BF2S Forums The Official 2010 FIFA World Cup Thread

nukchebi0 wrote:

Lol -

It takes ten seconds to establish if something was a goal. It takes 30 seconds to a minute to determine offsides. The maximum a foul call would need to be confirmed or denied is a couple minutes. None of these incidents happen too frequently - in each instance in the world cup, it's been a single call in the game that has dramatically altered the outcome. Soccer's sacred fluidity is already fractured by the pseudo injuries players suffers, the sauntering to prepare throw-ins, and setpieces/corner kicks. It's laughably unrealistic to claim that one video review a match, one that would drastically improve the validity of the end result, would have too great a cost in terms of game flow to justify implementing.

As ig noted, it doesn't seem as if you understand what replay would be implemented for. Think of it as the soccer version of baseballs review of disputed home runs.

No it doesnt.  Going to the third ref is a timely process, have a look yourself, youtube third umpire in cricket.  Frequent breaks will destroy a game that is based on constant end to end play.

Last edited by m3thod (2010-06-27 17:15:57)

ig wrote:

please dont tell me you thought i was haibai. i might have to kms

No. I was using his words to make the same point. .. but I've got some rope and a chair if you still feel like it.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Lol -

It takes ten seconds to establish if something was a goal. It takes 30 seconds to a minute to determine offsides. The maximum a foul call would need to be confirmed or denied is a couple minutes. None of these incidents happen too frequently - in each instance in the world cup, it's been a single call in the game that has dramatically altered the outcome. Soccer's sacred fluidity is already fractured by the pseudo injuries players suffers, the sauntering to prepare throw-ins, and setpieces/corner kicks. It's laughably unrealistic to claim that one video review a match, one that would drastically improve the validity of the end result, would have too great a cost in terms of game flow to justify implementing.

As ig noted, it doesn't seem as if you understand what replay would be implemented for. Think of it as the soccer version of baseballs review of disputed home runs.

Dramatically altered the outcome? Weren't you the one who said you weren't sure who should still be in a few post ago? Please give me an example.. since you seem to be so sure now. The process of setting up a set-peice, walls etc.. IS part of the game..lol. It's not going back in time and reviewing a play or call. Again, nothing in the world of video review is 10-30 seconds long.

I agree they should cut the drama out.

I'm not sure because the refereeing has so altered the outcome I don't know who should have won. I know the result we did get was altered because of the poor call.

Set-pieces and walls aren't injuries. Please explain how a 10-30 second (or gasp, a minute) video review is any different than the "injuries" that invariably happen and halt play.

If you watched the entire games you would have seen that despite the calls they were out played. See the previous comment "lucky AND good". I also addressed the mental issue earlier.

Injuries are a fact that will always be. Video review isn't. You can't do much to control people getting hurt (beyond penalizing high kicks ..etc) Now, "getting hurt", they are supposed to get a misconduct for diving .. a yellow card.

whats the avg number of reds and goals that need to be reviewed per game anyway? 1? not that big of a freakin deal to review 1 thing per game...

ig wrote:

also, you say reds can be appealed? why the fuck was kaka's not repealed then?

Because it was a result of two yellows, which can not be repealed.

Ty wrote:

You know what I'd be really interested to see? The edited versions of the North Korean games made to look like they won.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nholland/north- … rld-cup-2j

Kmarion wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Dramatically altered the outcome? Weren't you the one who said you weren't sure who should still be in a few post ago? Please give me an example.. since you seem to be so sure now. The process of setting up a set-peice, walls etc.. IS part of the game..lol. It's not going back in time and reviewing a play or call. Again, nothing in the world of video review is 10-30 seconds long.

I agree they should cut the drama out.

I'm not sure because the refereeing has so altered the outcome I don't know who should have won. I know the result we did get was altered because of the poor call.

Set-pieces and walls aren't injuries. Please explain how a 10-30 second (or gasp, a minute) video review is any different than the "injuries" that invariably happen and halt play.

If you watched the entire games you would have seen that despite the calls they were out played. See the previous comment "lucky AND good". I also addressed the mental issue earlier.

But why were they outplayed? The mental issue is not really addressed - the US was robbed near the end of the Slovenia game, and failed to score after that. In the Algeria game, it took them 68 minutes against the second worst team at the World Cup to recover and score. It's seems rather foolish to argue getting robbed by a call makes players play the same.

Injuries are a fact that will always be. Video review isn't. You can't do much to control people getting hurt (beyond penalizing high kicks ..etc) Now, "getting hurt", they are supposed to get a misconduct for diving .. a yellow card.

Yeah, exactly. So how does adding one more "injury" dramatically ruin the purity and fluidity of the game? It doesn't. And as the World Cup has shown, the token yellow cards doled out don't exactly dissuade diving.

mikkel wrote:

It's always the newcomers, the people who've watched a match or two, who come to offer their expert opinions on the matter as if everyone else is wrong. These people need to come to terms with the fact that, apparently, they just don't like the sport, and that it doesn't mean that the sport should change. These people will stop moaning as soon as the World Cup is over, and the rest of us can get back to watching quality football from the best leagues.

