Kolya on 29/6/2010 at 17:36
Quote Posted by Matthew
I don't, but it would be nice if you defended all of them instead of jumping between them.
Sure thing.
Quote Posted by Matthew
The one that referees have to be unchallenged in authority
From fifa.com, (
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame%5f2010%5f11%5fe.pdf) Laws of the Game 2010/2011
Quote:
The authority of the refereeEach match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the
Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been
appointed.
Decisions of the refereeThe decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including
whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are fi nal.
The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his
discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth offi cial, provided
that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.
It's a practical thing as much as it's psychologically important to keep the actual game play-able with the traditional simple means. The real game, not some technologically trimmed down version that separates football into pro and amateur camps and impedes "vertical mobility".
That Golden Goal rule you linked was abolished for good reasons by the way, I could go into it, but the fact that FIFA reverted to the original rule-set is telling enough.
Quote Posted by Matthew
or the fact that referees making uninformed decisions makes good tabloid fodder the next day?
You can call it tabloid fodder, but without the fans this game is nothing.
DDL, it's a bit of both. Errors make the game humane. They remind you that it's a game after all. And they make for interesting discussions. But I also think that it's a slippery slope once you allow technological judgement to replace human decisions, and for all the wrong reasons too. (TV compatibility, mass marketing, money machine)
Nicker on 29/6/2010 at 19:15
Kolya - we aren't talking just a percentage of bad calls we are talking game critical bad calls, missed goals, red cards, penalty shots. These aren't just annoyances, they change the face of a game immensely.
What does it say about the game when the fans in the stadium have a better view of the action than the referees? How can people take the officials seriously when everybody in the world knows there was a bad call, except the referee? The argument for tradition doesn't cut it, not when the means exist to easily rectify the situation.
In any case, many traditions in soccer have been changed to suit the evolving game. Fans and players demand and deserve as much fairness and accuracy as possible. Why should tradition be permitted to prevent that?
SubJeff on 29/6/2010 at 20:25
Spain may have deserved this win over Portugal but dammit they are bad sportsmen.
Matthew on 29/6/2010 at 20:48
Quote Posted by Kolya
Sure thing.
Now we're getting somewhere!
Oh, maybe we're not.
Quoting the FIFA regulation is not really answering the question, Kolya, as I've never disputed the fact that the ref must be the final arbiter. However, in what way does the referee benefit from being the unquestioned authority on the game when he can be proven to be demonstrably wrong in such a fashion? Do you not think that if there is the opportunity to improve his ability to exercise his authority, it should not be taken?
Quote:
It's a practical thing as much as it's psychologically important to keep the actual game play-able with the traditional simple means. The real game, not some technologically trimmed down version that separates football into pro and amateur camps and impedes "vertical mobility".
That Golden Goal rule you linked was abolished for good reasons by the way, I could go into it, but the fact that FIFA reverted to the original rule-set is telling enough.
Whether the Golden Goal was disposed of or not is not telling, it is completely beside the point. The point, as you are well aware, is that there is now a precedent for an optional rule which competition organisers could choose to use or not use. To say then that the game cannot be playable under traditional means or that vertical mobility will be stifled is not, I think, a correct assertion. Football still manages to be played in a park with people's jumpers used for goalposts as well as it does in a multi-million stadium with undersoil heating, lights and changing room jacuzzis - it is hard to see how permitting the organisers of some leagues or competitions to use goal-line technology is going to fundamentally divide the different levels of the sport any more than they already are.
Quote:
You can call it tabloid fodder, but without the fans this game is nothing.
Do you think everyone is going to stop attending or switch off just because a referee can order an action replay?
Really?
old toro on 29/6/2010 at 20:51
Quote:
Spain may have deserved this win over Portugal but dammit they are bad sportsmen.
Why?
Zygoptera on 29/6/2010 at 21:51
Quote Posted by Matthew
That's a rubbish argument when rugby and cricket have brought in options to assist their referees though. You don't take away his authority, you enhance the tools he is given to let him exert his authority correctly.
Yes. When it comes right down to it nothing erodes a referee's authority more than having 11 players on the field royally pissed off because they've just been screwed over, another 11 players sniggering into their sleeves about having gulled the ref, and 4x000 people in the stands/ x million at home who know within seconds that a mistake has been made and aren't shy about letting the referee know about it.
SubJeff on 29/6/2010 at 21:56
old toro - pushing, shoving, an out and out foul on Ronaldo which should have been a red card - he wasn't even going for the ball, just the man - and the fake injuries. Omg. I've never seen anything like it. The Costa red card! Embarrassing.
And let's be fair, even the goal was offside. Spain deserved to win, but still.
BEAR on 30/6/2010 at 02:47
I at least understand Kolya's argument more now than I did. I now realize his isn't so much an opinion as a feeling. Some kind of nostalgia that I can imagine well enough to understand where its coming from but just like so many other feelings, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when you actually pick it apart.
