BEAR on 30/6/2010 at 13:12
Its great how I make a comparison to American football and Kolya completely sidesteps it and attacks it for something I never advocated. What would be stopping any station from doing exactly what that video showed right now? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I was specifically comparing a very specific aspect that hasn't degraded the game but has improved consistency of the judging considerably. I don't even like american football that much, but I can still see what things it does well.
Kolya on 30/6/2010 at 13:13
Quote Posted by DDL
-they let robots be in goal
Jesus Christ, that was a joke, an exaggeration for shortness' sake. There have been so many serious exaggerations thrown at me here, it's funny how you jumped at that. And no, it's not necessarily the end of the list. I'm sure you can think of some more points that are terribly unfair.
ercles on 30/6/2010 at 13:21
Well what's the next step down the slippery slope then, genuis? I don't think fouls can or should be reviewed as that's something that is very difficult to do on replay, but offsides are already reviewed in rugby (it's almost an identical thing your looking for) on a kick that leads to a try, and many sports already effectively use video review to determine whether a ball was in or out.
I think your nostalgia infused perception of soccer as a sport is phenomenally different from the one that we are talking about in the world cup. This IS a mass marketed sport that by virtue of being the worlds biggest sporting event has to start lifting its game, and has to cater to the massive tv audiences that have elevated it to this position, and pay its bills. If you want to follow a sport that doesn't use video review and is only viewed by a live audience, go and watch a club game at a low enough division where none of us barbarians give a fuck about the result. You aren't even engaging with reality by saying "soccer shouldn't cater to it's television audience".
Matthew on 30/6/2010 at 13:36
Quote Posted by Kolya
Apart from that, you're confirming the slippery slope theory of course.
More like the slippery slope fallacy.
Kolya on 30/6/2010 at 13:39
Fine, let's recap: This started as a discussion about allowing video evidence for dubious goals. Now you are arguing, to varying degrees, for replacing human judgement in all decisions that are the referee's authority.
In the meantime you manage to accuse me of wanting to "cripple the game" and "change the face of the game" and ridicule my idea as completely exaggerated, that allowing video evidence for dubious goals would be an open invitation for further such changes down the line.
Thanks for playing.
And why on earth do you think ercles, that football has "to cater to the massive tv audiences" by making these admissions, when it obviously works right now, without the whole hullabaloo?
It's because the sheer unfairness of a small number of decisions enrages you, it gets you on the post! It makes you so mad, you'll have to watch the next game I guess, just to see if any such awful misjudgements happen again. Haha
DDL on 30/6/2010 at 13:46
The sheer unfairness of 5-10% of all decisions?
Your recap also paints you in a somewhat unrealistic light. And is....actually just glaringly wrong in so so many respects. The fact you seem unaware of this...actually, no never mind. Not surprising at all.
Do you really need a quote by quote example of what you've actually posted vs what you seem to think you've posted?
Kolya on 30/6/2010 at 13:56
Quote Posted by DDL
Your recap also paints you in a somewhat unrealistic light.
You mean as a voice of reason? :D
Matthew on 30/6/2010 at 14:02
Quote Posted by Kolya
Fine, let's recap: This started as a discussion about allowing video evidence for dubious goals. Now you are arguing, to varying degrees, for replacing human judgement in all decisions that are the referee's authority.
Not quite, you're the one who brought that up and I made a passing comment to how some sort of system to aid spotting of offside players would be good. I have also never accused you of wanting to change the face of the game, so that's either a mistake or an outright lie.
The 'cripple the game' comment was in response to your assertion that a referee making bad decisions gives people something to talk about the next day, which is true but also the last thing I'd like to talk about the next day. I'd rather talk about how good so-and-so's goal was than how they had been robbed by a thicko referee etc etc.
If you're going to have a discussion on the facts, then get them right and don't misattribute other people's responses to me.
In short, play the fucking ball not the fucking man, please.
Rug Burn Junky on 30/6/2010 at 14:59
Quote Posted by Matthew
If you're going to have a discussion on the facts, then get them right and don't misattribute other people's responses to me.
In short, play the fucking ball not the fucking man, please.
Maybe if we had some sort of system that would allow us to go back and determine what was actually said, instead of allowing one self-appointed, blindly oblivious arbiter of the discussion to pretend that things only happened the way he saw them...
DDL on 30/6/2010 at 15:06
I think we should get a computer to do it, though: humans can make mistakes.
