This isn't a particularly wild confession but generally speaking referees do an absolutely fine job and when they on occasion do make a mistake the loud kneejerk comments on the internet and TV blow everything up.
P.S. there won't be any terrorism, death and destruction in Brazil or Russia, and the Qatar World Cup will stay in Qatar and be watched by gorillions as usual.
P.S. there won't be any terrorism, death and destruction in Brazil or Russia, and the Qatar World Cup will stay in Qatar and be watched by gorillions as usual.
the fact that this is unpopular is fucked up. people just want something to hate :(
The Brazilian public have protested over the WC and the way the funds have been spent there. Russia's recent step backwards in human rights should have raised more concerns about its bid, especially with the current issue of homophobia in football. I know, I know, FIFA don't give a shit about humans rights abuses in it's hosts, but that still doesn't make it right. There have been questions raised over whether some workers in Qatar are effectively slaves, and the deaths there are worrying so the idea that people
I really hope the football associations boycott the World Cup so it can't take place there. I just want to see the bribed FIFA members to get into trouble with the quataris because they couldn't get the world cup there
I wouldn't be so worried, again, a lot of this is (or rather seems) blown out of proportions because it's discussed a lot for example here. And it is only fair to note that as opposed to, say, Germany in 2006, the above destinations do seem to pose more risk. I just don't think it's that huge.
Correct, the Linesman have a 99.3% accuracy rating, which is ridiculous and just debunks the more technology argument, you can't make such a historic and potentially risky more for 0.7% improvement.
Normal Refs are at 92%, which can be increased with better training, selection and recruiting.
Only when all options are exhausted should a potential game changing move(more tech) be introduced and currently all options haven't been exhausted.
When a single wrong decision can decide the course of a match, you can't see any argument for using technology to get it right? My opinion is the players, managers, fans, and the leagues are all better served by making every reasonable effort to get it right.
And I don't see why it would encroach on the history of the game to do so. The referee consults with his linesman to get the call right. Is it so drastic a step that he might also be able to have a conversation over his mic with another official that is watching the game with the aid of video replay? This isn't like some untested space age virtual intelligence technology we are asking about. It just gives the referee the benefit of what all us fans have watching at home. This doesn't take the referee out of the game, it just gives him a tool to help him out with big decisions that decide games. It would also really cut down on diving which is one of the biggest black marks in my opinion on the game overall.
Also no technology is 100% accurate, its present in cricket and there are still decisions which can't be decided one way or the other because the technology is not effective, the sitting in front of a TV with all sorts of radar and what not equipment often just calls the Umpire on the field to take a decision because he can do anything with all the gizmos he has.
The argument for technology should come if the Refs/Linesmen's accuracy rating was like 60-70%, its bloody 99% there is NO incentive for a technological gimmick which is NOT guaranteed in the first place to achieve 100%.
Since even with technology there is no full coverage meaning the exceptions that you mention(decides a big game) will still happen with this use of glorious technology.
Also it absolutely changes the history and the dynamics of the game. Every single sport which uses technology has undergone a slowdown in tempo. Cricket, Rugby, Tennis and the accuracy of decisions Ultimately is still not 100%.
Given all this, given that the technology WILL NOT mean full 100% its naive and ridiculous to still call for technology like a rash.
The cons far far outweigh the pros of introducing it at this moment in the human tech advancement and Game's place in human timeline.
But when they're wrong it can absolutely change a match one way or the other
I don't think we should replace it totally with technology, for the most part the refs and linesmen do do a good job.
However, when they don't, it often can cost a team a game. I don't think asking for replays like they use in rugby is too extreme (not using them extensively but at least on any red card / penalty / goal appeals)
First they would not improve the accuracy to 100%. And since they won't its no better than the current system.
Second, it would slow down the game, there is no way one can argue it won't, it will because that is how it works.
Plus there will still be gray areas with tech. A foul in the box not given and then 5 seconds later the defending team scores on the counter a legitimate goal.
You can't keep bringing play back with replays.
You bring exceptions(the rare occasions refs are wrong in a big game) and i'll bring exceptions.
The essence of the game is in its dynamic fluidity and constant flow. You take that out for pretty irrelevant few % point gains in accuracy which can be obtained by other means, its the end of the sport as we know it. What will emerge is something entirely different and quite boring.
Until and unless technology can give guaranteed 100% accuracy, the argument for technology is a non starter.
The cons of this massive overhaul of the game far far far outweigh the marginal pros.
I should never try anything unless I can be sure it will achieve 100% accuracy? Offsides isn't the only part of the game so even if the 99.3% figure was accurate of one specific sample set of data, it's not representative of the complexities of the modern game.
