June 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Here is why he couldn't change his call after seeing it in instant replay, he is bound by the same Laws of the Game as the players and coaches. He is prohibited by the Laws from using such technologies. You want that changed, it has be changed by FIFA. As long as the prohibit it in the Laws, it doesn't matter.
If they start using it at that level, what happens at the lower levels, do we have to start using in youth soccer as well? Anyone with a camcorder suddenly as the right to challange the calls we make on the field?
I'm not going to argue the point any more, as. We all have our opinions and I doubt anyone is going to change anyone elses opinion on the matter. At this point I stand by the Laws of the Game and the interpretations by the governing board.
If they want to implement goal cameras that a fourth official can view, then good. Any other use of instant reply should not be considered, and definately no coaches challenges like we have in American Football.
June 28, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Lynn Pettis (6/28/2010)
Here is why he couldn't change his call after seeing it in instant replay, he is bound by the same Laws of the Game as the players and coaches. He is prohibited by the Laws from using such technologies. You want that changed, it has be changed by FIFA. As long as the prohibit it in the Laws, it doesn't matter.If they start using it at that level, what happens at the lower levels, do we have to start using in youth soccer as well? Anyone with a camcorder suddenly as the right to challange the calls we make on the field?
I'm not going to argue the point any more, as. We all have our opinions and I doubt anyone is going to change anyone elses opinion on the matter. At this point I stand by the Laws of the Game and the interpretations by the governing board.
If they want to implement goal cameras that a fourth official can view, then good. Any other use of instant reply should not be considered, and definately no coaches challenges like we have in American Football.
It seems like we don't really have different opinions in general, just a different view about how the changes should/could look like. Your point regarding the consequences to lower levels ("camcorder evidence") is absolutely valid.
I guess you're right and the ref had no chance to revert his decision. But just because those are the current Laws of the Game it doesn't make it "right" or "fair", just "legal". But let's see what the FIFA comes up with... I've heard about a suggestion using a ball with a sensor inside that would buzz/shaker/vuvuzela when behind the line. The discussion itself can be fun... 😉
June 28, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Not questioning the way things are done according to the rules now. I am questioning why we don't have different rules in the World Cup? I know the guy can't change his call during the game, but he made a mistake. That "mistake" is not supposed to be a part of the game. The correct way for the game to be played, according to the rules, is that an offside, or a ball hitting the ground inside the net, is called differently from the way it was called.
Instant reply first came into professional sports because it costs money. Reviews moved down to college, but AFAIK, they haven't moved into high school or lower leagues because of the cost.
This isn't a call for a wholesale revamping of the system, but rather a recognition that as the stakes become higher, and people are being paid, some of that revenue ought to go into making the game more correct according to the rules. Even basketball has small stoppage to allow officials to review calls, like out of bounds, to try and make the game more correct.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
June 28, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (6/28/2010)
Not questioning the way things are done according to the rules now. I am questioning why we don't have different rules in the World Cup? I know the guy can't change his call during the game, but he made a mistake. That "mistake" is not supposed to be a part of the game. The correct way for the game to be played, according to the rules, is that an offside, or a ball hitting the ground inside the net, is called differently from the way it was called.Instant reply first came into professional sports because it costs money. Reviews moved down to college, but AFAIK, they haven't moved into high school or lower leagues because of the cost.
This isn't a call for a wholesale revamping of the system, but rather a recognition that as the stakes become higher, and people are being paid, some of that revenue ought to go into making the game more correct according to the rules. Even basketball has small stoppage to allow officials to review calls, like out of bounds, to try and make the game more correct.
Oh, perfection, thats all we want from our officials regardless of the sport. Good luck, even with instant replay, the final decision is still up to the center referee. Also, we can take time to discuss events on the pitch with our AR's to make sure we make the right call, and even then we may still get it wrong. The difference at the moment is that we have to call what we see when we see it. No use of instant replay or other electronic means.
