Whoa, a person goes off on a bus trip and boom. Anyways ... I watched a show about refs yesterday and I this guy who was commenting is a ref himself, retired now. He actually talked about the link between the red card, which was not a red card, and the penalty, which according to him was a really harsh penalty in the sense of the ref trying to make up for the card, and of course thus making an even bigger mistake.
On that note - heck, Brazil's second goal tonight was a pure offside - no way was that a goal and then, to top that, the guy sent off Ghana's coach when he complained. And that's one of the best refs out there? Is there something in the water these refs are drinking I wonder.
It ruins my game for me.
The inevitable World Cup thread!
[QUOTE=Ashen]<snip>
On that note - heck, Brazil's second goal tonight was a pure offside - no way was that a goal and then, to top that, the guy sent off Ghana's coach when he complained. And that's one of the best refs out there? Is there something in the water these refs are drinking I wonder.
It ruins my game for me.[/QUOTE]
Such errors are easy to see on instant replays when shown over and over again, but very difficult to actually see when taking place in a few seconds time.
Offside is a really tricky foul to call and the rulebook specifices that if in doubt - the call should benefit the attacker (which it rarely does by the way). So while Adriano was offside when viewed on replays, it was difficult to call at the second it happened, and thus using the rules, doubt was for the attacker. Fair call in my view.
As for the Ghana coach - and all other plays who complain - they know this will happen. A referee will *never* reverse a call. It is futile to complain, and while some refs will allow people to blow off steam, if taken to far people will get cards for it.
While I didn't see the actual event, and only heard of it via the commentators covering the match, I can only shake my head at the unprofessional attitude of the coach, and can't feel any pitty for him. He *should* know this would/could happen.
EDIT: And considering how often and how clearly the Ghana offside "trap" failed, it does suprise me the reactions. Poor organisation made them "complain" about offsides many times where no offside actually happened. Which just futher makes me question the coaches reaction.
While I dont' think the ref standard has been pretty good this tournament, I do think it is very easy to second guess the calls with instant replay et al.
The refs have a very short time to make the calls, and I can understand the errors made, and why they are made. That is however little comfort to thoese who feel cheated
On that note - heck, Brazil's second goal tonight was a pure offside - no way was that a goal and then, to top that, the guy sent off Ghana's coach when he complained. And that's one of the best refs out there? Is there something in the water these refs are drinking I wonder.
It ruins my game for me.[/QUOTE]
Such errors are easy to see on instant replays when shown over and over again, but very difficult to actually see when taking place in a few seconds time.
Offside is a really tricky foul to call and the rulebook specifices that if in doubt - the call should benefit the attacker (which it rarely does by the way). So while Adriano was offside when viewed on replays, it was difficult to call at the second it happened, and thus using the rules, doubt was for the attacker. Fair call in my view.
As for the Ghana coach - and all other plays who complain - they know this will happen. A referee will *never* reverse a call. It is futile to complain, and while some refs will allow people to blow off steam, if taken to far people will get cards for it.
While I didn't see the actual event, and only heard of it via the commentators covering the match, I can only shake my head at the unprofessional attitude of the coach, and can't feel any pitty for him. He *should* know this would/could happen.
EDIT: And considering how often and how clearly the Ghana offside "trap" failed, it does suprise me the reactions. Poor organisation made them "complain" about offsides many times where no offside actually happened. Which just futher makes me question the coaches reaction.
While I dont' think the ref standard has been pretty good this tournament, I do think it is very easy to second guess the calls with instant replay et al.
The refs have a very short time to make the calls, and I can understand the errors made, and why they are made. That is however little comfort to thoese who feel cheated
Insert signature here.
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
Regarding offside trap:It is the most suicide technique ever against Brazil. If you do, you'll see a goal nearly every time the ball goes to Ronaldo or to Adriano. If you work with zoned and man to man defense system, you'll need mobility - which Ronaldo and Adriano lack, even though they have very good precision to the shots. So, Ghana used the wrong strategy, and they could have won the game. Offside trap is a suicide trip.
