- Posts: 39
- Thank you received: 0
World Cup Predictions?
22 Jun 2010 15:30 #19491
by five_red
The problem is, unlike other sports, Soccer does not have frequent natural breaks in play. The issue becomes: at what point do you stop the game and from what point do you restart it?
An oft quoted scenario goes something like this: Team A takes a shot at Team B's goal, but the ball is deflected by a defender inside the box. Team A shout for hand ball, but the referee didn't get a clear look so he allows play to continue. A couple of minutes later Team B run down the other end of the pitch and score. Now that play has stopped, a video replay reveals Team B's defender certainly did handle the ball. What should happen next?
(a) 2 mins added back onto the game clock, Team B's goal is discounted and Team A is awarded a penalty.
(b) As (a), except 2 mins are not added back onto the clock.
(c) As (b), plus Team B's goal still stands.
Y'see, there are only a handful of events in Soccer where the correct response is stopping the game no matter which way the decision goes. Example: you can't stop a game to check an off-side decision, because how would you restart it if the player is found to be on-side? That said, there certainly are some things that could be checked with technology -- eg. red/yellow card decisions. But I think the general feeling at FIFA is that, as technology can only help in a minority of decisions, it is better not to undermine the authority of the ref with a mix/match approach. (Besides, don't the bad decisions balance each other out -- win some/lose some?)
Personally I don't think technology would undermine the ref, and I expect some form of replay and/or goal-line technology will be introduced in the next decade. But I think those who are not frequent Soccer watchers will just have to accept the free-flowing nature of the game means it will never be as precise as NFL, Baseball, Cricket, etc. It's probably because of the sport's unpredictability that we call it the beautiful game, after all.
Replied by five_red on topic Re: World Cup Predictions?
I also do understand & appreciate that installing any kind of replay or accountability might slow down and "Americanize" the game by putting fear into the hearts of the officials, and allowing space for the dreaded commercials & corporate sponsors to impede even further. But by this point, there have been so many egregious officiating errors that have obviously changed the outcomes of games, that it's kind of hard to take the sport too seriously.
The problem is, unlike other sports, Soccer does not have frequent natural breaks in play. The issue becomes: at what point do you stop the game and from what point do you restart it?
An oft quoted scenario goes something like this: Team A takes a shot at Team B's goal, but the ball is deflected by a defender inside the box. Team A shout for hand ball, but the referee didn't get a clear look so he allows play to continue. A couple of minutes later Team B run down the other end of the pitch and score. Now that play has stopped, a video replay reveals Team B's defender certainly did handle the ball. What should happen next?
(a) 2 mins added back onto the game clock, Team B's goal is discounted and Team A is awarded a penalty.
(b) As (a), except 2 mins are not added back onto the clock.
(c) As (b), plus Team B's goal still stands.
Y'see, there are only a handful of events in Soccer where the correct response is stopping the game no matter which way the decision goes. Example: you can't stop a game to check an off-side decision, because how would you restart it if the player is found to be on-side? That said, there certainly are some things that could be checked with technology -- eg. red/yellow card decisions. But I think the general feeling at FIFA is that, as technology can only help in a minority of decisions, it is better not to undermine the authority of the ref with a mix/match approach. (Besides, don't the bad decisions balance each other out -- win some/lose some?)
Personally I don't think technology would undermine the ref, and I expect some form of replay and/or goal-line technology will be introduced in the next decade. But I think those who are not frequent Soccer watchers will just have to accept the free-flowing nature of the game means it will never be as precise as NFL, Baseball, Cricket, etc. It's probably because of the sport's unpredictability that we call it the beautiful game, after all.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
23 Jun 2010 01:20 #19500
by five_red
One obvious flaw is you could use it to break a spell of prolonged pressure by your opponents. If a manager realised his team was coming under prolonged attack, particularly if it was late in the game and his team was defending a slim lead, he'd simply sacrifice a substitution in order to have his opponents sit on the grass twiddling their thumbs for five minutes, thereby losing much of their momentum.
The other problem is you could end up with 30 minutes of stoppage time -- which the TV networks would certainly not like.
The off side problem is unsolvable with current technology, because the outcome effects who takes possession of the ball. All manner of thing could happen while the wrong team has possession (a goal could be scored, a red card awarded) which would need unpicking if the decision was later overturned. For that reason the decision, like many others, has to be taken by the referee immediately within the flow of play. Maybe in the future we'll have computers powerful enough to track the ball and players accurately -- but for now we're reliant on (as he's known in the UK) the bastard in the black.
