- 02/08/2012, 09:59AM ET
BBK II said 02/08, 09:59 AM
Without question the answer is yes.
The 2010 World Cup in South Africa will be best remembered for one thing; the horrible officiating. Referee mistakes on goals cost England in the knockout round against Germany, in what would have tied the game at 2-2. England instead went on to lose 4-1. The Uruguayan referee had this to say about the goal.
"It was unfortunate, a very fast ball that we couldn't see as it went into the goal despite my positioning being correct." Instant replay would've completely corrected that problem.
Then of course there was Malian referee Koman Coulibaly, who disallowed the go ahead goal for the US against Slovenia; a match that ended in a draw. FIFA had this to say about that blatant error:
"???FIFA is determined to keep refereeing standards high and does not want high-profile mistakes."
You know how to prevent high profile mistakes FIFA? Use instant replay for goals. It's a travesty that on the largest sports stage in the world, we still have such costly mistakes. It's completely unacceptable to continue to allow entire nations to be robbed of the correct ruling, when the technology has already been created to completely fix the problem.
Mr. Jolly said 02/09, 09:56 AM
Soccer is embraced, worldwide, b/c of several reasons, some of which are threatened by modernism in an endless struggle to perfect things that can't be perfected.
My answer is no.
There is certainly a "flow" to soccer that is not shared by many sports. With this "flow" comes shifts in momentum and expressions of endurance and strategy that most sports on this planet don't share. Many of those who follow soccer are discouraged at the thought of adding replay to any facet of the game, because of it disturbing this flow.
While you're only arguing the use of replay for controversial goals, there is a mindset that a domino-effect can be created by introducing this element to the game in any way. It would only be a matter of time before those would say "logic" dictates that a variety of other "questioned" calls go under the microscope.
All of this for replay, that in and of itself, in not infallible. Mistakes happen in replay too.
Plus, have we played out all our options? There are often 4/5 officials governing about 78K of sqft. Why not add a couple officials to solely govern goal shots? This would also increase the accuracy of goal rulings, with less flow disruption.
BBK II said 02/09, 10:18 AM
So you're argument against replay is that "many who follow soccer are discouraged....because of flow", and the slippery slope argument.
In a recent FoxSports poll that asked fans if they preferred FIFA to move to replay or not, 94% of the responders answered in favor of replay. It would seem that your "many who follow soccer" argument is severaly misguided. The fans want this, and they want it by an overwhelming margin. Soccer is also the only sport that has a time adjustment built in for delays in the game, and the delays replay would cause are minimal.
The slippery slope argument has been trotted out for every sport that has added replay, and it hasn't been true even once. Not only is the slippery slope a misguided logical argument, but as we've seen time and time again, it's fears are never realized.
As for adding referees, I'll simply requote from above:
"It was unfortunate, a very fast ball that we couldn't see as it went into the goal despite my positioning being correct.". More refs won't help that
There is a very simple solution to this problem. The solution is readily available, and has been proven to work every in every sport that's used it
Mr. Jolly said 02/09, 04:55 PM
No need to summarize my TDs, BBK. I have faith in FN's ability to read :)
FoxSports is just 1, mainly American, site. 1 only needs to scour the web for the numerous columns about this issue and scan the comments to realize there is a sufficient number of fans who disagree with you.
Are you kidding with the slip/slope response? I'll give you the "once" you're asking for in a timeline w/ the NFL:
* Limited in 86' where it was only going to be used in the rare time that Big Brother needed to step in.
* Repealed in 92' because, GASP, fans didn't like the delays.
* Brought back in 99' in the form of challenges (flow favored over constant attempts at perfection).
* 3rd challenge added in 04', in the rarest of cases where it seems the world is against 1 team.
After we review any "odd" goal shot with that flawed replay system (go in any bar and try to get concensus on replay calls), what's next?
Flops? Red Cards? Use of hands? All with expensive tech not all levels of the game can afford?
Here's another quote:
"His position wasn't focused on solely watching the goal area" - Mr. Jolly
Maybe we should put a couple guys in, to do that, before we jump to cameras.
BBK II said 02/09, 06:26 PM
Did you just quote yourself?
I'm glad you brought up the NFL. The NFL was a pioneer of instant replay, and it is still widely used in the game today. It was repealed in 1992 (though owners voted 17-11 in favor of it) because it's implementation was poor. There weren't enough cameras always present to capture the correct looks. Fortunately for soccer, it's 20 years later and the technology already exists, and is being used that will prevent FIFA from having any of those issues
Addias already developed a ball with a microchip in it, that alerts the official when the ball crosses the line. HD cameras exist that take 600 frames per second, and can easily determine whether or not a ball has crossed the line. The NFL has already laid the groundwork; as has the NHL, and all FIFA needs to do is use the technology that exists to the detriment of nothing. Rulings on goals will be within minutes if not seconds with today's technology.
Complain about the minute and half all you want, but it will allow the correct outcome to be determined, which is the ultimate goal of sports. There is no excuse with the technology readily available why controversy should continue to be a part of FIFA.
Mr. Jolly said 02/10, 01:53 PM
FIFA has the ability to confront this issue with tech that doesn't involve IR and won't disrupt the flow of a soccer game or threaten future actions that would further disrupt the game's flow.
Football is not an applicable comparison, b/c football already had a natural aspect of stoppage involved. Football was more open to the invitation of replay and to its specific needs, it has helped.
Soccer is different. Flow can't be easily dismissed. Consider the vast number of $ that soccer has ignored from pressures by advertisers and networks to create TV timeouts and stoppages. The embrace of soccer's flow is integral to the sport. They've bent over backwards to protect it.
Adding 2 officials to solely concentrate on goal areas, along with continued improvement of goalminding technologies (along with Cairos & HawkEye like devices), will not only improve the accuracy of goals, but won't pose the threat to flow. Everybody wins here as oppossed to 1 side of thought.
Lower levels that can't afford the tech still have an option of 2 officials and won't be held hostage to not having the $ to also address the issue. Soccer is a world sport and the whole world should be able to play.
|6||JimJ77 Can't make it up||130||53||26||68.4%|
|10||Schad - Notorious Deadbeat||71||43||9||61.4%|
- Fantasy baseball Roundtable: Dissecting Myers, Wheeler debuts
- Fantasy football focus: Mendenhall among top 30 running backs
- Fantasy baseball Pitching Report: Bartolo Colon's monster year
- Fantasy baseball Injury Report: Tigers ailing as Sanchez, Avila hit DL
- Fantasy baseball Waiver Wire: Joyce's hitting lifted Rays
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia