6 reason soccer sucks.

[CycloWizard]

All centered basically around "No one is willing to consider improving the quality of the sport." There is nothing that can't be legislated appropriately if participants are willing to approach it with an open mind and a sense of fair play (seems unlikely on both counts) - go look at a replay of the US - Slovenia incident: the ball goes to Edu, then into the goal. This is not a situation where the action was whistled dead and players continued playing for a second or two. It is unarguable that if Edu is offside, there is no goal and if Edu is not offside, there is a goal.

It should be imperative that such a call be made accurately. Don't officials, players and fans alike want all parties to get it right?

Yes, but they also want the game to be played the way it's played now. You can't stop the game to conduct instant replay, period. There are simply dozens of reasons why this can never happen in soccer, many of which I've already listed in this thread (and you have conveniently ignored). Go to a game in England - even in the fourth division - and try this and you will quickly have a riot on your hands. Like I have also said, most of the committee in charge of these decisions are the best soccer players in the history of the game. They have more money than they can count and have no incentive for not wanting fair play. They also know how the game works on a very intimate level and need to be sure that they aren't going to break the game. It sucks that bad calls are made, but it's a part of the game (easy for me to say on an internet forum - I'm not so forgiving when it happens in one of my games ), and as any player will tell you, you never lose a game due to a single refereeing decision, as the games are sufficiently long that you have plenty of other chances to demonstrate that you're actually the better team.

The challenge rule in the NFL is carefully constructed, and a challenge rule in FIFA would also have to be carefully constructed. For example, perhaps only calls occurring in the penalty box and directly involving a shot on goal should be reviewable. It can and should be something that needs to be used only rarely and it should be constructed with this end in mind.

Perhaps, but that arbitrarily limitation would not fix many of the problems we're seeing (e.g. Lampard's goal would still not have been allowed, since his shot was from outside the box).

 

[sdifox]

Video pwns goal line technology.

Without the goal line technology, there can be no video - that's the point. With it, you can still go to video because if it triggers that the ball crossed the line, that can stop play and allow the ref to review it. Otherwise, the ref has no opportunity to review it.

OMG you mean all the video replays we have seen so far were all faked?

What's it like being selectively illiterate?

You postulate that video cannot exist without the goal line technology while in fact video existed long before any sort of goal line technology has been thought of. Where am I being selectively illiterate? Goal Line technology is not suited for football.

 

[CycloWizard]

You postulate that video cannot exist without the goal line technology while in fact video existed long before any sort of goal line technology has been thought of. Where am I being selectively illiterate? Goal Line technology is not suited for football.

Video review cannot be implemented unless there is some trigger to stop the play. Are you really that stupid? If yes, /yourself.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

Sounds like soccer....

*puts on sunglasses*

...needs to goal away.

YEAAAHAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

 

[CycloWizard]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA lol, you're such a HE-MAN.

What I read:


but it sounds more like:



:awe:

Yes, which is why I've played in leagues since I was three and still play soccer today. Idiot.

 

[CycloWizard]

FIFA said they will "bring it up for discussion." at their next gathering. They never said it was going to happen.

Haven't they discussed this several times already, with the same result?

The system they implement needs to be at least as accurate as the three blind refs running around the field. In their test tournament, they found that it was not. My best guess as to why is because they don't want to implant anything in the ball, as this would cause eccentric spin and change its flight characteristics.

 

[CycloWizard]

You are right you can't give the goal because the whistle was blown and play was stopped.

But how about changing the offsides rule? Let play continue until a change of posession -- out of bounds, scored goal, blocked shot, etc. Then blow the whistle to stop play and review the call.

It's not uncommon for play to continue for 3-5 minutes between stoppages sometimes. As I've also pointed out, what happens if a goal is scored by the opposing team after a call is missed/made? It's a logistical nightmare.

 

[Jzero]

You can't stop the game to conduct instant replay, period.

False. Period. In the time it took to get the ball out of the Slovenian goal back to the point of infraction for the free kick, play was stopped, the momentum was broken, and a review could have been conducted.

You can't stop the game to conduct instant replay, quite simply because the old guard does not want to.

There are simply dozens of reasons why this can never happen in soccer, many of which I've already listed in this thread (and you have conveniently ignored).

