StarDestroyer.Net BBS

weemadando wrote:The funniest part to me is where someone pointed out that the entire NZ team, according to the current trade value estimates, is worth less than a single Italian player. And that there are even amateur players on the NZ team who got time in the Italy match.

one Italian is worth three times more than the entire Kiwi team

Italy has 4.9 million footballers - more than the population of New Zealand - including 3541 professionals.

The All Whites have just 25 fully fledged professionals to draw on from a player base of just under 200,000.

Funny stuff.

weemadando wrote:
3) Straight red card for diving. - I'm not 100% behind this, I think that there should be matching penalties, so if someone is booked for a tackle where the opponent dived, then the diver should be given their own yellow/red. This can mesh with pt 2 or a ref can decide that yes the tackle was bad, but your acting was just as bad and send both guys off at the same time.

People do get Yellow card if the referee noticed that the player was diving. One player has already been booked for diving in one of the current matches in the World cup.

I think it is a French player that was booked for diving if I am not wrong.

Korgeta wrote:With all the news surrounding France i think they deserve their own topic thread because NOW some of the stars are planning to boycott their final game!

Except for the last twenty minutes of the match with South Africa, it was almost as if they had. That was just pitiful, and the French exit World Cup 2010 with a squad that collapsed into controversy, mutiny, and disgrace.

Just finished watching Nigera v. South Korea on ESPN3. That was a nail-biter in the last minutes. The Nigerians just kept attacking but falling short, but they never gave up. They'd never have gotten past the round of 16 had they managed to advance, of course, but I'd sort of hoped at least one African team would get out of group.

U.S. v. Algeria in the morning (here) and the American squad better have their shit together, because I don't think they'll get another come-from-behind chance if they fall behind the Algerians.

At least there's been no repeats of West Germany vs. Austria, 1982... albeit yeah, the lack thereof is on purpose.

weemadando wrote:Someone gave 3 points on how to make football a fairer and more responsible game. And I feel like I needed to add a 4th and 5th.

1) The on field referee cannot award a penalty kick all by themselves. Similar to how it works in cricket and most other sports in the world, any critical call like this must be confirmed by a video referee. As there is already a break in play, then having a video ref review the incident isn't really causing a great interruption at this time and it will remove the element of limited referee vision and the problems of handball, tackle and diving calls in the box.

No. No timeouts in football. Besides, half the fun is arguing whether the penalty was justified or not.

2) After match review. Most sports in Australia have after match review policies where if a player is caught doing something on video, but it is missed by all the refs on the day, then they are still called to account for it. The knowledge that a shitty dive or cheap handball will be picked up after the game and you will be suspended for it might prove to be penalty enough.

Already in place.

3) Straight red card for diving. - I'm not 100% behind this, I think that there should be matching penalties, so if someone is booked for a tackle where the opponent dived, then the diver should be given their own yellow/red. This can mesh with pt 2 or a ref can decide that yes the tackle was bad, but your acting was just as bad and send both guys off at the same time.

No way. So if a player does not act hurt enough when being tackled, he risks not getting a penalty kick, if he acts hurt enough, he gets risked being send off. That is just rewarding people who commit fouls.

And then my additions:

4) It's really an amendment to 1. Video ref has to confirm all goals. No more France v Ireland bullshit or Hand of God.

Maybe, but still half the fun of the game is arguing.

5) Get rid of offside. It was removed from field hockey years ago and everyone predicted it would be the end of the game and you'd just have people goal hawking the whole match. Turns out that the game still plays almost exactly the same, formations and marking patterns are hte same and score lines have remained the same. The only change is that there's one less infraction to be called that only ever slowed down the match and was usually wrong 50% of the time due to refs being out of position.

Offside is not wrong 50% of the time and I think it is rather fun and tactical myself.

So Thanas, your argument amounts to:

Yes, the refs get things wrong and people egregiously cheat and foul because they know that it's going to help them and won't be punished in any meaningful manner, and quite often because of instant replay we know that a totally wrong decision has been made, but hey - that's half the fun of the game?

PRO-TIP. None of that is actually fun. It's infuriating and stupid.

