Gooaaalll!
February 26, 2005 2:12 PM Subscribe
Changes in Football (Soccer). Including a ball with microchip technology that will allow the ref to instantly know if the ball crosses the goal line. Avoiding all manner of problems, from the clear goal in the January Spurs vs. Man United game, to the situations of too bloody close to tell, such as Geoff Hurst's goal in the 1966 World Cup final.
The under-17 world cup will test the ball in Sept.
Oh, and offside laws, carding dangerous tackles and substitutions in friendlies have been tweaked.
Oh, and offside laws, carding dangerous tackles and substitutions in friendlies have been tweaked.
One of the major differences between football and other sports from an officiating standpoint is that football referees have a degree of infallibility; errors are unfortunate, but they are a part of the game.
I'm not sure how this is different from other sports. At least in American football, baseball, and basketball, this is more or less true also.
Instant replay is one of the great evils of our time. I'm not as certain about this particular innovation, since it seems more cut-and-dried than some other judgement calls that officials are require dto make, but I'm at least highly suspicious. But I'm not as familiar with football -- do most football participants and observers think this is a good idea?
posted by casu marzu at 2:52 PM on February 26, 2005
I'm not sure how this is different from other sports. At least in American football, baseball, and basketball, this is more or less true also.
Instant replay is one of the great evils of our time. I'm not as certain about this particular innovation, since it seems more cut-and-dried than some other judgement calls that officials are require dto make, but I'm at least highly suspicious. But I'm not as familiar with football -- do most football participants and observers think this is a good idea?
posted by casu marzu at 2:52 PM on February 26, 2005
I've always thought that the refs in football much more strict then in American football. I understand what you're getting at CaMa, perhaps it's a degree of infallibility.
I _think_ this is a good thing. But have to process it a bit more. See how it goes in the under-17 and various tests. It would keep the game moving and has good potential. Now if it where hacked... With every benefit comes a potential problem.
posted by edgeways at 3:05 PM on February 26, 2005
I _think_ this is a good thing. But have to process it a bit more. See how it goes in the under-17 and various tests. It would keep the game moving and has good potential. Now if it where hacked... With every benefit comes a potential problem.
posted by edgeways at 3:05 PM on February 26, 2005
It's time football entered the 21st century. Trusting one person to make the final decision is not good enough. Arguments about the time video replays would waste are pointless when you look at the histrionics that players are allowed to display on the pitch by the referees who pander to them. The sooner line sensors and video replays are introduced to football the better. It's all fine until an injustice robs your team.
posted by fire&wings at 4:06 PM on February 26, 2005
posted by fire&wings at 4:06 PM on February 26, 2005
Wow, FIFA using technology! What's next, instant replay? No more "Hand of God" goals?
Good news though, thanks for posting.
posted by Finder at 6:02 PM on February 26, 2005
Good news though, thanks for posting.
posted by Finder at 6:02 PM on February 26, 2005
touching on the infallibility thing, it's similar in basketball to my experience, but still not to the same levels. "Dissent by word or action" is cautionable (yellow card, half and ejection), and that could apply to something as simple as "Ref, I disagree with that call", although that'd be some kind of ass of a ref and he'd lose control of the game in a hurry.
fire&wings: just as fans accuse refs of taking bribes now, the blame would just shift to the machines. Or the operators. Or the manufacturers. I personally think that using replays to sanction misconduct after a match is valid (spitting, diving) but football is a game that can't exist as it's loved if matches have to be constantly stopped to assess complaints. This game is a significant part of my life from both a playing and officiating point of view, and more mechanization isn't the answer; better refereeing and better training for referees is.
posted by cmyr at 9:59 PM on February 26, 2005
fire&wings: just as fans accuse refs of taking bribes now, the blame would just shift to the machines. Or the operators. Or the manufacturers. I personally think that using replays to sanction misconduct after a match is valid (spitting, diving) but football is a game that can't exist as it's loved if matches have to be constantly stopped to assess complaints. This game is a significant part of my life from both a playing and officiating point of view, and more mechanization isn't the answer; better refereeing and better training for referees is.
posted by cmyr at 9:59 PM on February 26, 2005
I think football needs this for offside too (wouldn't be too hard: just add chips to the defenders and the attackers).
posted by NekulturnY at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2005
posted by NekulturnY at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2005
trying to automate offsides is exactly what the issue is, here; I mean where do you put the chip? If you're ahead by a boot you're offside, but if it's your arms, you aren't. You can have your torso past and your legs onside and it's still off. Similarly you can be in a blatantly offside position and a ball can be played to you, but if you let it go past to an onside teammate, you're fine. Why don't we just have a team of seven or eight officials watching the match on video from the sidelines? Football isn't science. There was some bad officiating in the world cup, but Euro was handled tremendously well; good refereeing is very achievable.
posted by cmyr at 9:47 AM on February 27, 2005
posted by cmyr at 9:47 AM on February 27, 2005
« Older Big Fun in the Big Town | Hooliganism with a twist. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Some of the other changes are neat; I'm not sure exactly what they've clarified with the offsides, but I assume it's the stuff that was being discussed last year (I think it was introduced in England?) and while the changes are subtle, they do significantly limit the scope of the rule. I don't really understand what they're saying about the tackles; a severely dangerous tackle has always earned a sending off.
As long as we're going to be touching on some problems with football management (management viz. from a refereeing standpoint) I think one of the important things FIFA should be doing is to professionalize referees; it has always been that referees (in order to maintain impartiality being the standard reasoning) have had "day" jobs; which say what you will makes keeping in top condition and match shape something of a challenge. As the game continues to be taken more and more seriously worldwide, it's only fair that the care put into training and preparing officials is similarly elevated.
posted by cmyr at 2:39 PM on February 26, 2005