Not ignored - they all amount to "We don't want to try." It's how it's always been done. The rules don't permit it and cannot ever be revised. You can't stop the match. Ok you can stop the match, but not for a review, and this cannot ever be revised. It wouldn't work in <cherry picked straw-man situation>.

Go to a game in England - even in the fourth division - and try this and you will quickly have a riot on your hands. Like I have also said, most of the committee in charge of these decisions are the best soccer players in the history of the game. They have more money than they can count and have no incentive for not wanting fair play. They also know how the game works on a very intimate level and need to be sure that they aren't going to break the game.

I am sorry, but you are giving the Diego Maradonas and Silvio Berlusconis of the world entirely too much credit. Soccer (and all professional sport for that matter) is a for-profit endeavor first and foremost and "I've already got tons of money" has never been an excuse to not keep earning more.

Also, it need not apply at all levels - are sactioning bodies for EPL/UEFA, etc required to adopt the FIFA rulebook in its entirety? This is certainly not the case in most int'l sport. Just use it at the World Cup if you want - you want to crown a nation the greatest soccer nation on earth for four years, you want it done right.

It sucks that bad calls are made, but it's a part of the game (easy for me to say on an internet forum - I'm not so forgiving when it happens in one of my games ), and as any player will tell you, you never lose a game due to a single refereeing decision, as the games are sufficiently long that you have plenty of other chances to demonstrate that you're actually the better team.

I agree that it rarely (not never, as US vs. Slovenia illustrates) truly impacts the outcome of a match (England were not going to beat Germany). However, bad calls should *never* be considered "a part of the game." Any game. Sports are supposed to be a test to prove the better athelete/team and should never be settled in any way on officiating errors if it can be avoided. Sanctioning bodies should be constantly seeking ways to prevent officiating from impacting the outcome of an event.

Perhaps, but that arbitrarily limitation would not fix many of the problems we're seeing (e.g. Lampard's goal would still not have been allowed, since his shot was from outside the box).

You keep coming back to the Lampard goal despite the fact that by my own admission and proposal, this would not have been challengeable in any case since there's no way to legislate challenging nothing - exactly why I mentioned that THAT incident is a job for goal line detection tech and nothing more. A challenge system is necessary for the US-Slovenia incident and would be useless for the England-Germany incident.

But even for other blunders, this is the same absurd excuse that FIFA was using as far as not using goal line tech. "It was only 90% accurate - no better than a human." As if combining the two would not result in far greater accuracy.

Still, you're never going to get 100% accuracy. This should not be an excuse to not bother improving at all. It need not fix all of the problems....just the most egregious ones.

Anyway, it seems clear that FIFA, the major nat'l leagues, and soccer's millions of fans don't really need to improve the sport, don't care to improve the sport, and will probably never do much to improve the sport, so I think we've come full circle and don't need to argue it anymore - I'll certainly never convince any soccer fans that anything can actually be improved and the current state of affairs is obviously not hurting their sales so there's no need to change. I'm just glad the sports I participate in are regularly reviewing rules and officiating guidelines to make sure they are getting it right as much as possible.

 

[sdifox]

Video review cannot be implemented unless there is some trigger to stop the play. Are you really that stupid? If yes, /yourself.

You mean a challenge system cannot work? It has to be a fucking chip in the ball? Where am I being selective again?

 

[Adrenaline]

Then I could simply throw the challenge flag when the other team has a breakaway and kill their advantage. A goal is easily worth losing a substitution.

A break away that would amount to a goal scored from a shot that has to be questioned would amount to nothing 99.9% of the time. Very rarely does a counter attack from a goalie save amount to much of anything.

They need some type of system for challenging a goal line call.

Obviously just throwing the flag to stop play could not be allowed.

Yes, yes it could.

 

[CycloWizard]

False. Period. In the time it took to get the ball out of the Slovenian goal back to the point of infraction for the free kick, play was stopped, the momentum was broken, and a review could have been conducted.

You can't stop the game to conduct instant replay, quite simply because the old guard does not want to.



Not ignored - they all amount to "We don't want to try." It's how it's always been done. The rules don't permit it and cannot ever be revised. You can't stop the match. Ok you can stop the match, but not for a review, and this cannot ever be revised. It wouldn't work in <cherry picked straw-man situation>.



