FIFA World Cup 2010

[//\/\/]

with blatter apologising to england and mexico, it looks like something's going to change anyway...

as for goal/no goal decisions - that's as much a linesman's call than a ref's - often moreso as he's usually the closest official to the incident. that said, uefa have been trialling with extra linesmen behind the goal in the uefa cup this season, and iirc there was a couple of absolute howlers there too...

if you look at cricket (where there's plently of time to stop and scratch your arse about things) you have umpires who are now too scared to give a decision and err on the side of caution, referring even clear-cut decisions to the third bloke. furthermore, you have people moaning about playing some tests where technology isn't available/is too dear and therefore isn't used - so you have an effective 2-tier version of the sport - and that's at TEST level... so with football you have to think about the technical implications of this. which leagues/competitions? how many teams? how many grounds? haves/have nots? not every league can afford this - look at the shit state of football finances in The Best League In The World and ask how many would like to install/test and run new technology... ...you also need a replay technician at every match, a team to run the technology, somewhere to house it, an extra official to adjudicate...

and for how many instances, as chuck rightly asks?

[chuck]

Originally Posted by //\/\/

...you also need a replay technician at every match, a team to run the technology, somewhere to house it, an extra official to adjudicate...

Forgot about that - here in NZ, we have the "third umpire/TMO/video replay" for Super 14 games, and test matches - but not for the national provincial championship. And that's despite those NPC games being televised - the decision was made, on the basis of cost, that those games wouldn't have video replay.

This has caused some consternation - as there's still controversial decisions.

But that's a decision that's been made - and all teams know it - and despite controversial decisions being made. The other key point about rugby officiating - is that the TMO can only be used to adjudicate on the awarding or non-awarding of a try. It's a natural break in the game - and so does not disrupt (apart from the delay for replay) the flow of the game. In the event the cameras cannot confirm a try or no-try - the onfield referee has to make a call that determines how the game is restarted. But of course it's a very different (and far, far better) game than football.

Even if Fifa goes for some form of video replay, and I'm not discounting it - it has to be strictly implemented. In rugby for instance, the on field referee is still the absolute law - and can only ask the TMO for confirmation of a decision made on the field. This is unlike cricket, where like Nutters says - umpires are now almost totally reliant on the TMO - and in tests now, teams can "challenge" a decision several times. This is similar to the challenge system in tennis.

At some point you have to trust your referees - and give them power to make decisions - acknowledging that sometimes they'll be the wrong ones.

Referees and umpires are already constantly and consistently abused by players in football - whereas in rugby, only the captain is officially meant to speak to the ref. If video replay undermines that authority even further - how much will the game become a free-for-all?

Who challenges the refs call? The captain? The coach?

Here in the A-League they ban the replaying of any controversial footage on the screen in the stadium of the game is being played in. Have ever since the league began. It's designed to prevent riots when issues like this happen. The broadcast feed to satellite/TV still has replays in though.

EDIT : Appears FIFA are doing the same thing. Which is just silly now.... it's not the officiating - it's the replays! Muppets.

[chuck]

And now for some topical humor.

------
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?

A. According to FIFA the chicken did not cross the road.

------

What was the most commonly asked question posed to England's footballers today?

Chicken or beef?

------

Feel free to add...

[matt]

Originally Posted by chuck

Here in the A-League they ban the replaying of any controversial footage on the screen in the stadium of the game is being played in. Have ever since the league began. It's designed to prevent riots when issues like this happen. The broadcast feed to satellite/TV still has replays in though.

EDIT : Appears FIFA are doing the same thing. Which is just silly now.... it's not the officiating - it's the replays! Muppets.

I thought that was a long standing FIFA directive. Whenever we go and watch Wales play they never show replays of contentious issues on the big screens. I understood it was just a bit of a cock up when the big screens at the Argentina Mexico match relayed the replay clearly showing Tevez offside.

I also don't get the football mentality that seems to be cropping up that you'd have to introduce video replays across the board. Why not just for the big tournaments and leagues that have cameras at every game anyway. That's what they do in rugby. In fact, in the Heineken Cup (the premier rugby competition in the world and much better than that S14 lark where they score about 10 tries each per game) there's usually a couple of games each round (the ones not on Sky) that don't have video replays available even though the other matches do. Both sides know the rules before hand so there's no real problem.

Anyway, here's hoping one of today's games provides us with the first penalty shootout of the tournament.