaches (and even some of us fans) all know the rules that FIFA uses so it is entirely fair for all teams involved.

Yet, fans (usually the casual fan, but also the die hard "fanboi") will whine.

Hell, some in this forum still cry over the hand of god goal.

A big to all yer whinin'.

The quarters have been very entertaining and the best team will win, as is the usual outcome in these events.

[Shady]

More nonsense.

No, it's not nonsense at all. Everyone knew that England tied the game yesterday, except the refs. I don't see what's wrong with using replay ONLY on goals.

[msj]

No, it's not nonsense at all. Everyone knew that England tied the game yesterday, except the refs. I don't see what's wrong with using replay ONLY on goals.

The only way to have "known" this is to have seen the replay.

Yes, after the replay one would have known this but since some of us "know" that FIFA does not use replay then it is a "known" that the goal should not have been allowed since the ref/linesman did not see the ball cross the line in real time.

I find it strange that people are so concerned with the injustices on the pitch when it involves multi-million dollar football stars but don't give a rat's ass when it comes to Joe/Jill Sixpack in regular society.....

Edited June 28, 2010 by msj

[Shady]

The only way to have "known" this is to have seen the replay.

Yes, after the replay one would have known this but since some of us "know" that FIFA does not use replay then it is a "known" that the goal should not have been allowed since the ref/linesman did not see the ball cross the line in real time.

That's the whole point. FIFA should use replay, but only on goals. But I have to disagree. The group of people I was watching the match with all saw the ball cross the line. It wasn't even close. It was a good two or three feet past it.

I find it strange that people are so concerned with the injustices on the pitch when it involves multi-million dollar football stars but don't give a rat's ass when it comes to Joe/Jill Sixpack in regular society.....

I'm concerned with the fair outcomes of World Cup matches, as well as the well-being of Joe/Jill Sixpack. This just happens to be a topic thread specifically related to the 2010 World Cup.

[msj]

That's the whole point. FIFA should use replay, but only on goals. But I have to disagree. The group of people I was watching the match with all saw the ball cross the line. It wasn't even close. It was a good two or three feet past it.

Sure, sure. I only truly noticed (100%) with replay.

Given that the ball was nowhere near 2 to 3 feet past the line (with 20/20 replay hindsight) I've got to assume you're full of it.

Of course, I also realize that TV angles are different from the angles from the field for which the ref and linesman were watching....

[Shady]

Of course, I also realize that TV angles are different from the angles from the field for which the ref and linesman were watching....

Exactly. Which is why replay should be used in some cases. Not all. Just once in a while, when a goal is in doubt. Stop being such a flat-earther!

[msj]

Exactly. Which is why replay should be used in some cases. Not all. Just once in a while, when a goal is in doubt. Stop being such a flat-earther!

I have no problem with replay being used for goals (and goals crossing the line only - offside should be left alone).

The point is that we know that it is not being used for this World Cup so why all the yappin'?

[Shady]

Given that the ball was nowhere near 2 to 3 feet past the line

Perhaps you may want to reconsider. Facts can be stubborn things.

PIC

All the quote "yappin" is because the World Cup only comes around every 4 years. And when teams get screwed out of goals, and in some cases wins, it becomes a pretty big deal.

[msj]

Perhaps you may want to reconsider. Facts can be stubborn things.

PIC

Nope.

Adjust for the angle of that camera and it is still not 2 to 3 feet behind the line.

Yes, 1 to 2 feet certainly.

Of course, what really matters is what the ref/lineman saw so it's a moot point.

All the quote "yappin" is because the World Cup only comes around every 4 years. And when teams get screwed out of goals, and in some cases wins, it becomes a pretty big deal.

It's a game. Do you really care who won in 1930? Or 1966?

Sure, some people do but it's about fun and competition and luck.

If England can get lucky in 1966 (and unlucky in 1986 and 2010) then c'est la vie.

Sure, the best teams may not always win (due to luck) but that's what makes tournaments so exciting in the first place.

Besides, with the way England was playing, Germany would have beaten them anyway. The superior team usually wins despite chance.

England was playing very poor tactically.

Edited June 28, 2010 by msj

[jefferiah]

The thing about bringing in video replay for just goals is that it covers such a tiny percentage of the controversial decisions in the sport as a whole. Offside, I would think, would be the officiating decision that accouns for the lions share of controversy.

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.

Edited June 28, 2010 by jefferiah

[Shady]

It's a game. Do you really care who won in 1930? Or 1966?

I know it's just a game. All I want is proper officiating, and the use of occasional replay. So that something significant doesn't end up costing a team a win. I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

[msj]

I know it's just a game. All I want is proper officiating, and the use of occasional replay. So that something significant doesn't end up costing a team a win. I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

It is proper officiating.

The officials should not and can not call what they did not see.

We know that FIFA doesn't allow for replays at this WC and are going to have someone watching the nets for these types of things at the next WC.

Sh!t happens sometimes.

[jefferiah]

The only way to have "known" this is to have seen the replay.

Yes, after the replay one would have known this but since some of us "know" that FIFA does not use replay then it is a "known" that the goal should not have been allowed since the ref/linesman did not see the ball cross the line in real time.

I find it strange that people are so concerned with the injustices on the pitch when it involves multi-million dollar football stars but don't give a rat's ass when it comes to Joe/Jill Sixpack in regular society.....

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.

Edited June 28, 2010 by jefferiah

[Shady]

It is proper officiating.

It's incompetent officiating.

[msj]

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.

Well, I'm a soccer fan and it really doesn't upset me too too much.

I also watch NFL football (very closely) and even then, sh!t happens and I don't let it bother me.