I am sorry, but you are giving the Diego Maradonas and Silvio Berlusconis of the world entirely too much credit. Soccer (and all professional sport for that matter) is a for-profit endeavor first and foremost and "I've already got tons of money" has never been an excuse to not keep earning more.

Also, it need not apply at all levels - are sactioning bodies for EPL/UEFA, etc required to adopt the FIFA rulebook in its entirety? This is certainly not the case in most int'l sport. Just use it at the World Cup if you want - you want to crown a nation the greatest soccer nation on earth for four years, you want it done right.



I agree that it rarely (not never, as US vs. Slovenia illustrates) truly impacts the outcome of a match (England were not going to beat Germany). However, bad calls should *never* be considered "a part of the game." Any game. Sports are supposed to be a test to prove the better athelete/team and should never be settled in any way on officiating errors if it can be avoided. Sanctioning bodies should be constantly seeking ways to prevent officiating from impacting the outcome of an event.



You keep coming back to the Lampard goal despite the fact that by my own admission and proposal, this would not have been challengeable in any case since there's no way to legislate challenging nothing - exactly why I mentioned that THAT incident is a job for goal line detection tech and nothing more. A challenge system is necessary for the US-Slovenia incident and would be useless for the England-Germany incident.

But even for other blunders, this is the same absurd excuse that FIFA was using as far as not using goal line tech. "It was only 90% accurate - no better than a human." As if combining the two would not result in far greater accuracy.

Still, you're never going to get 100% accuracy. This should not be an excuse to not bother improving at all. It need not fix all of the problems....just the most egregious ones.

Anyway, it seems clear that FIFA, the major nat'l leagues, and soccer's millions of fans don't really need to improve the sport, don't care to improve the sport, and will probably never do much to improve the sport, so I think we've come full circle and don't need to argue it anymore - I'll certainly never convince any soccer fans that anything can actually be improved and the current state of affairs is obviously not hurting their sales so there's no need to change. I'm just glad the sports I participate in are regularly reviewing rules and officiating guidelines to make sure they are getting it right as much as possible.

You're right - you have all the answers. The people who stood to make millions developing the technology to do these things couldn't, but it was because they thought they could make more money by NOT doing them. If I were you, I'd be sitting by your mailbox waiting for the keys to the secret FIFA headquarters to arrive so you can take your rightful position at the head of this vast conspiratorial empire. This is obviously coming since you think we should all trust you over Franz Beckenbauer. Or, you can accept that you don't know a damn thing about soccer, get over yourself, and acknowledge that maybe those of us who have refereed and played it for decades might know more than the armchair internet cowboy who couldn't score a penalty kick to save his life. But in the end, it doesn't matter because (mercifully) idiots like you will never have a say.

 

[CycloWizard]

You mean a challenge system cannot work? It has to be a fucking chip in the ball? Where am I being selective again?

No, you're being selective by not reading the 13895739857 posts I used to explain this already.

 

[Zargon]

WTF is this shit about 'goal line technology?

its called cameras, monitors, and an official watching and saying IT WENT IN THE GOAL

 

[Jzero]

Or, you can accept that you don't know a damn thing about soccer, get over yourself, and acknowledge that maybe those of us who have refereed and played it for decades might know more than the armchair internet cowboy who couldn't score a penalty kick to save his life. But in the end, it doesn't matter because (mercifully) idiots like you will never have a say.

That's the problem.

Everyone closely involved with the sport is like you with their head buried so far in the game they cannot step back and take a good honest look, dismissing everyone else because they did not play for some arbitrarily defined period of time and then referee on top of that so they cannot possibly be qualified to have an opinion and is just dismissed with personal insults and barbs. Enjoy the mediocrity. Maybe that's why soccer is so popular worldwide - it reflects humanitiy's laziness.

 

[sdifox]

WTF is this shit about 'goal line technology?

its called cameras, monitors, and an official watching and saying IT WENT IN THE GOAL

CycloWizard wants a chip (or 2000, I don't know how one would work) in the ball that tells the ref the ball has crossed the line. Must work for RFID company :biggrin:

 

[CraigRT]

Do not like

But also...

