World Cup Controversy
by DisappointedLeafsFan on Jul 12, 2010 8:23 PM EDT
Email
Print
After a very successful World Cup that proved to the majority of the world that South Africa can host the largest single sporting event in the world, many people have been pleased. However there are some people who may have some problems with some events that occurred.
I will keep this short since I’m pretty sure the last thing you all want to read is some 16-year-old ranting about "blown calls" and controversy.
The first main topic is the Frank Lampard no goal vs. Germany in the first round of the knockout stage. England had just scored their first goal and was down 2-1, he fired an excellent shot at the net which proceeded to hit the cross bar and land over the line. The ball then came out of the net and play continued. The refs didn’t know what happened, they just assumed that the ball didn’t cross the line. this is the prime example from the World Cup on why they need video replay. Should that have counted and made it 2-2, no intention of offending German’s or their team, that game could have had a way different outcome than 4-1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cFIxMmv78&feature=related (Here is the video)
The next semi-controversial topic is when Uruguay’s Suarez blocked a sure goal in the 120th minute with his hand. This gave Ghana a penalty kick. However the Ghana player kicked the ball right off the crossbar, sending the game to penalty kicks. However Ghana lost in penalties after a cheeky chip shot by Uruguay. Many people felt that Ghana should have moved on because of the sure to be goal that got stopped with a handball. to bad fans can’t vote on who moves on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUWZuioV_DY&feature=fvw
The final one, you may have missed during the finals. Netherlands had a free kick close to the Spanish net around the 117th minute. The ball ricocheted off a Spanish player and went out of bounds which should have resulted in a corner kick for the Dutch. Unfortunately for them the ref felt as though the ball went off a Dutch player so he gave a goal kick to Spain. No more than 90 seconds later Spain score the winning goal. The Dutch players were irate with this call and one of them even received a yellow card for arguing and the things he said.
To some this may have been just minor things but these reasons just reinforce the fact that FIFA is in need of instant replay.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Instant Replay is a time consumer that works with breaks and timeouts. Soccer is a fluid game. No breaks, besides for the half, no timeouts. Stopping the match for instant replay would go against the whole style of soccer. What should happen is the games should be reviewed afterwards and the refs who are responsible for split timing decisions should pay a pre determined penalty for their mistakes. (I have no ideas what penalities might work to make them focus better or help them to make the correct calls, but there has to be something. A weekend class or something) Instant Replay for soccer is not a good idea.
"I will never have my best season," Brian Dawkins
"There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." Bruce Lee
"This fucking game is over!" Chuck Bednarik
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" Mike Tyson
Fluidity is important, BUT
I agree with your argument, Talon, but between fluidity and fairness, I personally prefer fairness. We can train our referees as much as we can, but the reality is – based on cognitive psychology research – referees, after all, are simply humans like us. Humans can only pay attention to a few things at a time. Hence, it is not really the referees’ fault that humans have a limited attention capacity.
Now, I truly want to keep the game fluid as much as possible, but the beautiful game, in my opinion, loses its beauty when an unfair call or lack of a call is made (USA’s disallowed third goal against Slovenia, Argentina’s allowed goal against Mexico, for example). Hence, fluidity and fairness must reach a compromise. How?
Well, the best idea I can think of is the challenge idea (from the NFL). Each team can challenge the referees only one time during a game and force a review based on an instant replay. But that’s it. So the cost to the game’s fluidity isn’t much (a maximum of two possible instant replay reviews is not bad at all), but it helps with the fairness of the game sooooo much.
Oh, and use goal-line technology, which doesn’t hinder fluidity at all. In fact, if both goal-line technology and the one-challenge rule are implemented together, the goal-line technology can prevent challenges regarding goal line disputes from interrupting the game in the first place.
- MV
agreed
goal-line technology would not slow the game down whatsoever
by I need more Esteban on Jul 13, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess I am not aware of what goal line technology is. Can someone explain that to me?
The challeneg idea isn’t terrible, but when do you challenge? If you wait until a brief stoppage, like substituions for example, a counter attack after the missed call could have already cost a goal. If you throw the flag right afterwards it might intrude on a possible counter attack opportunity. Coaches are swift enough that they might use that opportunity to slow down the game or stop a counter attack even though they know their call has no validity. I guess you could issue a penalty of sorts for challenging a play that is not over turned, but what? Loss of one substitution? A corner kick giving to the other team? I am not sure. I just find it with the way the game is set up, implementing instant replay or challenges would be very difficult.
"I will never have my best season," Brian Dawkins
"There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." Bruce Lee
"This fucking game is over!" Chuck Bednarik
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" Mike Tyson
by Talon Talent on Jul 13, 2010 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes I Always Like the Fluidity of Watching Players Comlain to the Ref for an eternity
A freaken’ laser. Is that too much to ask?
Goal-line technology can be explained by this well-written article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10435509
As for the challenge idea, you brought up a good point. For cases in which the play will be stopped anyway – PK, red card, corner, for example – the coach can challenge then. The problem lies in non-calls, or when the play continues. For these situations, I can see coaches exploiting the challenge rule. For example, a coach can stop an onside play or a counter-attack by challenging, saying that the play should be stopped. Thus, I think to prevent that from happening, challenges can only be called during dead-ball situations.
BTW, does anyone know how to subscribe to these comments so that we get an e-mail telling us that someone has responded so we know to respond back?
- MV
Interesting technoligies. I don’t really like the chip function. Since the ball has to completely cross the line, I think that one might be flawed. The hawk eye system seems good though. Wouldn’t mind seeing that implemented or at least tried out if it works as well as the article says it does.
"I will never have my best season," Brian Dawkins
"There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." Bruce Lee
"This fucking game is over!" Chuck Bednarik
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" Mike Tyson
by Talon Talent on Jul 15, 2010 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