Regarding the game: 60% of the game, Ghana played better, quicker and stronger soccer than Brazil - but they werent accurate. When Brazil reached the 2nd goal, they had kicked on goal only 5 times, while Ghana had kicked 15. Then, 15 percent of the time the game was bad on both sides, and the rest was when Brazil played really best. Ghana was demoralized at the end and with that expulsion, I'm sure. And I didnt like that offside goal, but if the ref dont raise his flag, nothing can be done. (Btw, Ronaldo almost got another yellow card for kicking after an offside pointed by the referee. He halted his move just in time, hehe, little fat guy.)
Regarding Netherlands: I wonder if they wont really be punished in some way for that game. Courtesy should have been shown when the other team player was hurt.
Regarding Portugal: I hope they win the world cup. Either them or Ukraine.
This seems to be the world cup of the failing referees.
Regarding the game: 60% of the game, Ghana played better, quicker and stronger soccer than Brazil - but they werent accurate. When Brazil reached the 2nd goal, they had kicked on goal only 5 times, while Ghana had kicked 15. Then, 15 percent of the time the game was bad on both sides, and the rest was when Brazil played really best. Ghana was demoralized at the end and with that expulsion, I'm sure. And I didnt like that offside goal, but if the ref dont raise his flag, nothing can be done. (Btw, Ronaldo almost got another yellow card for kicking after an offside pointed by the referee. He halted his move just in time, hehe, little fat guy.)
Regarding Netherlands: I wonder if they wont really be punished in some way for that game. Courtesy should have been shown when the other team player was hurt.
Regarding Portugal: I hope they win the world cup. Either them or Ukraine.
This seems to be the world cup of the failing referees.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
The fat, lazy slow Ronaldo once again succeded in being at the right place at the right time - congratulations to Ronaldo and Brazil! Sadly I missed the game since it started 5 pm my time so I had to work, but I saw the goals.
The second goal was perhaps judged as not offside because the ball deflected off the Ghana defender before hitting Adriano's leg and finding the net. It was a similar situation in another game (I don't remember which one) where at least the Swedish commentators explained it was not offside because it touched a defender first.
France-Spain was a good game, although I was disappointed by Henry's performace. I was very annoyed by his stunt when Puyol clearly did not hit his face but his chest. It's a disgrace for such a class striker as Henry to put up such acting displays
It's quite funny that both Ronaldo and Zizou look like their previous selves in slow-motion
The second goal was perhaps judged as not offside because the ball deflected off the Ghana defender before hitting Adriano's leg and finding the net. It was a similar situation in another game (I don't remember which one) where at least the Swedish commentators explained it was not offside because it touched a defender first.
France-Spain was a good game, although I was disappointed by Henry's performace. I was very annoyed by his stunt when Puyol clearly did not hit his face but his chest. It's a disgrace for such a class striker as Henry to put up such acting displays
It's quite funny that both Ronaldo and Zizou look like their previous selves in slow-motion
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
dj_venom
- Posts: 4416
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:00 am
- Location: The biggest island in the world
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]As for the Ghana coach - and all other plays who complain - they know this will happen. A referee will *never* reverse a call. It is futile to complain, and while some refs will allow people to blow off steam, if taken to far people will get cards for it.
While I didn't see the actual event, and only heard of it via the commentators covering the match, I can only shake my head at the unprofessional attitude of the coach, and can't feel any pitty for him. He *should* know this would/could happen.[/QUOTE]
Well it was odd in the Croatia v Australia game. Simunic (I probably spelt that wrong), when he was given one of his yellows, was running up to the ref. However the ref had turned around, so Simunic just pushed him in the back to get his attention. I was surprised nothing was done then.
[QUOTE=Xandax]Such errors are easy to see on instant replays when shown over and over again, but very difficult to actually see when taking place in a few seconds time.[/QUOTE]
Now, this is something that has had me thinking recently (and no doubt others have too). In cricket, it's called the third umpire. In Rugby league and Union, and AFL it's called the video ref. Nearly every sport has it, the use of replays to aid decisions. Now, I'm not saying to always use it, as it slows down the game dramatically, but in difficult calls. Such as ones that are in the box, or ones that lead to a goal, or anything like that. It would slow the game a little, but it would make it a much more fair game. What are people's thoughts on having a video ref?
While I didn't see the actual event, and only heard of it via the commentators covering the match, I can only shake my head at the unprofessional attitude of the coach, and can't feel any pitty for him. He *should* know this would/could happen.[/QUOTE]
Well it was odd in the Croatia v Australia game. Simunic (I probably spelt that wrong), when he was given one of his yellows, was running up to the ref. However the ref had turned around, so Simunic just pushed him in the back to get his attention. I was surprised nothing was done then.
[QUOTE=Xandax]Such errors are easy to see on instant replays when shown over and over again, but very difficult to actually see when taking place in a few seconds time.[/QUOTE]
Now, this is something that has had me thinking recently (and no doubt others have too). In cricket, it's called the third umpire. In Rugby league and Union, and AFL it's called the video ref. Nearly every sport has it, the use of replays to aid decisions. Now, I'm not saying to always use it, as it slows down the game dramatically, but in difficult calls. Such as ones that are in the box, or ones that lead to a goal, or anything like that. It would slow the game a little, but it would make it a much more fair game. What are people's thoughts on having a video ref?
In memorian: Fiona; Ravager; Lestat; Phreddie; and all of those from the 1500 incident. Lest we forget.
The topics of a video ref and putting a camera on the goal line are brought up regularly in the Premiership but they keep making excuses for why it wouldn't be practical. If they use it sparingly though then I don't see what is wrong with the idea of a video ref, except the angle you get on tv is not always clear either so mistakes could still be made, just a lot less. I think the argument against goal line cameras is something to do with glare from the sun affecting players but I don't see why it would be any different to any other camera recording the game. They could just put it near the corner flag (but far enough back from the sideline to not to affect corner kicks) and I don't see how it would distract players. I think its a case of football being stuck in its ways and not wanting to adopt new fancy technology lol.
Personally I am all for using a video ref system. The French League actually started out a trial with video, but FIFA (or was it the UEFA, I don't remember) stopped it early on because it was against the rules, so it could not even be evaluated.
It would perhaps take a little extra time, but seeing how much extra time the conflicts around major situations take, I don't think that is a strong argument against the use of video replays.
It would perhaps take a little extra time, but seeing how much extra time the conflicts around major situations take, I don't think that is a strong argument against the use of video replays.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
[QUOTE=dj_venom]Well it was odd in the Croatia v Australia game. Simunic (I probably spelt that wrong), when he was given one of his yellows, was running up to the ref. However the ref had turned around, so Simunic just pushed him in the back to get his attention. I was surprised nothing was done then.<snip>[/quote]
That ref was also poor. Giving Sminunic 3 yellow cards before sending him out. Not sending out Srna (which I think is the one you are refering to) for "pushing" the ref.
He didn't have much of an overview of the situation that ref.
[QUOTE=dj_venom]
Now, this is something that has had me thinking recently (and no doubt others have too). In cricket, it's called the third umpire. In Rugby league and Union, and AFL it's called the video ref. Nearly every sport has it, the use of replays to aid decisions. Now, I'm not saying to always use it, as it slows down the game dramatically, but in difficult calls. Such as ones that are in the box, or ones that lead to a goal, or anything like that. It would slow the game a little, but it would make it a much more fair game. What are people's thoughts on having a video ref?[/QUOTE]
The difference between the replay-sports and football is that football is a much more fluent game. Sure you could use it for when the ball is actually over the line, however even camerar angles can cheat you there. Besides new techonology is being developed for when the ball is over the line it makes a "sound" for the refs so they know it's been "x and y over the line".
However using video for offsides or other instant calls are wrong. Use if for retroactive punishing players who commit offences such as elbowing somebody etc, but not offsides, free kicks and all that nonsens.
One of the main reasons for this is - where to stop?
If using it to verify and offside, should we not also use it to verrify a wrongfully called offside and respotition players in their previous positiosn? Or when a penalty wasn't called when it should have been and, and, and.....
should we only allow "2" reviews per team ala american football? Which means you can speculate in it, use and misuse them.
It is the same with introducing multiple/more refs on the court. To much time would be going by with these multple refs having to communicate about the offences.
The game would be reduced to a drive-based game ala american football, which is impossible for the way the game is built.
But I guess the television channels would like this - meaning they can advertise much more in football matches, because the game would break every drive.
