Fifa World Cup 2010

[roguerouge]

I really can't agree, Morrus. The call was wrong. But even if it was right, the call was not labeled for the players as a foul or as off-sides or as an inadvertent whistle. Had that happened, people wouldn't be so pissed, because every popular American sport labels the infraction for either the players or the fans to know. And this is typical policy. It's egregiously stupid as a policy when this sport RECENTLY suffered yet another serious referee corruption scandal (Italy, I believe). It comes across as institutional arrogance when an authority doesn't even need to explain itself to its customers or its employees.

Americans found a new reason to hate soccer. And that's enormously damaging to the sport when it's the biggest nation in the tournament--one that's also sports mad and has many in its populace play it as teens--can't stand to watch it. The fact that 83rd ranked China also apparently could care less is also unfortunate as well.

Just because something has worked well in the past, doesn't mean it's worked optimally.

Both Slovenia and the US deserved better from FIFA this week.

 

[nightwyrm]

Umm, what? Soccer is huge in China.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Especially on the women's side- aren't they and the USA ranked #1 & #2 since...forever?

The last thing I'll say against the disallowed goal is that, according to ESPN, even the Slovenian coach said he couldn't find the foul the ref called.

I've said a few prayers for that ref. I know how Red Sox fans have treated Bill Buckner over the years, and I haven't forgotten that Andres Escobar was found dead after an own goal in international play...here's hoping the ref won't encounter any ultra-rabid fans.

I'm glad to see that the English fans are being so reserved in their critique of their team.

And how about the disintegration of Le Blues? Wow...just...wow.

As for today's action...Cameroon- so many shots and so little to show for it. Man, the Danes looked awful.

 

[Morrus]

I really can't agree, Morrus. The call was wrong. But even if it was right, the call was not labeled for the players as a foul or as off-sides or as an inadvertent whistle. Had that happened, people wouldn't be so pissed, because every popular American sport labels the infraction for either the players or the fans to know. And this is typical policy. It's egregiously stupid as a policy when this sport RECENTLY suffered yet another serious referee corruption scandal (Italy, I believe). It comes across as institutional arrogance when an authority doesn't even need to explain itself to its customers or its employees.

Americans found a new reason to hate soccer. And that's enormously damaging to the sport when it's the biggest nation in the tournament--one that's also sports mad and has many in its populace play it as teens--can't stand to watch it. The fact that 83rd ranked China also apparently could care less is also unfortunate as well.

Just because something has worked well in the past, doesn't mean it's worked optimally.

Both Slovenia and the US deserved better from FIFA this week.

With all due respect, the World Cup has been the biggest sporting event on the planet for decades despite the US's disinterest. The amount of money a team like ManU generates is stupendous. Having the yanks interested would be a bonus, but it really is not necessary.

The principle of "the game does not stop" makes the game play like it does. I agree that pausing it and reviewing decisions would result in a higher accuracy rate; but it would change the game. And, your own country aside, it cannot be denied that the formula works on a massive scale, and has done for decades. Viewing figures are in the billions, and the revenue is mind-bogglingly huge. A few million more viewers from America really isn't gonna make any difference.

As for whether the call was right or not - it was right. Foul, whistle. And the ref is not required to stop and explain it. The game keeps going. The players don't get to stop playing. Sprinting for 90 minutes is an expensive skill to train them in! But it was a perfect storm of the right call being really unfortunate for the US team given the timing. It is unfortunate, and the US did lose out. ANd yes, that sucks, and I feel for you. Having been on the other end of similar situations, don't think I don't understand where you're coming from.

But "change the way the game works" so the US might become interested? That's not gonna happen. People have been arguing for and against extra tech and so forth for decades, and this is just another minor data point. There are strong arguments both for and against it, and we're not going to come up with any new argument here on EN World which hasn't already been discussed endlessly for the last 50 years.

"Americans finding a new way to hate soccer" is not "enormously damaging to the sport". I understand the temptation to wish it were so, but the truth is it just frankly ain't. If no American ever watched a football game again for the rest of eternity, football would still thrive immensely - as it always has done.

 

[Mark]

The final group games are always played at the same time to avoid any possibilities of cheating - (. . .)

Yup. It's still too bad.

 

[Mark]

With all due respect, the World Cup has been the biggest sporting event on the planet for decades despite the US's disinterest.

(. . .)

The principle of "the game does not stop" makes the game play like it does. I agree that pausing it and reviewing decisions would result in a higher accuracy rate; but it would change the game.

(. . .)

But "change the way the game works" so the US might become interested?

Who said "pausing?" There's no reason review cannot happen while the game continues or post game. Certainly you're not arguing in favor of bad calls just to thumb your nose at supposed US disinterest? I wonder where the US ranks in the total number of fans who are watching the World Cup? Heck, we probably have more people within our borders watching the matches that aren't even supposed to be here than some countries have who are.

 

[Morrus]

Certainly you're not arguing in favor of bad calls just to thumb your nose at supposed US disinterest?

OK Mark.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for whether the call was right or not - it was right. Foul, whistle.

Forgive me, but you're the only person I know of- besides the ref- who has put forth this position.

I didn't see a foul. The announcers didn't. The Sovenians haven't had one person step up and say "I was the guy who was fouled."

What is it that you saw?

As for replay: I don't think that soccer really needs it for the most part. Soccer, like hockey or basketball are games of flow. But controversial goals being given or taken away in a sport where goals are soooooooo precious is one area where I don't think the game would suffer. It works for hockey, after all.*


* Note: according to FIFA rules, if Canada ever wins the World Cup, the game will be played on ice and called Foothockey.

 

[Morrus]

Forgive me, but you're the only person I know of- besides the ref- who has put forth this position.

I didn't see a foul. The announcers didn't. The Sovenians haven't had one person step up and say "I was the guy who was fouled."

What is it that you saw?

What I saw was a pile of Slovenians bearhugging American players moments before the goal. That was the foul, as far as I can tell.

Which, as I said, made the result really unfortunate.

But that's not the point - what we're discussing here is the conept of whther or not the ref's decision should be sacrosanct. Heaven knows refs have been shown to be wrong in the past (nobosy would ever say they haven't - least of all an Englishman, for obvious reasons), but general consensus has continued the on-the-spot decision system.

I personally believe the sport would suffer from a change from that system. I know that many disagree.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I saw was a pile of Slovenians bearhugging American players moments before the goal. That was the foul, as far as I can tell.

Which, as I said, made the result really unfortunate.

I got you- there was a foul by the Slovenians by the Americans which resulted in the whistle which made the play dead, resulting in no-goal.

But that's not the point - what we're discussing here is the conept of whther or not the ref's decision should be sacrosanct. Heaven knows refs have been shown to be wrong in the past (nobosy would ever say they haven't - least of all an Englishman, for obvious reasons), but general consensus has continued the on-the-spot decision system.

I personally believe the sport would suffer from a change from that system. I know that many disagree

This is one where- taking into account the quickness of the play vs. the whistle- there ought to be a way for a ref to essentially overturn his own call. Refs in American football can pick up a flag they've thrown...and for certain penalties, they can allow a play to continue until it fully resolves. And a hockey ref can have a "delayed" penalty to allow for the flow of play to continue so the aggrieved team can press its advantage if its within the flow of play. In either case, despite a penalty being committed and being witnessed by the ref, the aggrieved team doesn't lose a scoring opportunity.

A penalty in sports is designed to prevent the team that committed it from getting an unfair advantage. Here, the team that got caught committing a penalty did actually benefit.

In such a situation, a quick replay review would not be truly harmful. The ref's call wouldn't so much be overturned as deemed irrelevant.