Fifa World Cup 2010

[roguerouge]

In that case the foul could have been any of the every single player near the goal pulling on or holding an opponent. Introduce instant replay and crap like this can be avoided.

Oh, yeah. On replay, it looks like a rugby scrum in there, ironically with the exception of Edu, who seems to pull of a swim move to escape an entangle effect.

The Slovenian team was far better in the first half as it took the Americans a long time to get the molasses out of their asses so to speak.

Oh, yes. The first half was quite dismaying. The Slovenians are really good and I hope they advance, not the English.

Watching pro sports, I've gotten used to bad calls, because they're part of the game, and game-changing bad calls happen, even if you legitimately complain about them. But no sport I watch has the ref not announce the call. NFL: announces penalty and player to fans. NBA: call labels player, announced to fan. MLB: announces call and there's a tradition of allowing managers to go on the field to scream at the ref about it. I never realized that having authorities be accountable to fans and sides was actually an American conceit.

 

[nerfherder]

I never realized that having authorities be accountable to fans and sides was actually an American conceit.

It's not - there are many, many other international sports where the officials announce their decision plainly for everyone, e.g. cricket, tennis, rugby.

 

[Mark]

It might just have been put in place to avoid language barrier issues which could lead to further problems on the field that delay the game. I don't really have a problem with players not being able to challenge a call on the field, even for clarification, since it is a slippery slope. I do agree that there would be some benefit to a 24 hour appeal process, and use during that process of instant replay, to correct the most egregious of calls on the field.

 

[nerfherder]

It might just have been put in place to avoid language barrier issues which could lead to further problems on the field that delay the game. I don't really have a problem with players not being able to challenge a call on the field, even for clarification, since it is a slippery slope. I do agree that there would be some benefit to a 24 hour appeal process, and use during that process of instant replay, to correct the most egregious of calls on the field.

I agree - I think it's crazy in the biggest sport in the world that they don't have some sort of instant replay system - e.g.the captain can appeal a certain number of times per game, once the ball is out of play (like in tennis).

 

[roguerouge]

It's not - there are many, many other international sports where the officials announce their decision plainly for everyone, e.g. cricket, tennis, rugby.

I'd forgotten about tennis. The others... I'm not sure that those really count as major sports, especially as international sports without inclusion in the Olympics (although rugby joins in 2016, I understand). But still, no major competitive sports league in the US does this, with the exception of soccer.

 

[roguerouge]

It might just have been put in place to avoid language barrier issues which could lead to further problems on the field that delay the game. I don't really have a problem with players not being able to challenge a call on the field, even for clarification, since it is a slippery slope. I do agree that there would be some benefit to a 24 hour appeal process, and use during that process of instant replay, to correct the most egregious of calls on the field.

Challenge, no, I agree. Know what the call is, well, I feel that's basic.

As for language, I understand that in this particular case the ref spoke English and French fluently. Of course, the US players asked him what the call was in both languages too.

 

[Mark]

Challenge, no, I agree. Know what the call is, well, I feel that's basic.

As for language, I understand that in this particular case the ref spoke English and French fluently. Of course, the US players asked him what the call was in both languages too.

It seems the issue isn't the call but rather the details, or claification, that was being demanded, and I'm not sure allowing that should be acceptable once the ref has said to play on. It might be good if a number of challenges can be made, in the moment, by the coach (maybe he'd base that on the request of a player, perhaps a captain), then they could be reviewed "upstairs" during the game and a ruling issued at the half or right after the game if warranted. You could do this in conjunction with the above suggested appeals process, I suppose, for the more flagrant mistakes. As for the language barrier, someone can speak a language and if it is not their primary language not speak it well enough, with the ability to speak in such detail, as to satisfy a listener. Plus, it needs to be a blanket policy, I think. If not all of the refs are capable of the same degree of language skill, in all languages necessary for any game they happen to ref, are only some required to give details on a call while others get a pass? Another slippery slope. It will be a shame if the US doesn't advance but the chance is still in reach and in their own control.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Next Wednesday is going to be a big day for Group C. Too bad the games are at the same time.

The final group games are always played at the same time to avoid any possibilities of cheating - for example, if Mexico and Uruguary were on first and played out a draw, the France / South Africa game would have no meaning at all.

Incidentally, England were THE BIGGEST PILE OF ARSE I've ever seen on Friday night. At the moment, unless we totally shake it up, we're out on Wednesday. Absolutely woeful performance - nearly as bad as the French.

 

[Morrus]

I agree - I think it's crazy in the biggest sport in the world that they don't have some sort of instant replay system - e.g.the captain can appeal a certain number of times per game, once the ball is out of play (like in tennis).

The whole thing about football, though, is that it doesn't stop for stuff. That's part of the very core of the game and why millions are spent on players with endurance rather than short bursts of intense energy. Changing that literally changes the game.

The ref should never be expected to explain his decision at the time. Sure, the media can hound him afterwards and a ref can be removed if they're not consistently competent, but football carries on immediately.

In this case - the ref wasn't wrong, but the situation really sucks for the USA and I feel for them. It feels unfair.

But when it comes down to it, he blew the whistle after a foul, and the goal was scored after the whistle was blown. The goal was scored when the game had been stopped. Yes, the timing was tight and it was really unfortunate timing for the US (especially when the Slovenians were clearly being asshats), but the rules is the rules, and that's the game we choose to compete in.

99% of the time it works and creates the most popular sport on the entire planet. 1% of the time we get a "Hand of God" or this game. But pausing for replays? Allowing players to have a cup of tea and kit-kat mid-game? That's too much of a game changer. It's not worth the 1%.

There's a reason why it's worked so long.

 

[nightwyrm]

The final group games are always played at the same time to avoid any possibilities of cheating - for example, if Mexico and Uruguary were on first and played out a draw, the France / South Africa game would have no meaning at all.

The infamous West Germany vs Austria game of the 1982 world cup was what prompted the change to have the final group games at the same time. It's a good rule, although you'll have to pick which game to watch.