I wholly expect football as a sport to evolve, just like anything else. People still play american football in the back yard on thanksgiving, nobody is breaking out the video camera to count if you really stepped out of the line between the shrubs and the planter. The huge commercialization and technological intervention have done little or nothing to the friendly backyard games, or the over-idealized friday night highschool games.
You can write about it as wistfully as you want Kolya, but at the end of the day you gotta go one way or another. If you want some mystery to the game, and you want there to always be that "was it really a goal?" magic, then we have to abandon the humongoscreen, no more televised games. Just what you saw versus what the ref saw. Maybe thats really the best way, but is that really what we want in PROFESSIONAL sports? Actually now that we get down to it, thats the feeling I get when I read (some) of what you wrote. It felt like a good-old-days thing. And as I hope most people have figured out eventually, there is no such thing. There is us and our sensibilities stuck in one time, and the universe happily chugging along into the future. So you'd might as well get used to it, because its not stopping, and no matter what you want, nothing ever stays the same.
HughGRection on 30/6/2010 at 08:13
Quote Posted by SD
I have to hand it to Fabio Capello, it requires real effort to take a bunch of players as talented as England have at their disposal and get them playing like people who've never seen a football before.
Even though we were yet again cheated by the officials (is that 5 or 6 World Cups in a row now?) yesterday's exit was as predictable as it was ignominious thanks to Capello's squad selection, team selection and tactics.
Goalkeepers: Joe Hart is hands down the best England goalkeeper, so why was he the only one who didn't get any playing time? Instead Capello first gave Rob Green, who had a really poor season, the gloves, with entirely predictable results. Then he calls on the decrepit James who, at 39, has never been and never will be top class. You can't have a keeper who is scared of diving at the feet of an opponent and risk making a mess of his pretty face.
Defence: Even though on a personal level I was delighted to see Jar Jar Ferdinand miss out on the World Cup, it's clear that England badly needed a ball-playing centre half. John "Big Brave JT" Terry is a cancer on the English game and wouldn't have been in my squad, let alone in my team. He is a shadow of the player he once was, an artless, graceless thug with the turning radius of an aircraft carrier. If you're going to play Terry he needs someone like Ferdinand beside him because otherwise he'll try to take the ball out of defence himself, but he shouldn't be allowed past the half-way line as he has the recovery pace of a paraplegic donkey.
Clearly the original plan was for Ledley King to partner Terry. King is a classy and cultured defender; unfortunately his medical record makes Michael J Fox seem like the Terminator. The 45 minutes he managed in the first game was about 35 minutes more than anyone could reasonably expect, so kudos for that. Shouldn't have been in the squad. His Spurs' team-mate Dawson was the best centre-back in England last year so, of course, he didn't get a minute of playing time in South Africa. Nice one Fabio.
Midfield: Where do you start. Gareth Barry was clearly not fit and should not have been on the plane. Even a fit Barry is a fairly ordinary player who brings nothing special to the team. England have several holding midfielders in Carrick, Scott Parker or Tom Huddlestone, none of whom are just coming back from serious injury. Steven Gerrard was once again played out of position. The world and his dog knows Gerrard should be played in the middle behind the forward(s) to get the best out of him, so why maroon him out on the left? Milner can sure cross a ball, but what's the point of firing in cross after cross when both of your strikers are midgets? As for the likes of Joe Cole and Shaun Wright-Phillips, what do they do? Cole is another player just back from injury, and he hasn't done much since scoring that goal against Sweden. Wright-Phillips is a complete waste of time; you needn't bother getting your defence to tackle him, just let him run 20 yards and chances are he'll tackle himself. Where was the brilliant and exciting Adam Johnson who is keeping Wright-Phillips out of the Man City team? Left out of the squad, that's where.
Forwards: Oh boy. Rooney: again, Capello picked another player struggling for fitness. Rooney wasn't at the races and should not have been starting matches. The fact that he started every game suggests a spineless manager who is scared to drop the media's golden boy, regardless of the abysmal performances he's putting in. Emile Heskey? Don't get me started. How this hapless, clueless, lead-footed fucking goon has convinced successive England managers that he is an international-class striker must be one of the great mysteries of the universe. Call me a traditionalist, but scoring goals must be the top priority of any striker, and 7 goals in 62 games is wretched. Meanwhile, England had a striker on the bench in Peter Crouch who has 21 goals in 40 appearances. Tell me which of these players is more likely to score you a goal? It's not rocket science, is it?
Manager: Every call he made he got wrong. Playing Green in goal. Picking sicknotes like Barry and King in his squad. Playing an unfit Barry, Rooney and Joe Cole. Selecting technically limited players like Heskey and Wright-Phillips ahead of gifted and exciting young talents like Adam Johnson. Persisting in playing John Terry even after Terry had been sowing the seeds of discontent in the camp and briefing against him. Playing strikers who are either shit or out of form ahead of those who have been banging goals in for fun. Playing 4 midfielders against Germany's 5-man midfield....
I mean, you can go on. Capello has done it all at club level, but he's not cut out for international management. You can't teach an old dog new tricks and the sooner he goes, the better.
Capello did fuck up, no doubt.
All that aside though, did England have the players to win the World Cup?
No they didn't.