Fifa World Cup 2010

[drothgery]

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

No. It's the US and Canada that have been #1 and #2 forever. With Germany and Brazil knocking at the door lately (and often breaking right through it; I think Germany won the last Olympics; not sure, though), and the next tier are Scandinavians. The Chinese never got better than #3 and have fallen off a lot lately as countries with a lot athletes with serious interest in the sport have overcome the Chinese government's efforts; the same thing has happened in softball and women's hockey.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, that sounds more like it.

 

[Morrus]

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.

I understand the argument (as I said, it's one that's been raging for decades).

Everyone will have a different opinion on it - mine is that this situation only occurs rarely. 99% of the time, it doesn't happen. That it happened this time is very unfortunate, and I completely sympathise.

I personally believe that having the ref make the call on the spot is valuable 99% of the time; and it goes wrong 1% of the time. That 1% is an acceptable loss in exchange for what I perceive as the benefits of not being able to second-guess the ref. I think that's a slippery sloap which will turn the game into a tournament of arguments - because everyone will argue everything; every single decision would be argued.

I feel that it's better to say "the ref's decision stands, whatever", even if 1% of the time it's gonna go badly, like in this case.

And don't get be wrong - I think you were robbed. It really was unfortunate. In my opinion, the USA won that game. But I maintain my position of referees nonetheless.

 

[Mark]

I think Germany won the last Olympics; not sure, though)

Olympic Games Winners - Reference book about all Olympics medalists of the all times


http://www.olympicgameswinners.com/...yEventsU&id=53&id_game=0&id_nation=0&page=78#

http://www.olympicgameswinners.com/...yEventsU&id=53&id_game=0&id_nation=0&page=77#

http://www.olympicgameswinners.com/...yEventsU&id=53&id_game=0&id_nation=0&page=76#

 

[IronWolf]

I understand the argument (as I said, it's one that's been raging for decades).

Everyone will have a different opinion on it - mine is that this situation only occurs rarely. 99% of the time, it doesn't happen. That it happened this time is very unfortunate, and I completely sympathise.

I personally believe that having the ref make the call on the spot is valuable 99% of the time; and it goes wrong 1% of the time. That 1% is an acceptable loss in exchange for what I perceive as the benefits of not being able to second-guess the ref. I think that's a slippery sloap which will turn the game into a tournament of arguments - because everyone will argue everything; every single decision would be argued.

I am a casual soccer fan at best, but from games I do watch I do enjoy how the game just seems to flow on the field. Things aren't stopped to question calls or stop for instant replays and the last five minutes of the game doesn't drag on forever unnecessarily as some more popular US sports are known to do.

As for the players trained to sprint for 45 to 90 minutes at a time, that's a perspective that hadn't really crossed my mind. Likely just one of many things that would have to be considered before making any moves to change the refereeing system.

And I also agree, if the system has worked for this long with a minimal percentage of egregious errors occurring during games then I think changing the refereeing system based on a small statistical sample is not the right thing to do.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

if the system has worked for this long with a minimal percentage of egregious errors occurring during games

And that is something only FIFA and similar organizations knows for sure.

I wonder if they're looking at it...or thinking about looking at it.

 

[Morrus]

And that is something only FIFA and similar organizations knows for sure.

I wonder if they're looking at it...or thinking about looking at it.

Definitely. The discussion hits the media every few years.

Heck, it may even happen one day. My sense is that consensus has been gradually shifting towards it, but it's slow and over many years. There have also been discussions about electronically tagged balls and the like (to determine their exact position).

But so far, the ref remains in charge. If it does happen, I don't think it will be any time soon, and it won't be the big sweeping changes being proposed here; tweaks at best.

Post-game changes will never happen. Taking away that final whistle and those certain victory cheers across the world wouldn't be a good thing for the game in my opinion. There's something about that final whistle and knowing that's the result (whether you like it or not). People don't want to sit around in the pub afterwards waiting for a decision - when it's done, it's done.

 

[IronWolf]

And that is something only FIFA and similar organizations knows for sure.

I wonder if they're looking at it...or thinking about looking at it.

I would imagine that they certainly keep tabs on it. They have an interest to keep things fair and good refs out on the field.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If it does happen, I don't think it will be any time soon, and it won't be the big sweeping changes being proposed here; tweaks at best.

I wouldn't exactly call "delayed penalties" or hockey-style goal review a sweeping change- in the former, play continues to flow up until there is a change of possession, in the latter, the review is handled in under a minute. (Well...usually.)

As for chipped balls, I don't see that happening in m lifetime. There are enough complaints about the past 2 balls that have popped up- imagine the furor if there was some chip in there that might affect the ball's center of gravity. Even if we're talking micrograms, someone will complain.

Post-game changes will never happen.

I think those only happen in NCAA football.

 

[roguerouge]

With all due respect, I feel like you're fundamentally misreading what I'm saying at times in this post. The points on instant replay, I understand are also towards other people, but you quoted my post while arguing that issue, so I wanted to make crystal clear what my stance is.

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.

I've never disputed that. I've said that it harms the sport to have a massive, sports-mad wealthy nation hate your product. No matter how successful you are, you can always be more successful. That's why so many businesses are selling their souls to get into the Chinese market. As an analogy, the NFL's doing just fine, but if it could open up foreign markets, it would be doing better. Same deal here.

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.

First, I've never argued for replay. Second, you're not acknowledging the point I actually made, which was that just because something works, doesn't mean it couldn't work better. Otherwise, we'd still have the Model T, black and white TV, and football without the forward pass. Third, lots of media coverage indicates that FIFA is QUITE interested in the American market, so clearly they think it does make a difference. If nothing else, look to the Olympics for an example of an international sporting event that gets a huge boost from American ad dollars. FIFA clearly wants that.

Finally, just because something's going splendidly well now, doesn't mean it always will. Baseball was once the most popular sport in America. It's now fourth behind the NFL, NBA and motor sports.

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....

I've said before that not being required to label infractions to someone, anyone, is unusual and unfair and genuinely stupid as a policy for a sport with several massive corruption scandals. I even used the example of the inadvertent whistle in the NFL. No matter why he blew the whistle--inadvertently, to make the correct call, or to make an incorrect call--he SHOULD be required to announce the penalty.

Otherwise, you put players on "double secret probation" in ways that undermine the trust in the sport. And that's the currency that really matters for the long-term health of the sport.

But "change the way the game works" so the US might become interested? People have been arguing for and against extra tech and so forth for decades

Again, I made no argument for instant replay. Second, while I can understand that you might think that I'm arguing that the game should be changed to accommodate the US, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that this is an example of bad practices of FIFA and that FIFA, as a self-interested body, probably is interested that in the reactions to those practices by the people of one of its last two big markets for financial growth.

And that's why Americans finding a new reason to hate watching a sport that they play a great deal is a problem. FIFA is a capitalist entity. They are ALWAYS interested in growth. Historically speaking, capitalist entities that are not good at growth get beaten by those who are.

If no American ever watched a football game again for the rest of eternity, football would still thrive immensely - as it always has done.

Actually, that's called stagnation, not thriving. This distinction's I think central to the differences we're having over the health of the sport, which is why I call it out, and not to be snarky.

My plan's absurdly simple: FIFA refs should have to announce what the call actually is. There doesn't have to be reviews, do-overs, or managers running on the field to argue the call, as in MLB. There just has to be less opacity. Otherwise, you have the judging that's served figure skating so well. And no major sport wants that.