The exact reason why I'm mad that the US made it past the group stage in the world cup

[damientheomen3]

June 27, 2010 may go down as the day when soccer was forced to grow up.
After years of increasingly absurd arguments against using technologies widely embraced by other sports, FIFA saw their reticence come back to bite them as major blunders affected two games Sunday in the knockout round.

The entire world watched as the “human factor” cost a major European nation a goal this afternoon in Bloemfontein— and arguably that team a legitimate shot at a place in the next round. The only people in the world who didn’t know that Frank Lampard scored for England against Germany to tie the game up before the half at 2-2, were the referee and his assistant in the German half of the field

World Cup referees' errors prove instant replay needed - World Cup News - FOX Sports on MSN

One of the main reasons why I hoped the US wouldn't do well in the World Cup. We now feel like we're an actual factor, and that people want what we want. Because of this, I have no doubt that the US will push their stupid MLS contract rules that are different from all other leagues in the world, and Americans are obsessed with instant replay. I really hope soccer isn't ruined like baseball was, with the implementation of instant replay. And anyway, his main reason for pushing for instant replay is a goal that would have meant absolutely nothing, besides making a 4-1 loss 4-2 instead?

[Le Grande Orange]

You don't even need to go with video replay. All that's needed is a couple of extra officials on the sidelines.

Station one official on each sideline near each goal, whose sole job is to watch for offsides on shots on goals and whether a shot enters the goal or not. That's it. That's their sole job. They don't run up and down the field, they're never out of position. They just sit and watch for offsides and goals. Nothing else. Not unlike the many line judges used in major tennis events. Two extra officials, and most of these problems go away.

And if you really wanted to clean things up, add a third official: a second referee actually on the field. He'd catch almost all the stuff the current one referee misses.

[TribeFanInNC]

Well, normally I'm not a big instant replay honky. I mean baseball umps and NFL refs get 99% of the calls right. And generally one single play, while sometimes important, doesn't mean the difference between winning and losing.

But these calls in the World Cup have been awful and they have all affected the score in a game where one goal is often the difference. The first goal in the Argentina-Mexico was a blown call where Tevez was offsides by yards, not inches.

Granted, Argentina and Germany probably still win their respective games with or without the calls. But these calls are just bad.

[kenyan_cheena]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

And anyway, his main reason for pushing for instant replay is a goal that would have meant absolutely nothing, besides making a 4-1 loss 4-2 instead?

The problem with that argument is that whenever someone scores in any sport it takes the game in a different direction. If Lampard's goal had been allowed we can only imagine where the game would have gone from that point. Perhaps England would have been the ones who pulled away in the 2nd half.

Simply put, these types of glaring mistakes should never happen. The ball was a whole foot over the goal line. It's comparable to a ball being three or four inches out in a tennis match and every official missing it. LGO's suggestion with the extra officials would be perfectly feasable. Seeing as FIFA makes a load of money it shouldn't be a problem for them to implement.

[Jason Moyer]

I wouldn't interfere with the human factor except on goals or potential goals. I don't think having a couple cameras focused on each goal line is a big deal, at least when you're talking about top-level soccer.

[redmarkYankees]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You don't even need to go with video replay. All that's needed is a couple of extra officials on the sidelines.

Station one official on each sideline near each goal, whose sole job is to watch for offsides on shots on goals and whether a shot enters the goal or not. That's it. That's their sole job. They don't run up and down the field, they're never out of position. They just sit and watch for offsides and goals. Nothing else. Not unlike the many line judges used in major tennis events. Two extra officials, and most of these problems go away.

This has actually been trialled this season in the Europa League. It's not been notably 'successful' or not, probably because there hasn't been a major incident to rule on in a big game.

There are several ways major incidents like this could be avoided, without disruptive intrusion from video technology. Extra officials by the goals, the '5th official' having access to a monitor and able to quickly advise the referee on a major incident, or giving each manager a 'video challenge' per half etc.

[mlyons]

I think a video official is probably the smoothest way to go -- in practice I don't think it would be too much different than the linesmen. A simple buzz down the the referee to alert him that a goal was or was not over the line, or that a play the linesman couldn't see was offside, or even an off the ball foul that the referee is blocked on. The referee whistles, the play stops, the video official tells the referee what happened, and we go from there.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

World Cup referees' errors prove instant replay needed - World Cup News - FOX Sports on MSN

One of the main reasons why I hoped the US wouldn't do well in the World Cup. We now feel like we're an actual factor, and that people want what we want. Because of this, I have no doubt that the US will push their stupid MLS contract rules that are different from all other leagues in the world, and Americans are obsessed with instant replay. I really hope soccer isn't ruined like baseball was, with the implementation of instant replay. And anyway, his main reason for pushing for instant replay is a goal that would have meant absolutely nothing, besides making a 4-1 loss 4-2 instead?

If you're concerned that, I wouldn't be. American ideas to European-based governing bodies haven't ever gone over well as far as I remember. The one I can think of is when the FIA decided to bring in a race control car and although it had been called a pace car in the States for ever, and also the same at Le Mans, they called it a safety car. Why? So they could be different.

And anyway, most of these governing bodies don't listen to people in Europe either.

As for single entity that would not get past the EU.