Just because one is a fan doesn't mean that one has to be a subjectively driven imbecile.

The rules are the rules and as long as the game is played within those rules then I accept mistakes are going to happen even though this may mean the "wrong" team wins on a few occasions.

I have seen enough games (not WC though) close up to have some sympathy for officials and I can also understand human error.

It is the match fixing that goes on that bother me because that is intentional (and North Americans shouldn't be smug on this because it happens here far more than we probably will ever know).

[msj]

For those wanting some WC stats porn, here it is.

[msj]

It's incompetent officiating.

Watch the replay before the "goal" is scored and watch the ref and linesman.

They are in perfectly appropriate areas given where the play was prior to the "goal."

The fact that they did not see the ball cross the line has more to do with the angle that they are at (which we, as TV viewers, don't get a chance to see) and how quickly the ball bounced.

So, we can't really judge how badly they messed up based on the real time events.

Of course, after the fact you can see how badly they messed up (from multiple angles and in slow motion, no less) and can say whatever you want while smugly preening yourself.

Edited June 28, 2010 by msj

[Shady]

So, we can't really judge how badly they messed up based on the real time events.

Yes we can.

Of course, after the fact you can see how badly they messed up

Nope. It was clear how badly they messed up during real time.

FIFA needs to set up a better system. It's undeniable.

[msj]

Yes we can.

Oh, didn't know I was dealing with an Obama voter.

Nope. It was clear how badly they messed up during real time.

Spoken like a person who has seen the highlight reel rather than the game itself.

FIFA needs to set up a better system. It's undeniable.

Who has denied it?

Even FIFA has been kicking around the idea of having someone in place to watch for these type of goals and it looks like they are going to implement it at the next WC.

But, since it is not in place at this WC we have to live with this type of human error.

Poor, poor England.....

[wyly]

Sure, sure. I only truly noticed (100%) with replay.

Given that the ball was nowhere near 2 to 3 feet past the line (with 20/20 replay hindsight) I've got to assume you're full of it.

Of course, I also realize that TV angles are different from the angles from the field for which the ref and linesman were watching....

having ref'ed a few games in my life I can tell you it's impossible to see a ball cross the plane of the goal line with 100% accuracy from a distance, I disallowed two claims for goals in one game in similar circumstances..unless the ref is right on top of the play or it's picked up by the AR it isn't going to be allowed...and you can't believe the attacking team they're not above claiming the ball crossed the line when it hasn't and sometimes the players themselves have no idea...

and while we at home are busy watching the ball on multiple camera angles the AR's are watching intently for offside situations and the Ref is watching the entire game picking up the fouls behind the play, the ref really does need eyes in the back of his head...add 22 players screaming at you and obscuring your vision it's understandable they miss things on occasion...

[wyly]

Poor, poor England.....

unfortunate, it may have changed the game but Germany was dominant so deserved winners, kind of makes up for the 66WC when England defeated Germany in the final with the goal that never crossed the line...

1966

[wyly]

Exactly. I remember this same debate about bringing in video replay to the CFL. While it has helped reduce the number of errors, it quite clearly does slow the game down consistently.

Its not as noticable when watching on TV since they just cut to commercials anyway, but when you're at the stadium watching the officials discuss the play amongst themselves and the challenging coach, then the referee run over to the video booth and stand with his head in the video booth for 5 minutes, then run back onto the field to deliver his decision, it regularly eats up 10 minutes. Almost every video review in the CFL quite literally destroys the flow of the game.

And if it can do that to a game with a fairly disjointed flow in the first place, I can only imagine what it could do to soccer.

and tactically key part of the game is wearing down your opponent by having them chase the ball, giving them 5 minute water breaks will give the weaker teams an advantage and lead to more defensive football...and ya we know it'll be become 5 mins as each team will want the video to be seen over and over from multiple angles...

a goal line official would be the best solution, he makes a call only if he sees a the ball crosses the line, the ref determining if the goal was legit and the ar's watching primarily for offside...keeps the game flowing...

[jefferiah]

and ya we know it'll be become 5 mins as each team will want the video to be seen over and over from multiple angles...

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.

Edited June 28, 2010 by jefferiah

[wyly]

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 have seen hockey stoppages that take 5 minutes or at least seem like they do...that just won't be acceptable to football fans... giving a team on the losing end of a score a rest and time to reorganize is a lifeline they don't deserve, wearing down your opponents and keeping them disorganized are objectives of every coach...

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.

it's a critcal part of every game, both games today featured teams doing just that..absorb the offensive pressure then the moment the ball is turned over counter before the opponents can regroup into a defensive posture...

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.

which is essentially what the AR's do on the touchlines and advising the ref which way the ball should go on the throw in, the ref can over rule the AR if he has a better view....having an extra AR on the endlines(goaline) would accomplish the same thing....I'm sure FIFA looks at what many sports do for their officiating issues...

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.

consistancy in officating is the prime concern in football whether during one game or over many games in a tournament, players want get a feel of what's acceptable and what is not and play accordingly..."put away their whistles" is not something we like, despite what fans of CFL/NFL or hockey may think this is not a non-contact sport, I've played many a game where players given the opportunity think nothing of breaking a leg or destroying someone's knee, talking with ER people football is on top of the list for sports injuries

[jefferiah]

I have seen hockey stoppages that take 5 minutes or at least seem like they do...that just won't be acceptable to football fans... giving a team on the losing end of a score a rest and time to reorganize is a lifeline they don't deserve, wearing down your opponents and keeping them disorganized are objectives of every coach...

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.

Edited June 29, 2010 by jefferiah