Do not care

 

[DivideBYZero]

Yes, which is why I've played in leagues since I was three and still play soccer today. Idiot.

Oh, wow, so impressive.

 

[CycloWizard]

That's the problem.

Everyone closely involved with the sport is like you with their head buried so far in the game they cannot step back and take a good honest look, dismissing everyone else because they did not play for some arbitrarily defined period of time and then referee on top of that so they cannot possibly be qualified to have an opinion and is just dismissed with personal insults and barbs. Enjoy the mediocrity. Maybe that's why soccer is so popular worldwide - it reflects humanitiy's laziness.

So let me get this straight: the problem with soccer is that people who sit around and think about this stuff as their full-time job can't do as well as some random guy on the internet who thinks he understands all of the games problems after casually watching a couple World Cup games?

What do you do for a living? I'm sure I can solve all of your problems at work after two days of observing what's going on too, right? Or would you be offended that some outsider who doesn't understand the intricacies of the situation stuck his nose in and offered ignorant suggestions, then insulted you for saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about?

 

[zinfamous]

My best guess as to why is because they don't want to implant anything in the ball, as this would cause eccentric spin and change its flight characteristics.

If this concerned them, then they wouldn't have approved that jubalayalwa ball or whatever it's called. I remember before the games started, there were already stories about its speed and "unpredictable movement" reported by players, coaches, analysts, whatever.

 

[CycloWizard]

If this concerned them, then they wouldn't have approved that jubalayalwa ball or whatever it's called. I remember before the games started, there were already stories about its speed and "unpredictable movement" reported by players, coaches, analysts, whatever.

If you have watched every major tournament for the past 25 years or so, a new ball is introduced for each one and this claim is always made. As long as the ball is properly fashioned (i.e. its weight is symmetrically distributed), it will fly properly. The weight of the ball, the surface finish, and other properties will change its aerodynamics to some extent, but will certainly not lead to behavior which is actually unpredictable, especially in light of the fact that these balls are usually announced and available 3-12 months before the tournament. I play with a different ball every week and we can usually adapt to any minor changes by half time. I'm pretty sure guys who spend 8 hours a day with it for months have no problems whatsoever. That said, as a player it's always good to have an excuse, whether it's the pitch, your shoes, the refs, the weather, or whatever else. The ball is the easiest culprit since it changes so often, but it's the same for everyone on the field and a lot of players handle it perfectly well.

 

[Jzero]

So let me get this straight: the problem with soccer is that people who sit around and think about this stuff as their full-time job can't do as well as some random guy on the internet who thinks he understands all of the games problems after casually watching a couple World Cup games?

What do you do for a living? I'm sure I can solve all of your problems at work after two days of observing what's going on too, right? Or would you be offended that some outsider who doesn't understand the intricacies of the situation stuck his nose in and offered ignorant suggestions, then insulted you for saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about?

Who insulted who here? Go back and read your own posts...which one of us is calling people idiots, stupid and making other personal attacks?

You have no idea how long I have followed soccer, but it's a hell of a lot longer than the last two weeks - more like 15 years (1994 World Cup in US, regular attendance at MLS matches past few years). No, I'm not a "superfan" such as yourself, but I know enough to know that the game has certain problems, they can be solved, but the economics quite simply dictate that they do not need to be solved so they will not be. And those problems are NOT low scores, draws and a clock that doesn't stop. And yes, often times those most closely involved with something are the ones that cannot even consider unorthodox solutions.

Previously in this read you groused about P&N like behavior, but quite frankly you are showing more of that than most of the other posters in this thread.

 

[CycloWizard]

Who insulted who here? Go back and read your own posts...which one of us is calling people idiots, stupid and making other personal attacks?

You have no idea how long I have followed soccer, but it's a hell of a lot longer than the last two weeks - more like 15 years (1994 World Cup in US, regular attendance at MLS matches past few years). No, I'm not a "superfan" such as yourself, but I know enough to know that the game has certain problems, they can be solved, but the economics quite simply dictate that they do not need to be solved so they will not be. And those problems are NOT low scores, draws and a clock that doesn't stop. And yes, often times those most closely involved with something are the ones that cannot even consider unorthodox solutions.