And as for "timeouts" - there's really no time wasted. In the case of penalties then while someone is rolling on the ground pretending that their leg is broken in half, the video ref will have already made a determination that "actually, not the ref on the field is fucking wrong and that guy went down while fully two metres away from any defender". And in the case of goals, then we can get the great images of guys suddenly seeing the red-light-of-doom while having their big jumpy celebration and starting to cry. In neither of these situations would the video ref actually slow the game, because, by definition at these times, the game has already stopped.

Besides, half the fun is arguing whether the penalty was justified or not.

That's ridiculous.

hongi wrote:

Besides, half the fun is arguing whether the penalty was justified or not.

That's ridiculous.

We'd have lost most of our (England's) footballing history if there had been TV replays of incidents. Take away the Russian linesman's decision in 1966 and Maradona's handball in 1986, and we'd not have a lot left to talk about.

To be serious, the problem with using TV replays is that you have to decide what you are going to use them for. Try and cast the net too widely and you'd be needing replays nearly every time the ball goes out of play or the referee blows his whistle.

There is also the fact that a lot of decisions in football are completely subjective. You only have to read this thread to see how differently people interpret incidents even with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of replays from all sorts of angles and different speeds. Even with line decisions, it is not always clear cut.

Some sports, like cricket, are far more conducive to TV replays, but still there are real problems and arguments about its use.

To all those who want video technology, which decisions would you want them for and how would you decide which decisions required a review? It is all well and good to look at an individual mistake and state that a TV review would have corrected it, but coming up with a system that works is much more difficult.

Remember that footballs primary function is entertainment and that increased fairness doesn´t necessarily mean increased entertainment.
Personally i have no problem with video refs as long as they don´t create delays by bogging down the decission making. But somehow i suspect that would be the case.

weemadando wrote:Someone gave 3 points on how to make football a fairer and more responsible game. And I feel like I needed to add a 4th and 5th.

1) The on field referee cannot award a penalty kick all by themselves. Similar to how it works in cricket and most other sports in the world, any critical call like this must be confirmed by a video referee. As there is already a break in play, then having a video ref review the incident isn't really causing a great interruption at this time and it will remove the element of limited referee vision and the problems of handball, tackle and diving calls in the box.

2) After match review. Most sports in Australia have after match review policies where if a player is caught doing something on video, but it is missed by all the refs on the day, then they are still called to account for it. The knowledge that a shitty dive or cheap handball will be picked up after the game and you will be suspended for it might prove to be penalty enough.

3) Straight red card for diving. - I'm not 100% behind this, I think that there should be matching penalties, so if someone is booked for a tackle where the opponent dived, then the diver should be given their own yellow/red. This can mesh with pt 2 or a ref can decide that yes the tackle was bad, but your acting was just as bad and send both guys off at the same time..

Number 2 does happen in football often enough, and in the world cup, 2002 regarding rivaldo's dive against Turkey for exmaple. After match review is also used to root out troublemakers amongst supporters, as well as players and refs.

Number 3 I don't agree with, players do dive, but there are those who do genuinely fall. At the highest level of football, the players are sprinting very fast, whilst trying to control the ball and ready a pass or a shot. Players can be knocked off balance. I think giving a yellow card caught diving to claim a penalty is fair enough, however I think a player should be given a straight red if he has dived and simulated injury with the intent to send someone else off.

weemadando wrote:And then my additions:

4) It's really an amendment to 1. Video ref has to confirm all goals. No more France v Ireland bullshit or Hand of God.

5) Get rid of offside. It was removed from field hockey years ago and everyone predicted it would be the end of the game and you'd just have people goal hawking the whole match. Turns out that the game still plays almost exactly the same, formations and marking patterns are hte same and score lines have remained the same. The only change is that there's one less infraction to be called that only ever slowed down the match and was usually wrong 50% of the time due to refs being out of position.

With number 4 I think we should have video refs for penalty claims (penalty claims don't occur that often and it can be decided as quickly, even more quickly then it would take the ref to sort out the players claiming/protesting about the penalty.)

Defining a 'goal' can be done much more simpler then having to use video evidence. For example 'goal line' technology. having sensors on the line and if the ball more or less passes the line then it's given. The only valid argument for claims against goalline technology is that there may be a glitch in the system but i can't see that as often as the mistakes occured by refs or the linesmen.