Also even when you watch American style football you see the refs making wrong calls, and even under coaches challenges. When you watch the instant replays the angles will show you different things.
You'll never be 100% perfect unless having 100% perfect survailance, so I'd more personally prefere to improve the referingree standard, and a couple of things could be done for this (better/more education for instance, and requiered experience etc).
And they'll not always make the popular calls either, meaning just as much foundation for debating/argueing over the refs decisions.
Sorry, but I do not see the need for video for anything else then punishing players who cross the lines, such as elbowing somebody, or for figuring out how long suspension a player should get for his offenses.
That ref was also poor. Giving Sminunic 3 yellow cards before sending him out. Not sending out Srna (which I think is the one you are refering to) for "pushing" the ref.
He didn't have much of an overview of the situation that ref.
[QUOTE=dj_venom]
Now, this is something that has had me thinking recently (and no doubt others have too). In cricket, it's called the third umpire. In Rugby league and Union, and AFL it's called the video ref. Nearly every sport has it, the use of replays to aid decisions. Now, I'm not saying to always use it, as it slows down the game dramatically, but in difficult calls. Such as ones that are in the box, or ones that lead to a goal, or anything like that. It would slow the game a little, but it would make it a much more fair game. What are people's thoughts on having a video ref?[/QUOTE]
The difference between the replay-sports and football is that football is a much more fluent game. Sure you could use it for when the ball is actually over the line, however even camerar angles can cheat you there. Besides new techonology is being developed for when the ball is over the line it makes a "sound" for the refs so they know it's been "x and y over the line".
However using video for offsides or other instant calls are wrong. Use if for retroactive punishing players who commit offences such as elbowing somebody etc, but not offsides, free kicks and all that nonsens.
One of the main reasons for this is - where to stop?
If using it to verify and offside, should we not also use it to verrify a wrongfully called offside and respotition players in their previous positiosn? Or when a penalty wasn't called when it should have been and, and, and.....
should we only allow "2" reviews per team ala american football? Which means you can speculate in it, use and misuse them.
It is the same with introducing multiple/more refs on the court. To much time would be going by with these multple refs having to communicate about the offences.
The game would be reduced to a drive-based game ala american football, which is impossible for the way the game is built.
But I guess the television channels would like this - meaning they can advertise much more in football matches, because the game would break every drive.
Also even when you watch American style football you see the refs making wrong calls, and even under coaches challenges. When you watch the instant replays the angles will show you different things.
You'll never be 100% perfect unless having 100% perfect survailance, so I'd more personally prefere to improve the referingree standard, and a couple of things could be done for this (better/more education for instance, and requiered experience etc).
And they'll not always make the popular calls either, meaning just as much foundation for debating/argueing over the refs decisions.
Sorry, but I do not see the need for video for anything else then punishing players who cross the lines, such as elbowing somebody, or for figuring out how long suspension a player should get for his offenses.
Insert signature here.
-
dj_venom
- Posts: 4416
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:00 am
- Location: The biggest island in the world
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]However using video for offsides or other instant calls are wrong. Use if for retroactive punishing players who commit offences such as elbowing somebody etc, but not offsides, free kicks and all that nonsens.[/QUOTE]
Well that's what I mean, you don't use it, however, if a goal is scored from a free kick where the ref isn't sure if it was a free kick, the call not given offside but the ref isn't sure can be reviewed, anything like that, where it creates an impact on the game.
Or the other idea, I didn't realise was in use in American football, of having a number of replays which you could use at your leisure.
Well that's what I mean, you don't use it, however, if a goal is scored from a free kick where the ref isn't sure if it was a free kick, the call not given offside but the ref isn't sure can be reviewed, anything like that, where it creates an impact on the game.
Or the other idea, I didn't realise was in use in American football, of having a number of replays which you could use at your leisure.
In memorian: Fiona; Ravager; Lestat; Phreddie; and all of those from the 1500 incident. Lest we forget.
[QUOTE=dj_venom]Well that's what I mean, you don't use it, however, if a goal is scored from a free kick where the ref isn't sure if it was a free kick, the call not given offside but the ref isn't sure can be reviewed, anything like that, where it creates an impact on the game.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Well - would you suggest that all players are to stand perfectly still, not allowed to move, while the ref checks the replays to figure out if he infact should award a free kick or an offside?
