Your favourit team in FIFA 2010?

[Chainsaw]

Awesome signs spitfire man. I'll have to have those made up and put in the garage.

I'm working with a bunch of Portugese buddies right now, so my Black Berry's getting some good use, retreveing soccer scores.

Polands not in it, so I'm going for Germany. They have the one Polish guy that's pretty good.

 

[Tomasso]

I am still amazed that football does not have a "third umpire"/"video referee".

It's bloody ridiculous for a sport of this level not to.

I absolutely agree.

 

[The Sky Ranger]

I am still amazed that football does not have a "third umpire"/"video referee"....

The European Football Organisation UEFA will have special referees for the goal lines in future matches. It is necessary.
So I'm quite sure that the next World Championship will have them, too.

 

[Unlucky Berman]

I am still amazed that football does not have a "third umpire"/"video referee".

It's bloody ridiculous for a sport of this level not to. Maybe I'm a tad biased (rugby and cricket are my favourites and both have this) but for Pete's sake if you can have a video ref in rugby and cricket why the hell can't you in football.

Well done Germany though.

But FIFA pull your bloody finger out and join the 21st century!

Personally I don't think it is necessary. Football lives from the humans who play it and those who guard over the rules. Humans make errors and that makes the game interesting. If there is everything put to machines it is like playing chess with the computer. Just boring, no errors, no human touch to it an inhuman game and feeling. It's like with the goal from 1966 now, something to tell even generations after that event and some kind of stimuli for the next matches between the two teams, a new legend to tell of.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The FIFA stance is that it inevitably questions the authority of the referee. If you have the authority taken away for something so important as whether a goal was scored, where stop? The major consideration for FIFA, and it applies to the goal yesterday is when you would stop the game. IF the ball bounces on the line into the hands of the goalkeeper, the ball is still in play. In the case of Rugby and Cricket, video referees are used sparingly, and only in situations where the game has stopped (melée on top of the "try scorer" for example). Football is a bit more fluid than those other 2 games - and basically all the other sports that use video technology - which makes it more difficult to institute video surveillance.

Why have a referee on the pitch at all for that matter? Why not turn it all over to machines? That would certainly be possible, and there'd never be a wrong call.

I am in favour of more officials on the field, and making decisions as they're made today, but involving all the officials who saw what happened.

bk

 

[Smithy]

In the case of Rugby and Cricket, video referees are used sparingly, and only in situations where the game has stopped (melée on top of the "try scorer" for example). Football is a bit more fluid than those other 2 games - and basically all the other sports that use video technology - which makes it more difficult to institute video surveillance.

Why have a referee on the pitch at all for that matter? Why not turn it all over to machines? That would certainly be possible, and there'd never be a wrong call.

I disagree entirely. In rugby the video ref is only consulted if the ref has an issue with a scoring play, and very occasionally when there is the possibility of a sending off, or other onfield incident.

Has the game changed dramatically in essence since the implementation of the video referee? Of course not. The ref is still in charge of the game and it is his decision to consult the video ref or not. Just as it is the umpires' choice to go to the third umpire in cricket.

This talk of machines running the game is absolute nonsense. I can remember when they brought in third umpires in cricket and there was all this hue and cry that it'd be the end of cricket with umpires using the third umpire for every LBW decision. How many times do you see the third umpire used for LBW decisions? Very, very, very rarely. Mostly it's used for very close run out decisions.

Giving the ref the opportunity to consult a video ref at his discretion to check details for red card incidents or to check if a ball has crossed the line is not going to change the nature or essence of the game.

The one thing it might have changed (as well as the scoreline) is that linesman not having to be in protective custody.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I disagree entirely. In rugby the video ref is only consulted if the ref has an issue with a scoring play, and very occasionally when there is the possibility of a sending off, or other onfield incident.

Sure, exactly what I said, in different words.

Giving the ref the opportunity to consult a video ref at his discretion to check details for red card incidents or to check if a ball has crossed the line is not going to change the nature or essence of the game.