Number 5 is a bad idea, the offside rule is there to stop the game becomming just a game of long ball tactics. Football is entirely different to field hockey where other then size in pitch, in field hockey you cannot raise the ball (or in a way dangerous to the other player) in football, you can raise the ball as high as you like. So you can volley the ball in the air, straight to players within the penalty area. I can't see it workable for football and it's certinely not what anyone watching football want to see.

Anyone else see the motivational speech by Brian Blessed? Quite hilarious!

Straight red for diving is just absurd... I wonder if anyone advocating for that is really a football fan, or just an ESPN watching wannabe meathead who thinks it's "cool" to bash soccer players for being pussies?

Is anyone watching the US-Algeria match right now? I swear to god, the US just doesn't look like it really wants to win. They've had one goal taken away by a lousy call (phantom offsides), but they've missed open goals twice through poor finishing.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Straight red for diving is just absurd... I wonder if anyone advocating for that is really a football fan, or just an ESPN watching wannabe meathead who thinks it's "cool" to bash soccer players for being pussies?

Is anyone watching the US-Algeria match right now? I swear to god, the US just doesn't look like it really wants to win. They've had one goal taken away by a lousy call (phantom offsides), but they've missed open goals twice through poor finishing.

I have it on because there is nothing else on, but the US has finally scored and won.

Yes and the US advances

YES!!!!!!!

FUCK! I hate this fucking game!

It is too damn nerve racking.

USA first, England second.

Master of Ossus wrote:USA first, England second.

Like I said before, our team shits on their team.

We advanced further than the germans they got beat by the Brits for Group C or was it D. So the Germans ave got to be pissed.

weemadando wrote:So Thanas, your argument amounts to:

Yes, the refs get things wrong and people egregiously cheat and foul because they know that it's going to help them and won't be punished in any meaningful manner, and quite often because of instant replay we know that a totally wrong decision has been made, but hey - that's half the fun of the game?

PRO-TIP. None of that is actually fun. It's infuriating and stupid.

According to you. I like watching people make snap decisions who more often than not turn out to be correct.

And as for "timeouts" - there's really no time wasted. In the case of penalties then while someone is rolling on the ground pretending that their leg is broken in half, the video ref will have already made a determination that "actually, not the ref on the field is fucking wrong and that guy went down while fully two metres away from any defender". And in the case of goals, then we can get the great images of guys suddenly seeing the red-light-of-doom while having their big jumpy celebration and starting to cry. In neither of these situations would the video ref actually slow the game, because, by definition at these times, the game has already stopped.

Right, because it would not cause delays and conferences like it already does in american football. Riiiight.

dragon wrote:We advanced further than the germans they got beat by the Brits for Group C or was it D. So the Germans ave got to be pissed.

What are you talking about?

Thanas wrote:

dragon wrote:We advanced further than the germans they got beat by the Brits for Group C or was it D. So the Germans ave got to be pissed.

What are you talking about?

Never mind the website I was looking for the standing had things mixed up and issued a retraction. They had the tables screwed up.

Like I said before, our team shits on their team.

Wow you really are a fucking failed abortion. Do you at least look at the sodding football played or are you going to just cheer on like a monkey when your game was stuck in a draw for most of it.

Bluewolf wrote:

Like I said before, our team shits on their team.

Wow you really are a fucking failed abortion. Do you at least look at the sodding football played or are you going to just cheer on like a monkey when your game was stuck in a draw for most of it.

I'm a trash talking patriot that's having fun, sue me.

Well you are certainly fucking trash. I am not sure what you have to be fucking patriotic about you puddle of shit. Your in the same lowly leagues with Havok with that. I dear hope for the sake of humanity that you even watch other games? I hope you can comprehend that there are other teams beyond the USA's group that you can hoot like an ape about. Then again you're probably like England. Putting too much faith in it and all.

Bluewolf wrote:Well you are certainly fucking trash. I am not sure what you have to be fucking patriotic about you puddle of shit. Your in the same lowly leagues with Havok with that. I dear hope for the sake of humanity that you even watch other games? I hope you can comprehend that there are other teams beyond the USA's group that you can hoot like an ape about. Then again you're probably like England. Putting too much faith in it and all.

Ass pain detected at 12 o'clock, captain!