We are all human, wether we are soccer officials, doctors, DBAs or database developers; we make mistakes. Stop asking us to perfect all the time, it isn't going to happen. Where was the AR looking when the Argentine player moved to an offside position? When he looked back, what did he see from his position on the field? Hindsight is 20/20, always will be. If we screw up the best we can do is try harder next time to be in the right position at the right time to try and make the right call next time. Trust me, no one is going to like are calls all the time.
June 28, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Lynn Pettis (6/28/2010)
Oh, perfection, thats all we want from our officials regardless of the sport. Good luck, even with instant replay, the final decision is still up to the center referee. Also, we can take time to discuss events on the pitch with our AR's to make sure we make the right call, and even then we may still get it wrong. The difference at the moment is that we have to call what we see when we see it. No use of instant replay or other electronic means.We are all human, wether we are soccer officials, doctors, DBAs or database developers; we make mistakes. Stop asking us to perfect all the time, it isn't going to happen. Where was the AR looking when the Argentine player moved to an offside position? When he looked back, what did he see from his position on the field? Hindsight is 20/20, always will be. If we screw up the best we can do is try harder next time to be in the right position at the right time to try and make the right call next time. Trust me, no one is going to like are calls all the time.
I'm not looking for perfection. I'm looking for using the appropriate tools. When various sports began, vision correcting lenses were primitive at best. Should refs not be allowed glasses, contaacts or Lasiks? If there's a position determining system like they use in Rugby and Cricket, why not use it? What's wrong with trying to minimize human error when it comes to officiating? Players and coaches make mistakes, that's part of the game. The officials are there to make sure the game is played by the rules. Mistakes on their part defeat that purpose. They'll never be perfect, but I don't see why they shouldn't use systems available to them that don't affect the play.
Hindsight isn't always 20/20 in sports, if something is very close people will argue either side for years. In that case, the refs judgement stands. In cases where a quick electronic check can resolve the question, why not use it? At least at the highest levels of the sport?
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
June 28, 2010 at 2:33 pm
lmu92 (6/28/2010)
Lynn Pettis (6/28/2010)
Here is why he couldn't change his call after seeing it in instant replay, he is bound by the same Laws of the Game as the players and coaches. He is prohibited by the Laws from using such technologies. You want that changed, it has be changed by FIFA. As long as the prohibit it in the Laws, it doesn't matter.If they start using it at that level, what happens at the lower levels, do we have to start using in youth soccer as well? Anyone with a camcorder suddenly as the right to challange the calls we make on the field?
I'm not going to argue the point any more, as. We all have our opinions and I doubt anyone is going to change anyone elses opinion on the matter. At this point I stand by the Laws of the Game and the interpretations by the governing board.
If they want to implement goal cameras that a fourth official can view, then good. Any other use of instant reply should not be considered, and definately no coaches challenges like we have in American Football.
It seems like we don't really have different opinions in general, just a different view about how the changes should/could look like. Your point regarding the consequences to lower levels ("camcorder evidence") is absolutely valid.
I guess you're right and the ref had no chance to revert his decision. But just because those are the current Laws of the Game it doesn't make it "right" or "fair", just "legal". But let's see what the FIFA comes up with... I've heard about a suggestion using a ball with a sensor inside that would buzz/shaker/vuvuzela when behind the line. The discussion itself can be fun... 😉
I think we should have a moat around the pitch, and sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads that blow anybody up that fouls another player, or blows the ball up when it crosses the line.
yeah...
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
June 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I think there are good reasons both ways,the 50/50 decisions can be lived with but the real trouble is when the ref's get it wrong big time.
A lot of lessons can be learnt from American Football, they have tried many ways of policing the game including replays, none of them work all the time, it is still down to human judgement.
I think there are only two real contensious issues, goals and offside.
One, remove offside all together and suffer the consequences, no ambiguity.
Two, use goal line cameras with an additional official to overturn the referee where necessary, there is time between the goal and the restart. Besides they are all in communication anyway.
The problem is when to implement any changes and at what level.
Far away is close at hand in the images of elsewhere.
Anon.
June 29, 2010 at 7:26 am
When I saw the England goal on TV, first time and at real-time speed, I had no idea if it was over the line or not. I'm sure it's even more difficult for the humans on the pitch. No doubt there would be an equal outcry if the goal had been awarded, but the replay had shown otherwise.
