Posted on 06/29/2010 5:18:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
JOHANNESBURG (AP)—FIFA will look again at introducing video technology to assist referees after president Sepp Blatter apologized to England and Mexico for the officiating errors that helped eliminate them from the World Cup.
Blatter said Tuesday that FIFA will reopen debate on high-tech methods to improve decision-making on the pitch following mistakes in Sunday’s matches in Bloemfontein and Johannesburg.
“Naturally, we deplore when you see the evidence of referees’ mistakes,” said Blatter, adding it would be “a nonsense” for FIFA not to look again at goal-line technology with its rule-making panel.
“After having witnessed such a situation,” Blatter said, referring to England’s non-goal against Germany, “we have to open again this file, definitely.
“Naturally, we will take on board again the discussion about technology. Something has to be changed.”
The refereeing system won’t be changed midway through the World Cup. Blatter said the panel, known as the International Football Association Board, would begin considering changes at a July meeting in Cardiff, Wales.
FIFA can still block any eventual proposal because it retains an effective voting veto at the rules-making body.
Blatter said his apologies were accepted by England and Mexico team officials at the matches.
“The English said ‘thank you.’ The Mexicans, they just go with the head,” Blatter said, indicating that they nodded. “I understand that they are not happy. It was not a five-star game for refereeing.”
England was denied a clear goal when Frank Lampard’s shot bounced down from the crossbar over the goal line. That would have leveled the match against Germany at 2-2. Germany advanced 4-1. Argentina led 1-0 against Mexico when Carlos Tevez scored while clearly offside. Argentina won 3-1.
The errors created a worldwide furor and put pressure on FIFA, which has long opposed allowing officials to use technology to assist in decision-making.
(Excerpt) Read more at g.sports.yahoo.com ...
Exactly correct but I’m not sure if people know why.
Imagine how awful the world series would be if it were just one game.
Soccer, like Baseball, isn’t given to a playoff format. These one-off games are so tense because one mistake or one blown call can end it. Normally soccer is played in a league format.
The world cup is an unpaid diversion for soccer players and a lot of fun for it’s fans. It shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
True, but I would say, we probably had to exert ourselves much more than we would have otherwise, and we only had a few days off before the Ghana match, compared to the time Mexico had off before their game against Argentina.
The sad thing, is the US was the only team to win their Group that didn't make it to the Final 8.
I gave it a look this weekend. When the US fell behind in extra time, like you, I knew it was over and I could get on with my nap? I just don't see how it can hold people's interest when late from even a one goal deficit comebacks are pretty much nonexistent, and comebacks from two goal deficits are nonexistent. If they just said first goal wins, they could save a lot of bother for everybody, since that's the way it turns out 90% of the time anyway.
Another thing I'll never understand about soccer is how it can continue to have 18th century time keeping. Here's an idea: when there's an injury, stop the clock. Here's another: let people see the clock. Here's yet another: when time has expired it has expired. Not after the next corner kick, or when an official that could be on the take decides it has expired.
You mean that sport where they bother measuring time precisely because the outcome is often in doubt, it's conceivable that the team that's trailing might actually score near the end, and it's important to know if the goal happened before the game was over or not?
In fairness to FIFA, the blown calls in the England and Mexico games likely influenced the ultimate outcome for those teams, whereas the blown calls against us did not. If England's goal had been allowed, and the score had equalized at 2-2, they would have had a chance to win. They would not have been forced to play as aggresively on offense, and hence would have been less vulnerable to the counterattack. A similar argument can be made in the Mexico-Argentina game.
Thankfully, the blow calls against us, while deplorable, ended up not mattering.
Hmmm. I never thought of it that way. Maybe there's something to it. Then again, these are highly fit professional athletes, and soccer isn't exactly a collision sport. Seems like 2-3 days rest would be plenty for a full recovery, no matter how hard a match. But then again, I've never played at that level. Have any of the US players made this point?
If teams could see how much time was left on the clock, they would go into “Four-Corners” mode and try to delay and stall.
Ideally the referee should stop the time when he sees teams trying to delay. But I like the fact that teams don’t know exactly when the game would end. In fact, only recently did they start even telling teams how much injury time there would be-before nobody even knew that, the game ended when it ended.
Like they don't already.
Ideally the referee should stop the time when he sees teams trying to delay.
Which is, I think, a fundamental flaw in the design of the game. I actually kind of like soccer. But leaving aside basketball, which is the most poorly designed and pointless sport ever (which is why it needs a shot clock), soccer lacks the end of game drama of other team sports; sports that are designed in such a way that protecting a lead by playing all defense and stalling just isn't effective. You just can't go into a defensive shell in football and hockey. The phrase "Prevent defense prevents you from winning" is true as often as not. And the best way to defend a lead in hockey is by peppering the opponent's net with shots while time goes by. If you aren't trying to score you are going to get scored on easier.
Not so with soccer. Which is why I find other things to do as an untied soccer game nears the end. It's not worth the time investment when the probability of seeing anything happen is so infinitesimal.
As a fan of Everton FC, I found out the hard way that a lot of goals are scored in injury time.
Even the ref doesn’t know when the game will end. Stoppage is an estimate. He can add time in stoppage to the game. Also, the game won’t be stopped if there is a chance of a goal being set up even if stoppage time is spent. The ref will wait until the ball is in a relatively meaningless area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.