Great Officiating Calls

[Canesoverhere]

THE WHOLE WORLD WAS WATCHING...and apparently never forgets!

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/stolen-base-stolen-chance-why-instant-replay-is-a-must/?hpt=C2

[socref1]

THE WHOLE WORLD WAS WATCHING...and apparently never forgets!

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/stolen-base-stolen-chance-why-instant-replay-is-a-must/?hpt=C2

The pic of Lampart's goal is actually off axis. The only way to truly determine if it was in the goal is to have the camera directly in line with the goal line. One can not determine where the ball is from that picture. It could be a parallax optical illusion.

 

Just because the whole world watches, doesn't mean diddly. Instant replay will never come to soccer as we know it. And if it does, it would ruin the sport.

 

Sports officials have enough stress. Why add to it? No value added here.

[soccermom1969]

The pic of Lampart's goal is actually off axis. The only way to truly determine if it was in the goal is to have the camera directly in line with the goal line. One can not determine where the ball is from that picture. It could be a parallax optical illusion.

 

I was able to easily find videos of Lampard's non-goal on Youtube which clearly show the ball hitting the ground a couple feet behind the line, plus the picture's caption states the replay showed it to be across the line.

 

I believe that there is a place for instant replay in soccer, albeit in a limited role, maybe as a tool for the 4th ref. And possibly even incorporate the electronic line thingies that they use in tennis.

 

Officiating imperfection doesn't have to be a part of the game.

[ChattanoogaCannon]

The pic of Lampart's goal is actually off axis. The only way to truly determine if it was in the goal is to have the camera directly in line with the goal line. One can not determine where the ball is from that picture. It could be a parallax optical illusion.

 

Just because the whole world watches, doesn't mean diddly. Instant replay will never come to soccer as we know it. And if it does, it would ruin the sport.

 

Sports officials have enough stress. Why add to it? No value added here.

 

I guess you did not see the game. The ball clearly landed behind the goal line. It would have taken 30 seconds for the 4th official to determine the ball cleared the line. Instant replay would free officials from a lot of stress. No human can be perfect. Why not use technology to better the game? I guess you are not a proponent of headsets on the refs, either.

[socref1]

I was able to easily find videos of Lampard's non-goal on Youtube which clearly show the ball hitting the ground a couple feet behind the line, plus the picture's caption states the replay showed it to be across the line.

 

I believe that there is a place for instant replay in soccer, albeit in a limited role, maybe as a tool for the 4th ref. And possibly even incorporate the electronic line thingies that they use in tennis.

 

Officiating imperfection doesn't have to be a part of the game.

Oh don't get me wrong. The ball was in the goal. As I said numerous times on this post, the human eye is much slower than technology. That being said, there is no place for instant replay in soccer since soccer is a subjective sport. Instant replay will destroy the subjectivity. The laws of the game there are points of fact and points of opinion. Advantage and calling back advantage are unique to soccer. The electronic measure has failed to even garner the support from ussoccer. Now referees do carry electronic communication devices, but only to aid in communicating. The electronics do not aid in judging. The electronic line thingy isn't practicable since the goal line is usually obstructed by human bodies. If it were adapted for soccer, it would have to be a new technology altogether. Don't hold your breath. Just accept up the imperfection in referees the same way you would accept the imperfections of coaches and players. In the end, players do decide the game.

[ChattanoogaCannon]

Oh don't get me wrong. The ball was in the goal. As I said numerous times on this post, the human eye is much slower than technology. That being said, there is no place for instant replay in soccer since soccer is a subjective sport. Instant replay will destroy the subjectivity. The laws of the game there are points of fact and points of opinion. Advantage and calling back advantage are unique to soccer. The electronic measure has failed to even garner the support from ussoccer. Now referees do carry electronic communication devices, but only to aid in communicating. The electronics do not aid in judging. The electronic line thingy isn't practicable since the goal line is usually obstructed by human bodies. If it were adapted for soccer, it would have to be a new technology altogether. Don't hold your breath. Just accept up the imperfection in referees the same way you would accept the imperfections of coaches and players. In the end, players do decide the game.

 

If I were prone to gamble, I would bet that goal-line technology will be in place by the next World Cup. And the game will be better for it.

[socref1]

I guess you did not see the game. The ball clearly landed behind the goal line. It would have taken 30 seconds for the 4th official to determine the ball cleared the line. Instant replay would free officials from a lot of stress. No human can be perfect. Why not use technology to better the game? I guess you are not a proponent of headsets on the refs, either.