Replied by five_red on topic Re: Review of all bookings
I'm not sold on it myself - just looking for why it would or would not work.
One obvious flaw is you could use it to break a spell of prolonged pressure by your opponents. If a manager realised his team was coming under prolonged attack, particularly if it was late in the game and his team was defending a slim lead, he'd simply sacrifice a substitution in order to have his opponents sit on the grass twiddling their thumbs for five minutes, thereby losing much of their momentum.
The other problem is you could end up with 30 minutes of stoppage time -- which the TV networks would certainly not like.
The off side problem is unsolvable with current technology, because the outcome effects who takes possession of the ball. All manner of thing could happen while the wrong team has possession (a goal could be scored, a red card awarded) which would need unpicking if the decision was later overturned. For that reason the decision, like many others, has to be taken by the referee immediately within the flow of play. Maybe in the future we'll have computers powerful enough to track the ball and players accurately -- but for now we're reliant on (as he's known in the UK) the bastard in the black.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
24 Jun 2010 00:02 #19509
by five_red
Sorry, I misread your original posting. I see what you're saying now.
Personally I think, given play is already stopped for a card, the ref (or fourth official) could just check a tv replay quickly there and then. It would probably only add 30 seconds onto the delay.
Although I agree, there has to be some forfeit to discourage teams from always demanding tv replay. Perhaps they could be forced to hop for the next ten minutes? Or maybe a mandatory substitution, whereby one of their forwards is replaced by a French player?
Replied by five_red on topic Re: World Cup Predictions?
I'm saying play goes on while the seperate jury deliberates... ...if they rule in favor the player comes back out onto the field at thier teams goal.
Sorry, I misread your original posting. I see what you're saying now.
Personally I think, given play is already stopped for a card, the ref (or fourth official) could just check a tv replay quickly there and then. It would probably only add 30 seconds onto the delay.
Although I agree, there has to be some forfeit to discourage teams from always demanding tv replay. Perhaps they could be forced to hop for the next ten minutes? Or maybe a mandatory substitution, whereby one of their forwards is replaced by a French player?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
24 Jun 2010 15:00 #19515
by five_red
My head hurts when I try to do all the 'what if' group maths. Is there some advantage to them not wanting to beat England / improve their goal difference?
Well done to the USA, btw. My second team, after England. I have a feeling they'll make it to the last eight, and England won't
Replied by five_red on topic Re: World Cup Predictions?
I'm just curious, but for those of you who watched the English/Slovenia game, was Slovenia "going for it"? In other words, were they doing everything they could to try to score a goal (I.e. substistuting strikers for defensemen, etc...) or were they just sitting back, hoping Algeria held, and then skating into the second round?
I have to imagine that Donovan's goal would have been quite a shock to them. And deeply regretful if they didn't go for the equalizer.
My head hurts when I try to do all the 'what if' group maths. Is there some advantage to them not wanting to beat England / improve their goal difference?
Well done to the USA, btw. My second team, after England. I have a feeling they'll make it to the last eight, and England won't
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
24 Jun 2010 16:05 #19518
by jdrock24
If the US didn't score, then Slovenia would have advanced. So they could have laid back and hoped that Algeria held.
It doesn't matter, I was just curious. Those guys made some disparaging comments about the US after their game with us so I'm kind of glad they are gone.
Also, I think that England has a real shot against Germany. Germany is ripe for an upset, in my opinion.
On the other hand, Ghana scares me...[/i]
Replied by jdrock24 on topic Re: World Cup Predictions?
I'm just curious, but for those of you who watched the English/Slovenia game, was Slovenia "going for it"? In other words, were they doing everything they could to try to score a goal (I.e. substistuting strikers for defensemen, etc...) or were they just sitting back, hoping Algeria held, and then skating into the second round?
I have to imagine that Donovan's goal would have been quite a shock to them. And deeply regretful if they didn't go for the equalizer.
My head hurts when I try to do all the 'what if' group maths. Is there some advantage to them not wanting to beat England / improve their goal difference?
Well done to the USA, btw. My second team, after England. I have a feeling they'll make it to the last eight, and England won't
If the US didn't score, then Slovenia would have advanced. So they could have laid back and hoped that Algeria held.
It doesn't matter, I was just curious. Those guys made some disparaging comments about the US after their game with us so I'm kind of glad they are gone.
Also, I think that England has a real shot against Germany. Germany is ripe for an upset, in my opinion.
On the other hand, Ghana scares me...[/i]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.108 seconds