That said, the replay did make it obvious. I really can't see any sensible objection to goal-line cameras - at least at the highest levels of soccer/football. It's not as if the World Cup/Premier Leagues etc couldn't afford it.
The thing that has sucked most (so far) about the World Cup, in my view, is not the refereeing or the vuvuzelas - it's the players. If I have to watch one more play-acting swan-dive into the turf with all the facial agonies of someone being dismembered with a blunt spoon...well honestly. Play-acting trying to get a penalty awarded or a player booked or sent off is just plain cheating.
Too many of the players seem to be to be over-paid, under-talented, whining, cheating prima donnas.
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
June 29, 2010 at 7:31 am
Paul White NZ (6/29/2010)
The thing that has sucked most (so far) about the World Cup, in my view, is not the refereeing or the vuvuzelas - it's the players. If I have to watch one more play-acting swan-dive into the turf with all the facial agonies of someone being dismembered with a blunt spoon...well honestly. Play-acting trying to get a penalty awarded or a player booked or sent off is just plain cheating.Too many of the players seem to be to be over-paid, under-talented, whining, cheating prima donnas.
If you're talking about Italy, I'm 100% with you.
-- Gianluca Sartori
June 29, 2010 at 7:40 am
Paul White NZ (6/29/2010)
Too many of the players seem to be to be over-paid, under-talented, whining, cheating prima donnas.
Well said Paul, couldn't agree more.
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
June 29, 2010 at 7:42 am
This reminds me of a quote I saw online:
The world cup is like World War 2.
The French were defeated early,
The Americans came late,
and the British were left to fight the Germans.
Regarding Italy, might I add:
...and like all great Italian operas, it was grand and dramatic,
but in the end, everyone dies, a victim of his own melodrama.
Gaby
________________________________________________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
- Albert Einstein
June 29, 2010 at 7:58 am
Very nice, Gaby!
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
June 29, 2010 at 8:15 am
Paul White NZ (6/29/2010)
Play-acting trying to get a penalty awarded or a player booked or sent off is just plain cheating.
Solution: Bring back the red-card for such behavior. If a referee gave out an occasional red-card for this type of behavior, the behavior would be substantially altered.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
June 29, 2010 at 8:49 am
And add a couple more referees to watch out for it. You'll never get away from it completely, someone will gamble they'll get a call. But if you have 3 referees watching on the field instead of one, you can cut this down.
Or just let them hit a little harder 🙂
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
June 29, 2010 at 8:56 am
Paul White NZ (6/29/2010)
When I saw the England goal on TV, first time and at real-time speed, I had no idea if it was over the line or not. I'm sure it's even more difficult for the humans on the pitch. No doubt there would be an equal outcry if the goal had been awarded, but the replay had shown otherwise.That said, the replay did make it obvious. I really can't see any sensible objection to goal-line cameras - at least at the highest levels of soccer/football. It's not as if the World Cup/Premier Leagues etc couldn't afford it.
The thing that has sucked most (so far) about the World Cup, in my view, is not the refereeing or the vuvuzelas - it's the players. If I have to watch one more play-acting swan-dive into the turf with all the facial agonies of someone being dismembered with a blunt spoon...well honestly. Play-acting trying to get a penalty awarded or a player booked or sent off is just plain cheating.
Too many of the players seem to be to be over-paid, under-talented, whining, cheating prima donnas.
The Play-acting kind of gives the sport a WWE feel. You have the for the most part professional atheletes, top of their game as tough and mean as in any professional sport but touch them at the right moment and they fall like 6 year old girls with pig tails.
This isn't new to Football (soccer). I noticed this the first world cup I paid attention to back in 1990. What is new are the dang vuvuzelas. I watched most of the world cup with the volume off. Just watching one game with the volume on will haunt my nightmares for years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Use Full Links:
KB Article from Microsoft on how to ask a question on a Forum
Viewing 15 posts - 16,051 through 16,065 (of 66,000 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply