The World Cup Approacheth

Some sort of goal detector like in hockey would be helpful too.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

OK, The US can go back to hating s#ccer now.

Click to expand...

I am just getting into soccer and I am still pissed at the bad call that cost them the 3-2 win. Hate soccer ... no.... hate the lack of review of stupid calls by FIFA ....obsolutely.

In 2010 the technology is available to assist the ref's in making the calls and should be used. It would take less time to review a call then it takes for a player to take a dive and roll around the pitch.

I'm somewhat surprised that the "no goal against Slovenia" is still being harped on. Jesus, John Harkes and Alexi Lalas STILL won't shut up about it. End of it all, the US still won the group, so still would have faced Ghana, so...

Credit to the English - while they're annoyed at the horrible call (far worse than the US were on the receiving end of, IMHO), they at least say "That was bollocks, but these things happen in football, and at the end of the day we were crap and didn't deserve to win." The blown call against America shouldn't overshadow a dire first half from them, which dug the hole they were in to begin with - that's just papering over cracks.

ubermick said:

English - while they're annoyed at the horrible call (far worse than the US were on the receiving end of, IMHO), they at least say "That was bollocks, but these things happen in football, and at the end of the day we were crap and didn't deserve to win."

Click to expand...

Thanks. You saved me typing my feelings about all that.

I also have to agree though, that this WC has exposed some very bad decisions. While I would NEVER advocate a situation where the ref runs to the sidelines and sticks his head in a box to watch the replay, I do think it is time that the ref had another assistant. Someone with access to fast instant replay that can almost immediately contact the ref with his version of events. (As memorex said) This should not override the ref's decision, but be a guide as are the linesmen..

EDIT: oh, and Alexi? A bit of a dick, that one.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

I also have to agree though, that this WC has exposed some very bad decisions. While I would NEVER advocate a situation where the ref runs to the sidelines and sticks his head in a box to watch the replay, I do think it is time that the ref had another assistant. Someone with access to fast instant replay that can almost immediately contact the ref with his version of events. (As memorex said) This should not override the ref's decision, but be a guide as are the linesmen..

Click to expand...

Exactly. A guy in a booth with a radio to the ref's ear. It takes them a little bit of time to reset after a goal is made or missed and he can just say "Wait a minute, that's wrong."

ubermick said:

The blown call against America shouldn't overshadow a dire first half from them, which dug the hole they were in to begin with - that's just papering over cracks.

Click to expand...

Everytime I hear this comment it makes no sense to me. How can there ever be the "greatest comebacks" if there has not previously been a hole dug? Just because you didn't play the entire game perfectly does not mean you don't deserve to win. If this math was correct then Slovenia didn't deserve to win because they only scored in the first half they weren't present in the second half. So since they only played half a game they didn't deserve to win either.

so far, I've picked all 5 knock-out games correctly

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

I also have to agree though, that this WC has exposed some very bad decisions. While I would NEVER advocate a situation where the ref runs to the sidelines and sticks his head in a box to watch the replay, I do think it is time that the ref had another assistant.

Click to expand...

I actually thought that the ref was going to do just that in the Argentina v Mexico match yesterday - after the goal was given, he ran over to the linesman, and it almost seemed like that he was actually looking at the jumbotron and had seen the replay.

The problem with bringing in replays though is where do you draw the line? It's not like American football, or tennis, where you have a sport with constant breaks - a play or a serve, then there's the ability to review if needed. It's one thing to put a wee chip in the ball that can verify if it's crossed the line or not, but having to verify every dodgy offside decision would turn a match into a farce, in my book. Football's existed for long enough without it, I think it's part of the game and I have no problem with it. (As a Liverpool fan, as well as an Irishman, I've been on the receiving end of crap refereeing plenty of times!)

The only real answer in my opinion that will keep the game moving is to have more professional referees. It's still a part time job for most, they should be trained a lot more than they are, and should be held accountable for poor performances. (They are now - I remember Rob Styles was "demoted" to refereeing Championship matches, after he bolloxed up a call in a Liverpool v Chelsea match a couple of seasons ago).

Joker said:

Everytime I hear this comment it makes no sense to me. How can there ever be the "greatest comebacks" if there has not previously been a hole dug? Just because you didn't play the entire game perfectly does not mean you don't deserve to win.

Click to expand...

I tell you what though - using the term "greatest comeback" when referring to the USA against Slovakia is something only the American media is doing. It was Slovakia, FFS!!! You want a great comeback, check out the Champions League final in 2005

Joker said:

If this math was correct then Slovenia didn't deserve to win because they only scored in the first half they weren't present in the second half. So since they only played half a game they didn't deserve to win either.

Click to expand...

And they didn't - it finished 2-2. Justice was done!

(Again, too - the US was on the other side of a bit of poor officiating, since Dempsey should have been sent off 30 seconds into that game. Haven't heard Harkes or Lalas complaining about that screw up, though!)

Joker said:

If this math was correct then Slovenia didn't deserve to win because they only scored in the first half they weren't present in the second half. So since they only played half a game they didn't deserve to win either.

Click to expand...

A goal changes the nature of the game. It's that simple.

In the case og Germany V England, had Englands second "Goal" counted, then it would have been a great comeback for that portion of the game. England would still have lost in the end because germany were the better team, but it would more likley have been 3-2. The goals, and their timing are critical to the way a team defends or attacks. Especially in a knock-out competition.

ubermick said:

The problem with bringing in replays though is where do you draw the line? It's not like American football, or tennis, where you have a sport with constant breaks - a play or a serve, then there's the ability to review if needed.

Click to expand...

I agree. It would need to be kept simple, and for the most basic of judgements. That is why I specifically said that this should not override the ref.

If technology were allowed to slow down the game for more than 15 seconds, then we would have commercials during the game......And that could not be tolerated.

I am pissed I was busy this weekend and forgot to make my group predictions. I missed 4 matches and probably have no chance already...

I didn't mean that game was the "greatest comeback". I meant it as more of a general term for any team looking like crap for half or more of a game and coming back to win it. I don't feel the US game was the greatest comeback but they did play a hell of a half and should have all the goals count..... as should any other team.

I think the one thing that is still annoying me the most is (as far as I know) the Ref has never had to defend his call. He hasn't stated any foul nor has he stated who the foul was on. Just seems a bit fishy to me that this is allowed in a game at this level.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

A goal changes the nature of the game. It's that simple.

In the case og Germany V England, had Englands second "Goal" counted, then it would have been a great comeback for that portion of the game. England would still have lost in the end because germany were the better team, but it would more likley have been 3-2. The goals, and their timing are critical to the way a team defends or attacks. Especially in a knock-out competition.

Click to expand...

Well said. England (or Englar as the announcers say ) wouldn't have been attacking 9 if it was a 2-2 game in the 67th & 70th minute.

The German counter attack goals were the NBA equivalent of break away lay-ups when the other team is in a desperate situation.

Replay should be instituted for goals and only goals.

Give an off-field official all the necessary equipment and let him make the call. The official has a minute or two to make a decision, no need to stop play. If the call on the field is over-turned the time spent to review the call is added at the end of the half like injury time.

I love this debating! Who says there aren't any soccer fans in the States!

Brazil vs Chile on deck enjoying a beautiful Kolsch WOOT!

arturo7 said:

Replay should be instituted for goals and only goals.

Give an off-field official all the necessary equipment and let him make the call. The official has a minute or two to make a decision, no need to stop play. If the call on the field is over-turned the time spent to review the call is added at the end of the half like injury time.

Click to expand...

I could go along with that. With the exception that the final decision should always be with the ref and not his assistants.

There is enough time after a goal is scored while the players reset to do this.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

I could go along with that. With the exception that the final decision should always be with the ref and not his assistants.

There is enough time after a goal is scored while the players reset to do this.

Click to expand...

Yep, that'd work.

Another thing that UEFA was doing in the Europa League was using two extra officials, one behind each goal. It amounts to four linesmen - two on each side. That way if one linesman misses it, there's someone there to make the call. Blatter's firmly against this though, which I think it a load of bollocks. (Blatter's a load of bollocks, full stop, anyways...)

I really like that idea. Goal judge! Hockey could use that too

ubermick said:

Yep, that'd work.

Another thing that UEFA was doing in the Europa League was using two extra officials, one behind each goal. It amounts to four linesmen - two on each side. That way if one linesman misses it, there's someone there to make the call. Blatter's firmly against this though, which I think it a load of bollocks. (Blatter's a load of bollocks, full stop, anyways...)

Click to expand...

Memorex88 said:

I really like that idea. Goal judge! Hockey could use that too

Click to expand...

and the goal judge could "point out" scores in a creepy way like they do in Aussie rules football?

Anyone have a site to watch or listen to the games on? Apparently ESPN3 isn't making it so easy to view the games anymore.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

I could go along with that. With the exception that the final decision should always be with the ref and not his assistants.

Click to expand...

The call should be made by the off-field official. If the ruling on the field is "no goal," play continues and there is no chance for the ref to get off without stopping play.

AZ_IPA said:

and the goal judge could "point out" scores in a creepy way like they do in Aussie rules football?

Click to expand...

That would be flippin' great!

Joker said:

Anyone have a site to watch or listen to the games on? Apparently ESPN3 isn't making it so easy to view the games anymore.

Click to expand...

http://atdhe.net/20892/watch-brazil-vs-chile

Hugh_Jass said:

http://atdhe.net/20892/watch-brazil-vs-chile

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Hell of a game so far!

Brazil is bringing it.

Wow! 2 beautiful goals!!! I hate Brazil!

Good game. I might mention, I really like this ref. He's right in their face and not card happy! Makes for great futball!

Memorex88 said:

Good game. I might mention, I really like this ref. He's right in their face and not card happy! Makes for great futball!

Click to expand...

He's doing really well in the World Cup.

However, when he's reffing in the Premiership, he's a biased bag of ****e:

Pierluigi Collina was a great ref!!

How could you not be scared of a ref that looks like this! Shuts you up real fast!

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

I loved the ref in the Italy game. "Get off your ass!" He was yelling at cry babies every time someone went down. Awesome!

Click to expand...

MeatyPortion said:

What country was he from?

Click to expand...

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Howard Webb, English, works in the Premier league.

Click to expand...

Memorex88 said:

Good game. I might mention, I really like this ref. He's right in their face and not card happy! Makes for great futball!

Click to expand...

ubermick said:

He's doing really well in the World Cup.

However, when he's reffing in the Premiership, he's a biased bag of ****e:

Click to expand...

He is by far my favorite ref of the tourny so far.

Memorex88 said:

How could you not be scared of a ref that looks like this! Shuts you up real fast!

Click to expand...

I loved him back when he was lead singer for Midnight Oil!

ChshreCat said:

I loved him back when he was lead singer for Midnight Oil!

Click to expand...

Good one ChshreCat!

Damn 3 nil. Would have loved to see a close game.

Did I mention I hate Brazil?

Memorex88 said:

Did I mention I hate Brazil?

Click to expand...

I'd love to hate them, but I can't. In the end, you always have to bow to excellence, even when they are sometimes less than excellent.

Gnome... I hate them because there so good. And because they have 5 world cups to MY Italy's 4. (Please don't razz me for this year's team)
Because of this, I want some... ANYONE else to take the cup.
I would really like a New country to win, like Portugal, or the Netherlands which haven't taken one yet but are always there. Germany looks real good to take it.

Anyway... I hate Brazil

Memorex88 said:

Gnome... I hate them because there so good. And because they have 5 world cups to MY Italy's 4. (Please don't razz me for this year's team)
Because of this, I want some... ANYONE else to take the cup.
I would really like a New country to win, like Portugal, or the Netherlands which haven't taken one yet but are always there. Germany looks real good to take it.

Anyway... I hate Brazil

Click to expand...

Oh, I know what you mean all right! I can hate them in the sense that they are better than my team.... What really grinds my gears though, are teams like Argentina, who get too much respect. They are NOT a great team, but always seem to cheat their way into success.

I don't really want to bang on too much about the England V Germany game, as everyone already knows where I stand.....But it WAS refreshing to see the players play the game, and not go all theatrical on our asses. Brazil are not too bad for that as a latin team, so respect to them. Argentina however, are some of the biggest cry babies out ther. i hope they crash and burn in all future events.

Holland has been my pick from the beginning of the tourny.

Oh, and I am on the board! But I thought Chile would score (I guessed 3-1 Brasil). So close.

I think I'm a bit late to the "institute instant replays in soccer" conversation, but that should not happen. It would ruin the flow of the game, probably make refs lazy, and every single half would have the maximum allotted 5' stoppage time.

Here's what should happen instead of the instant replay: put in a 4th ref. Put him on a little table between both team's benches with sound-proof headphones and little TV on which he can manipulate the feed (slow/fast/angles.) But then the problem arises of "who draws the line of what should be reviewed?" In American football it seems there's always a box review... so what's the point of the numerous refs on the field? Solution: each side gets 3 (or 5... maybe 5) opportunities in which to signal the main field ref for a review. From the time the ref blows the whistle and does the proper hand signal (who knows what it could be) the 4th ref will have 10 seconds to make a call. The entire transaction would take no less than 15 seconds (no more than it takes for a substitution.) I feel like that could fix a lot of the bulls*** and maybe even cut down on the acting.