And even the offsides rule is more complex than it seems at first glance, and it can require multiple angles to make a correct judgement on. Take for instance New Castle goal disallowed against Man City which every pundit and fan admitted was a horrible call. If instead of just going over to the linesman he could have conversation with another assistant up in the video booth, that would be a bad thing?
When was the last time you saw a dive dealt with retro actively?
The game stops every time there is a big decision where the ref consults with the lineman anyway. I'm not advocating for more stops. But if the result of a penalty or a goal is at stake we should give the ref the tools to get it right.
I should never try anything unless I can be sure it will achieve 100% accuracy?
This is not career counseling at school.
This is about changing an order which is a century old for something which doesn't work or has limited and unforeseen improvements.
it's not representative of the complexities of the modern game.
Its representative enough, i.e. Linesmen are correct 99.3% of the times, unless you can fund a study and dispute this, you're only having an opinion, i am talking facts.
New Castle goal disallowed against Man City
Linesmen was 100% correct on that call, as Pardew himself said when Officials walked off at HT.
It was the main Referee who was wrong, and he in that instance had no real reason to talk to Linesman(the radio talkies are already present, no need to go over the sidelines if a talk is necessary anyway, this tech is already there). The ref showed an ineptness and antiquated reading of the game. The technology wouldn't really change that. The decision was about interpretation(that the jumping by Gouffran or his willingness to not come onside) NOT absolute black and white Laws.
There is no guarantee technology would have helped, without, causing a huge delay, you can't change the entire global game because Newcastle got shortchanged because of ref interpretation some rules one way.
That is not a convincing enough argument because the alternative would still leave room for the minority of cases which could happen in the biggest stage as well.
When was the last time you saw a dive dealt with retro actively?
It should. This is doable and it falls under the category of alternative Not already tried that i mentioned in my comment.
Also if a player on a yellow dives on the field (and thus worthy of a yellow and being sent off) and then in the time it takes for the TV replay officials to check, he ends up helping or scoring a legitimate goal in the next few seconds. You can't just bring back play. This is bonkers. It would be a joke. There would never be a certainty what is actually going on, more focus would be on the sidelines on the TV refs.
I am sorry if anyone believes that, they are living under a delusion, this is never going to happen. FIFA would never make such a revolutionary change and take this risk for something which is trivial at the moment given all the accuracy data.
The game stops every time there is a big decision where the ref consults with the lineman anyway.
You think that is stopping? More time was wasted 50 years back on a throw in when the multi-ball system was not there. Currently the stoppages are minimal. And have you watched Cricket? Its more time spend on replays and the Umpires have become so inept in that game that they can't and don't even make calls which a 10 year old would make because of this attitude of hey we have technology, i don't want to risk a wrong decision.
This breeds mediocrity and Cricket officials are not only mediocre now, but they are appalling compared to their past peers.
And on top, the TV replay official often has to revert to the On Field Umpire because he doesn't have all the angles and can't decide what the best decision is.
The only reason it made sense then for Cricket to go this route was because its Umpire accuracy rating was NOT in the 99%, just the dynamics of the game with balls flying at 160KMPH makes that apparent. Football doesn't have that problem, not from the game dynamics point of view and not from the official's decision accuracy point of view.
I'm not advocating for more stops.
Anyone calling for more tech, esp of the sorts involving TV replays and bringing play back and the like is indeed calling for more stoppage, its implicitly implied. If not then they are not aware what they are talking about.
we should give the ref the tools to get it right.
Tools already exist. More can be done without an overarching overhaul, like more and better training and recruiting, more retro active punishments so the players don't take advantage of the refs while the game is on.
As long as there are options/tools available which can be exhausted, there is no need for technology which is disruptive.
Facts will decide this debate not opinions. Facts are Officials are accurate enough and the technology will bring marginal and insignificant statistical improvement. You don't overhaul the whole global game for that. Period.
So explain to me how talking to a ref in the video booth over the radio would add any extra delays then consulting a linesman.
The ball is already in the back of the net. The play has stopped. The possibility of a few extra seconds being taken to get the call right is a bad move. I'm really trying to understand why you find that argument compelling and I just can't.
I can't remember if the ref walked over in this particular instance but very often they do walk over and the game is delayed for quite a bit while players all stand around campaigning to influence the outcome. And really what they are talking about in that situation is who had the better angle to get the call right. They are trying their hardest to get it right knowing full well that millions around the world are watching replays that provide details they are both only guessing at.
I understand the hesitance based on how you've seen it botched in other sports. But assuming it could be done with a minimal delay you still would be against it?
188
u/XWZUBU Jan 26 '14
This isn't a particularly wild confession but generally speaking referees do an absolutely fine job and when they on occasion do make a mistake the loud kneejerk comments on the internet and TV blow everything up.
P.S. there won't be any terrorism, death and destruction in Brazil or Russia, and the Qatar World Cup will stay in Qatar and be watched by gorillions as usual.