Previously in this read you groused about P&N like behavior, but quite frankly you are showing more of that than most of the other posters in this thread.

You skipped all of the commentary as to why your suggestions would never work, then complain that I never considered them. I'm not sure why you think that's ok.

 

[Jzero]

You skipped all of the commentary as to why your suggestions would never work, then complain that I never considered them. I'm not sure why you think that's ok.

I skipped none of your commentary. In fact I have actually re-read your posts in this thread a few times. Your arguments against a referee challenge rule are:
It could be abused.
It doesn't address all situations.
It doesn't fit with the rhythm, timing and traditions of the game.
I am too stupid, fat, unathletic and lacking in arcane soccer knowledge to possibly comprehend that it just would not work.
I disagree on all notions (and even explained my basis in all cases) and I disagree that it justifies your deplorable conduct even if I *did* skip anything you wrote.

 

[zinfamous]

If you have watched every major tournament for the past 25 years or so, a new ball is introduced for each one and this claim is always made. As long as the ball is properly fashioned (i.e. its weight is symmetrically distributed), it will fly properly. The weight of the ball, the surface finish, and other properties will change its aerodynamics to some extent, but will certainly not lead to behavior which is actually unpredictable, especially in light of the fact that these balls are usually announced and available 3-12 months before the tournament. I play with a different ball every week and we can usually adapt to any minor changes by half time. I'm pretty sure guys who spend 8 hours a day with it for months have no problems whatsoever. That said, as a player it's always good to have an excuse, whether it's the pitch, your shoes, the refs, the weather, or whatever else. The ball is the easiest culprit since it changes so often, but it's the same for everyone on the field and a lot of players handle it perfectly well.

OK, so I don't see any reason a chip, which could very easily consist of a "net" of circuits and transistors--essentially being installed as if it were an entire layer within the stitching of the ball, would cause any kind of wobble. that added weight is evenly distributed, and you can compensate for total weight and cushion/resilience properties with the other layers, adjusting fittingly. location sensors would be evenly distributed as well, counterbalancing each others' weight and affect on the ball. Or, just add an entire extra array of sensors creating it's own layer, both for redundancy (I'm sure there's some smashing during a game), and to completely distribute weight. I'm thinking they would be cheap enough?

I don't know, --no idea what kind of cost these things are, but I think the media uses the word "chip," we all think "processor," or single silicon board device.

A "chip" used for grid location purposes could easily be a "net of circuits" if using the proper material, no?

 

[CycloWizard]

OK, so I don't see any reason a chip, which could very easily consist of a "net" of circuits and transistors--essentially being installed as if it were an entire layer within the stitching of the ball, would cause any kind of wobble. that added weight is evenly distributed, and you can compensate for total weight and cushion/resilience properties with the other layers, adjusting fittingly. location sensors would be evenly distributed as well, counterbalancing each others' weight and affect on the ball. Or, just add an entire extra array of sensors creating it's own layer, both for redundancy (I'm sure there's some smashing during a game), and to completely distribute weight. I'm thinking they would be cheap enough?

I don't know, --no idea what kind of cost these things are, but I think the media uses the word "chip," we all think "processor," or single silicon board device.

A "chip" used for grid location purposes could easily be a "net of circuits" if using the proper material, no?

You're right that it could be designed into the ball as an additional material layer, though it would still need a battery to operate. TI has recently released some really inexpensive ($4 each I think) wireless-capable MPUs that are very low profile and low power. You would need at least 4 of these in the ball to get a fair representation of the ball's location, but more would certainly improve accuracy. Then you need a circuit which links the battery to the MPU. The circuit needs to be flexible, as the ball undergoes large deformations (up to about 60% strain) during a good hard kick, without altering the weight distribution of the ball. The battery needs to last for at least three hours (90 minutes + 15 minute half time + 5 minute break before OT + 30 minutes OT + shootout). You would also need to discard the balls after each game since replacing the batteries would require opening the ball (unless the batteries were embedded in a wireless recharging-capable circuit, which is technically infeasible at this point). Each international game has about 25-30 balls available. The current balls cost about $160 each and can be reused. The new ball would presumably be substantially more expensive due to the extreme design complexity (if it's even feasible) and component cost. So yes, it could probably be done in principle but still faces very large practical obstacles.