But in the case of a disputed score in rugby, the game has stopped. I don't think i've seen a video consultation for punishment of rule trangression either when the game was still running. In the case of the game yesterday, the game never stopped after the Lampard "goal" because the ref didn't think the ball had crossed the line (clearly this is wrong and not fair, but that's not what's at question). If you can't see that there's a difference between consulting a video when the game has stopped (the rugby example), and consulting one in order to stop play (yesterday's example), then further thought is required. What should one do? Believe in the honesty and professionalism of the players? Don't make me larf. We've all seen the Italians and Dutch players in action. lol What would happen? The Germans hold onto the ball for 10, 15, 20 minutes without it going out of play, as they are wont to do against risible opposition like England, then award England a goal? Silly stuff, that.

I honestly don't see why people are so aghast at the idea of "technology"-only referees. There would never be any mistakes. If fairness is truly the reason for instituting technology, then go the whole hog, I say, in every game played around the world. (I have said this throughout the rugby debate also.) Of course one has the - exorbitantly well-paid - referees union to contend with also. Otherwise, whatever is instituted is a half measure.

bk

p.s. I am agreed with essentially everyone that the referee from yesterday needs new glasses. He certainly shouldn't get another World Cup game.

 

[Spitfire]

 

[Smithy]

But in the case of a disputed score in rugby, the game has stopped. I don't think i've seen a video consultation for punishment of rule trangression either when the game was still running. In the case of the game yesterday, the game never stopped after the Lampard "goal" because the ref didn't think the ball had crossed the line (clearly this is wrong and not fair, but that's not what's at question). If you can't see that there's a difference between consulting a video when the game has stopped (the rugby example), and consulting one in order to stop play (yesterday's example), then further thought is required.

But surely there's ways around this. A linesman can put his flag up and stop play. Why not a video ref in football?

I honestly don't see why people are so aghast at the idea of "technology"-only referees. There would never be any mistakes. If fairness is truly the reason for instituting technology, then go the whole hog, I say, in every game played around the world. (I have said this throughout the rugby debate also.)

But this wouldn't work with rugby. If you have ever played you'll know that much goes on in a ruck or maul which can't be seen from a TV camera and having a ref on the spot is essential.

I'm not an expert on football so perhaps it would be viable to have it all controlled by technology only referees, not that I think this is necessarily a brilliant idea as I'm always inclined to to think the presence on the field of a ref or umpire does have an affect on players behaviour in some ways, and being close to play means that they can pick up things that aren't always obvious on a TV screen. Saying that as an aid on big calls, I think a video ref is a good thing.

 

[Spitfire]

Wen evne classic sports like cricket and tennis uses the technology, why not football?
We do not live in the last century anymore. There are so much money involved in football today, and you still count on a halfblind man on the sideline?:eusa_doh:

Nobody knows what the result of the Germany-England match would have been, had it been 2-2. A different match for sure.
Allthough I guesse the outcome would have been the same. Germany had a better team that day.
And I cross my fingers, that they can beat Brazil (edit: In the final that is.)

 

[Tomasso]

Upon further review.....

FIFA to consider video replay


"With pressure for video replay mounting after two blatant missed calls at the World Cup, FIFA president Sepp Blatter said soccer's governing body will reopen the issue after the tournament.

Blatter said Tuesday that FIFA deplores "when you see the evidence of refereeing mistakes." It would be "a nonsense" not to consider changes, he said."

 

[Spitfire]

OK - so it's down to 4 teams from South America, 3 teams from Europe and one team from Africa now.
Go Germany!!!!!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

My office sweepstake is down to Netherlands so begrudgingly I need to support them to get the money. (I sound like a Premier League football star I know, switching my allegiance willy nilly in the insatiable hunt for the cash-ola.)

bk

 

[Spitfire]

Not bad Baron, eh?
Netherlands beats Brazil!!!!!:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Smithy]

It's the big one tonight though, Argies versus Germany! Only a few hours to go and I reckon this could be a huge match.

 

[Spitfire]

It will be - I am crossing my fingers for our southern neighbours!:eusa_clap
And hoping for two european teams in the final.

 

[Smithy]

Bloody hell! Germany absolutely thrash Argentina 4 zip. Well done to our German friends and haven't they laid down the old gauntlet for those other teams still in it. Even more amazing when you look at how young that German side is.

But let's also be honest, that Argie defending was hopeless, the amount of space they gave Germany was crazy - and they paid for it.

 

[Spitfire]

WHAT A MATCH!!! 4-0 :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap
Ciao Diego!

 

[HadleyH]

Germany will win the cup.

 

[Nik Taylor]

Good Luck