Otherwise the positioning advantage would be eleminated from the game.
I still see no use for video survailance in football other then to judge the punishment of offences and possible to judge whether the ball has actually crossed the line when goals-disputes.
All other events, I think it will rob to much from the game itself and cause many more problems then it would solve.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Well - would you suggest that all players are to stand perfectly still, not allowed to move, while the ref checks the replays to figure out if he infact should award a free kick or an offside?
Otherwise the positioning advantage would be eleminated from the game.
I still see no use for video survailance in football other then to judge the punishment of offences and possible to judge whether the ball has actually crossed the line when goals-disputes.
All other events, I think it will rob to much from the game itself and cause many more problems then it would solve.
Insert signature here.
I'm going to go for Germany-Italy as I think the Germans are better than they appear, and they will have a huge desire to win the cup on home soil.
I'll also go for England-Brazil, not just cos I'm English but because our team isn't as bad as they look at this tournament (in fact they are potentially a hell of a lot better than they have played so far) and they have a point to prove against Portugal after the events which occurred in their match in Euro 2004.
I'll also go for England-Brazil, not just cos I'm English but because our team isn't as bad as they look at this tournament (in fact they are potentially a hell of a lot better than they have played so far) and they have a point to prove against Portugal after the events which occurred in their match in Euro 2004.
My immidate suggestion is also Argentinia and Italy, although I wouldn't write off Germany that easily. They have shown much this tournament, and I think Argentinia showed weakness against Mexico.
As for England - Portugal, that is a big question mark. I don't know how strong Portugal is after the suspensions from the match with Holland.
I hope Brazil will kick them french out of the tournament (had Spain over France, so got annoyed at the last match )
As for England - Portugal, that is a big question mark. I don't know how strong Portugal is after the suspensions from the match with Holland.
I hope Brazil will kick them french out of the tournament (had Spain over France, so got annoyed at the last match
)Insert signature here.
The whole lab worked like crazy today in order for us to finish before the Germany-Argentina game. Especially so because our blood-measure lab guy is Argentinian!
This is football history. Now I am in front of the TV and I will not move until after the Italy-Ukraine game.
My bet would be Germany-Italy, England-Brazil.
Germany looks so strong, I believe the game will be very closed and tight and towards the end, Germany will win with 1-0 although Argentina have played better overall and have more talented players. I also believe England will beat a Portugal that lacks Deco, Costhina and probably Cristiano Ronaldo.
I hope for Argentinia-Brazil in the final though.
This is football history. Now I am in front of the TV and I will not move until after the Italy-Ukraine game.
My bet would be Germany-Italy, England-Brazil.
Germany looks so strong, I believe the game will be very closed and tight and towards the end, Germany will win with 1-0 although Argentina have played better overall and have more talented players. I also believe England will beat a Portugal that lacks Deco, Costhina and probably Cristiano Ronaldo.
I hope for Argentinia-Brazil in the final though.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]
@CE: its Argentina not Argentinia. (Ha! Argentina lost and Ce is wrong about something! The world is changing... )[/QUOTE]
Bah, it's only a typo, as you can see I spell it correctly in the first sentence.
Sad that Argentina is out - I was impressed by Germany though.
@CE: its Argentina
not Argentinia. (Ha! Argentina lost and Ce is wrong about something! The world is changing... )[/QUOTE]Bah, it's only a typo, as you can see I spell it correctly in the first sentence.
Sad that Argentina is out - I was impressed by Germany though.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Monolith]I'm still all dizzy. I can't believe Germany won! What a day. WHAT A DAY!!! BERLIN, BERLIN, WIR FAHREN NACH BERLIN![/QUOTE]
We all cant believe. I thought (before the game of course) Argentina had it made. However the game was pretty balanced. And of course, ADIOS MUCHACHOS! in the end.
@CE: just picking on you, dear. You miss so scarcely. Also, send my regards to your friend from south america.
We all cant believe. I thought (before the game of course) Argentina had it made. However the game was pretty balanced. And of course, ADIOS MUCHACHOS! in the end.
@CE: just picking on you, dear.
You miss so scarcely. Also, send my regards to your friend from south america.Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.