I actually saw the game and understood the "no call". It is what it is. The 4th official usually is at the half line and has no angle to make that call and no authority to hold up the game to review. FIFA will not allow it. Holding up play for 30 seconds is counter to the beautiful game. Instant replay would kill soccer as you and I know it. No human can be perfect is a fact. Technology will not better the game. Technology will hold up the game, which will hurt the game. So you want an imperfect game at the price of a perfect call. Seems like a losing proposition. The referee's already wear headsets. They are in constant communication with each other.

[akula21]

This is a topic that is great to discuss. But, the arguments for both sides can be made. My opinion, which is not worth much, is that we do play a subjective game and it has worked well for a long time. If technology can help and not break up the game, then I am all for it. But I would hate to have a game stopped to review a play. You would love it if it rewarded you and hate it when it doesn't. At the highest levels I can see this working, but only if a system is in place that doesn't stop the game.

 

There is a reason I do not ref, I would rather coach and take that abuse. They have a thankless job and are very often overlooked to their importance in a match.

[socref1]

This is a topic that is great to discuss. But, the arguments for both sides can be made. My opinion, which is not worth much, is that we do play a subjective game and it has worked well for a long time. If technology can help and not break up the game, then I am all for it. But I would hate to have a game stopped to review a play. You would love it if it rewarded you and hate it when it doesn't. At the highest levels I can see this working, but only if a system is in place that doesn't stop the game.

 

There is a reason I do not ref, I would rather coach and take that abuse. They have a thankless job and are very often overlooked to their importance in a match.

Thanks coach. The best refs are invisible to the match. Sometimes when people make mistakes, its those that have a tendency to highlight the negatives that draws attention away from the game. I take abuse too. Just recently a club manager gave me the "you'll never work our games again". And they wonder why there aren't enough refs.

[ChattanoogaCannon]

This is a topic that is great to discuss. But, the arguments for both sides can be made. My opinion, which is not worth much, is that we do play a subjective game and it has worked well for a long time. If technology can help and not break up the game, then I am all for it. But I would hate to have a game stopped to review a play. You would love it if it rewarded you and hate it when it doesn't. At the highest levels I can see this working, but only if a system is in place that doesn't stop the game.

 

There is a reason I do not ref, I would rather coach and take that abuse. They have a thankless job and are very often overlooked to their importance in a match.

 

 

Technology exists that would allow for a quick review. The delay would be microscopic compared to the delays for floppers, free kick shenanigans, etc. Regardless, it is coming. We will still have much to argue about regarding subjective interpretations. Refs will continue to miss hand-balls, offsides, and egregious fouls. I don't mean this in a derogatory manner. As long as we have humans reffing games, decisions will be second-guessed. At least we won't have to argue about if a ball crossed the line anymore, which, after all, is the most important call of all.

 

http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/sports/201010/89657.php

[socref1]

Technology exists that would allow for a quick review. The delay would be microscopic compared to the delays for floppers, free kick shenanigans, etc. Regardless, it is coming. We will still have much to argue about regarding subjective interpretations. Refs will continue to miss hand-balls, offsides, and egregious fouls. I don't mean this in a derogatory manner. As long as we have humans reffing games, decisions will be second-guessed. At least we won't have to argue about if a ball crossed the line anymore, which, after all, is the most important call of all.

 

http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/sports/201010/89657.php

At least we agree this is a subjective game. Furthermore as long as people continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the laws of the game, or their application, there will always be frustration. Case in point - There really is no term in the laws of the game for "hand balls" and "offsides". What you really mean is "deliberate handling" and "offside infraction" or "offside". "Offsides" is American football. Humans will always referee games. The most important call is the "no call". Referees should be invisible. Constant whistling for trifling offenses spoils the enjoyment of the game.

[ChattanoogaCannon]

At least we agree this is a subjective game. Furthermore as long as people continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the laws of the game, or their application, there will always be frustration. Case in point - There really is no term in the laws of the game for "hand balls" and "offsides". What you really mean is "deliberate handling" and "offside infraction" or "offside". "Offsides" is American football. Humans will always referee games. The most important call is the "no call". Referees should be invisible. Constant whistling for trifling offenses spoils the enjoyment of the game.

 

 

I think as long as people of your generation continue to demonstrate their pomposity, self-importance, pretentiousness and arrogance of their remarks, frustration will definitely continue. I am thankful that the rulers of the laws of the game do not share your attitude.