Protip: don't assume things. I like the sport, mostly - I just can't handle the pathetically antiquated officiating standards.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-27 18:14:34)

@nukchebi0

I did address it. For example if a bad offsides call makes you play the ball directly to an Argentine striker allowing them to score then you have no business playing at top level. Bad calls come in every sport, with and without video review. Playing through them is part of the game. Argentina was a better team. One call is not enough to excuse Mexico's multiple mistakes.

Again, you said the RESULTS were laughable. It could also be said that coming from behind helped to rally/prepare themselves for the next round. It showed they can handle the pressure. Nothing lifts your spirits up or motivates you more than winning despite the refs. You complain about the US games in the first round but they went through tied top of their bracket. The US was knocked out by Ghana. Did the refs decide that game? No they didn't. In the end Group C was done in on their own.

As I've said multiple times.. once you start allowing challenges it's going to lead to more and more intentional stoppages. Yes intentional stoppages already exist, but that is not an excuse to allow for more. I sincerely doubt a one a game occurrence. Are you saying that a team would fake an injury but not go so far as to frivolously challenge a call or a goal? Ridiculous.

There is a rule that is supposed to address dives. The fact that the rule is not enforced strictly does not mean the rule itself doesn't work. Train the refs better (on all accounts) and this conversation does not exist. Period. End of story. I'm done repeating myself.

http://twitter.com/DPRK_FA

Kmarion wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Argentina was a better team. One call is not enough to excuse Mexico's multiple mistakes.

So, let's say the final result was 2-1 Argentina, Mexico had been playing much better, yet Argentina won because of the shit call?  What then?  One bad call in soccer is enough to fuck a team up.  Maybe in basketball, football, baseball, hockey, bad calls don't make big enough of a difference to ruin a game (usually), but in soccer, one bad call is devastating.

Despite what now seems popular belief, one bad call does not usually decide a game. In fact, it didn't decide the Argentina/Mexico game. It wasn't bad calls the eliminated the US neither. Sure, bad calls have been game deciders before. It happens even in high scoring sports. My point is that with qualified and competent officiating you don't have to alter the game of soccer. It's really not as elusive as it may seem .. given the last few weeks.

if not instant replays, then get some better refs. or more refs. at least....

Kmarion wrote:

The stop and start process of video review would destroy the fluidity of the game. We already have a sport like that.

explain why the old school announcers like andy and martin say they should use that technology?

Kmarion wrote:

@nukchebi0

I did address it. For example if a bad offsides call makes you play the ball directly to an Argentine striker allowing them to score then you have no business playing at top level. Bad calls come in every sport, with and without video review. Playing through them is part of the game. Argentina was a better team. One call is not enough to excuse Mexico's multiple mistakes.

For underdogs, losing that first goal in such an incorrect manner is a heartbreak. Don't pretend they should be able to easily overcome it.

Again, you said the RESULTS were laughable. It could also be said that coming from behind helped to rally/prepare themselves for the next round. It showed they can handle the pressure. Nothing lifts your spirits up or motivates you more than winning despite the refs. You complain about the US games in the first round but they went through tied top of their bracket. The US was knocked out by Ghana. Did the refs decide that game? No they didn't. In the end Group C was done in on their own.

Yes, but they succeeded in spite of the refereeing, and were lucky enough to do so. Think they would have been sweating the Algeria match if the Slovenia match ended properly? You think Americans would have been happy if their country was robbed a spot in the final 16? FIFA got lucky Group C ended up as it should have, but that doesn't change the laughability of the results in the games.

Also the refs ripped off the US at the end of stoppage time in the Ghana game (they blew the whistle at 122:56, when it should have been at least 123:00 and consistent with soccer protocol the end of the US possession which had started), but I don't think the final push would have resulted in a score.

As I've said multiple times.. once you start allowing challenges it's going to lead to more and more intentional stoppages. Yes intentional stoppages already exist, but that is not an excuse to allow for more. I sincerely doubt a one a game occurrence. Are you saying that a team would fake an injury but not go so far as to frivolously challenge a call or a goal? Ridiculous.

It's so hard to differentiate between an objectively obvious goal and one which needs to be reviewed. If players think its fun to challenge such goal, reward them with a yellow or red card.

There is a rule that is supposed to address dives. The fact that the rule is not enforced strictly does not mean the rule itself doesn't work. Train the refs better (on all accounts) and this conversation does not exist. Period. End of story. I'm done repeating myself.

In the absence of refereeing quality, technology needs to be introduced. Either get better refs, or get modern officiating techniques which ensure proper calls. It doesn't change the fact soccer's premier event looks absolutely pathetic at the moment, largely because of the governing body's obduracy and inability to establish competitive integrity in their games.