[ukhotstove]

You wouldn't need any extra officials, the guy who invented hawkeye for tennis was on tv this morning and said it would be easy to do, there would be no need for any stoppages as it would take 1/2 second to say if it was a goal or not. It would also be fairly cheap cost wise. He pretty much said all the excuses that FIFA are coming up with are coming out of their buttocks.

[Jason]

I think the main point is that there are ways to improve the accuracy of officiating in these matches and it's irresponsible of FIFA to not take steps to improve "fair play."

[mikev]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

One of the main reasons why I hoped the US wouldn't do well in the World Cup. We now feel like we're an actual factor, and that people want what we want.

The rest of the world doesn't want to see calls made correctly

[Ragnar]

On goals that should be counted but was not and play continued........All you need, like I and LGO said are two guys on each side of the GL. I would even put them on slightly raised platforms. That is all they need.

On an actual goal where a guy was off sides and it shouldn't be a goal..........This is where replay can come in. As they are celebrating and in the process of setting up the ball midfield.........seperate refs can look at the play and signal down "no goal, offsides".

This wouldn't even be a delay. They could see the off sides in 10 seconds and call it off as they were celebrating.

I think just those two methods would have prevented every error except for one in this tourney.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by mikev

The rest of the world doesn't want to see calls made correctly

No, but I'm sure that they aren't obsessed with instant replay and getting everything exactly right. Did they have instant replay 50 years ago? Is it fair to just forget about teams that got screwed by refs before?

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

No, but I'm sure that they aren't obsessed with instant replay and getting everything exactly right. Did they have instant replay 50 years ago? Is it fair to just forget about teams that got screwed by refs before?

That's honestly one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that past injustices are a good reason to preserve future ones.

Why integrate baseball? Is it fair to just forget about the black players who got screwed by segregation before?

There are arguments to be made against refereeing technology. Preserving the integrity of historical blown calls is not one of them.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

World Cup referees' errors prove instant replay needed - World Cup News - FOX Sports on MSN

One of the main reasons why I hoped the US wouldn't do well in the World Cup. We now feel like we're an actual factor, and that people want what we want. Because of this, I have no doubt that the US will push their stupid MLS contract rules that are different from all other leagues in the world, and Americans are obsessed with instant replay. I really hope soccer isn't ruined like baseball was, with the implementation of instant replay. And anyway, his main reason for pushing for instant replay is a goal that would have meant absolutely nothing, besides making a 4-1 loss 4-2 instead?

It's pretty absurd to link the US success to the instant replay in football issue. Cricket started to use instant replay in 1992.

An additional umpire is used off the field watching TV screens.

[JWay]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

No, but I'm sure that they aren't obsessed with instant replay and getting everything exactly right. Did they have instant replay 50 years ago? Is it fair to just forget about teams that got screwed by refs before?

What you're saying is that regardless of the technology available, we should stick to what is in place despite our new abilities to help call the game within the rules it was meant to be called?

Lets just rule out technology is all facets of life. Such as...

Perhaps we should not let those inmates who are found to be innocent by DNA tests 20 years later go free, because its not fair to forget those inmates who died in prison?

[Skipaway]

And in cricket, they are already using technology similar to Questec for umpires to track balls. They plan to expand the application this year:

BBC Sport - Cricket - ICC backs umpire review system roll-out in all Tests

American sports are trailing behind in terms utilizing technology for referees. FIFA is way further behind. FIFA has already tried ball-tracking technology before but rejected it, preferring human errors.

[redmarkYankees]

There are some difficulties with the introduction of technology in football, due to the fluid nature of the game. As we saw in England vs Germany, a goal can be scored within seconds of the opposition being in attack - a situation that doesn't generally apply to sports like cricket, tennis or some US-based sports. If the referee stops the game to consider whether the ball crossed the line or not, he could be (if the answer is no) depriving the other team of a quick counter attack; a key part of the game. Therefore the system must be unobtrusive - but to the point of not even distracting the referee. It would have to be limited to goal-line decisions, not controversial offsides etc (which can sometimes be complex or require numerous replays, again preventing a quick counter attack), using a Wimbledon 'Hawkeye' type solution where the referee automatically hears a sound when the ball bounces anywhere behind the line in the goal.

Alternatively, we live with the flaws of human officials which contribute to the drama of the sport.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Why integrate baseball? Is it fair to just forget about the black players who got screwed by segregation before?

Indeed. Let's go back to the days where there was only one umpire, and he was behind home plate!

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

Because of this, I have no doubt that the US will push their stupid MLS contract rules that are different from all other leagues in the world

What? Why in the world would all of the best leagues in the world adopt the contractual rules of a 2nd-rate league that was set up not to acquire the best players but to establish a somewhat stable US domestic league? Are you also worried that the Major Leagues might go to their graves by emulating the rules of the Can-Am League?

, and Americans are obsessed with instant replay. I really hope soccer isn't ruined like baseball was, with the implementation of instant replay. And anyway, his main reason for pushing for instant replay is a goal that would have meant absolutely nothing, besides making a 4-1 loss 4-2 instead?

Baseball has been ruined? Somehow I missed that. I spent yesterday afternoon at Camden Yards and thought that the pervasive dispair was attributable to the Orioles' abysmal record, not the once-a-month replay of a home run. Good to know the truth.