Americans don't like that kind of stuff.furiousxgeorge, is that uniquely American trait? I'm asking because I certainly do feel that way, but am surprised that those of other nationalities don't. Not doubting you, really, just surprised.
Yes, the referee blew the call in disallowing the goal by Maurice Edu, but the free kick on which that goal came resulted from a bad call against a Slovenian player. As the New York Times noted, “The foul that led to the free kick was another error by [the referee] Coulibaly. United States striker Jozy Altidore ran right into a Slovene defender and fell theatrically, fooling Coulibaly into blowing his whistle.”American's need to get over themselves. Also, flopping over and grabbing your face when you get tapped and all that other stupidness is what makes watching some of these world cup games suck. (And then Spain scores a kick ass goal and you forget.)
Why would the star player fake an injury during an NBA Finals game?
In baseball, this is about as close to soccer-diving as it gets. And it boils my blood just to see it.
Well to be honest I think all fouls in soccer are flops, so this may be confirmation bias. Everytime someone falls down it looks fake to me.Kind of puts this video in perspective. The girl who got a ton of flack for hair pulling on the field a while back. I think it's pretty obvious the girl flopped (and this was after, if you watch carefully the girl grabbed her shorts and gave her a wedgie before getting her hair pulled. )
The major stumbling block, rather, is the nature of the game, the very thing that makes soccer the most watched sport in the world, and that is its fluidity. Almost all other sports are comprised of a series of discrete actions. Test cricket, for instance, is made up of 540 separate moments of play -- balls -- each day; tennis is a series of points; rugby has regular breakdowns.In his article he does come down on the side of goal line technology being used, and I'm starting to come around to that. If the half-second claim is true, then there's no good reason not to do that.
In football, though, the play can often go uninterrupted for two to three minutes, and one of the key tactical elements is deciding how many players to commit to the attack, knowing that to push too many forward (as England did against Germany) is to leave yourself vulnerable to a counter. Say there's a penalty appeal at one end; when does the referee call for a replay? If he does so straight after the alleged foul, then he may prevent the defending team, having perhaps won the ball legitimately, from sweeping forward in a counterattack, the possibility of which is one of the joys of the game.
But if he waits until the ball goes out of play, he might find himself with a lengthy passage of play to cancel out involving who knows how many additional incidents. (Imagine the furor if he had to rule out a goal at one end to award a penalty at the other, or, even more weirdly, if he had to rule out a goal to give the team who had just scored a penalty for which they had appealed two minutes earlier.) Once a move has been stopped, it cannot be restarted; so if a player who is onside is incorrectly called offside and the attack stopped, how could technology help him? Some refereeing mistakes cannot be rectified by being overturned.
« Older The silver fox, domesticated over 40 generations b... | In search of the Dunning-Kruge... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nathancaswell at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2010 [3 favorites]