BLU
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by germcevoy:Sepp Bollock must have some reason not to go with technology. Any conspiracy theories knocking around? Cost isn't an issue so what is it?


    Sanity. The moment, that technology is used in the game, it has lost it's magic. I like it the way it is.
  2. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    Sanity. The moment, that technology is used in the game, it has lost it's magic. I like it the way it is.
    [/quote

    The game has lost its magic , it`s not a sport any more its a buisness.
  3. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    Sanity. The moment, that technology is used in the game, it has lost it's magic. I like it the way it is.


    I'm not so sure. Look at Tennis for example. The 3 challenges allowed to players using hawkeye adds excitement aswell as giving the correct and fair outcome. The crowd love it.

    Same as Cricket. They have animations on big screen flicking between 'out' and 'not out' when a tricky decision goes to the 3rd umpire. Leaves the crowd in suspense. Cricket has it sorted. If the ref isn't sure then just hit replay.
  4. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    Sanity. The moment, that technology is used in the game, it has lost it's magic. I like it the way it is.


    It's the beautiful game for other reasons. Technology won't destroy a teams ability to perform, it won't remove all the slick passing, great tackles, silky dribbles and jaw dropping tricks. Technology will ensure fair play and just decisions that don't damage a teams progress in the competition.
  5. Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

    I'm not so sure. Look at Tennis for example. The 3 challenges allowed to players using hawkeye adds excitement aswell as giving the correct and fair outcome. The crowd love it.

    Same as Cricket. They have animations on big screen flicking between 'out' and 'not out' when a tricky decision goes to the 3rd umpire. Leaves the crowd in suspense. Cricket has it sorted. If the ref isn't sure then just hit replay.


    Both sports have totally different dynamics, though.
    Of course those technologies might add fairness. But would make it boring to me.
  6. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    Both sports have totally different dynamics, though.
    Of course those technologies might add fairness. But would make it boring to me.


    I think it'd be more interesting myself if the captain was given a a maximum of 3 decisions to challenge over the course of the competition. Not every decision would be contested because the captain wouldn't want to risk it, but sometimes it is so obvious to the players who often have a better view than the referee and linesmen that a decision is wrong.

    It's not right that teams are being punished because of referee's having a lack of ability to change their minds or refer to some definitive evidence. If a player had punched someone off the ball and no-one saw it, Fifa would jump at the opportunity to punish the player following a post match replay.

    Sepp Blatter must think it's funny that these decisions go unchallenged. There's no excuse. Unfortunately, a tounament that promised so much is quickly becoming the ultimate collection of refereeing mistakes.

    What are the odds of an awful decision being made in the final that effectively decides the winner of the tournament?
  7. Originally posted by iTim:[..]

    It's not right that teams are being punished because of referee's having a lack of ability to change their minds or refer to some definitive evidence.



    And what would change with that 3 possibilities rule?

    btw.: I'm willing to bet 25 bootleg DVDs that the final won't be decided by a bad ref decision.
  8. Their excuse for not using technology is ridiculous. If I can see a replay at home, a million kilometers away and see how wrong the referee is, he should be able to see it too. It wouldn't cost more, the broadcast is happening anyway.
    It wouldn't be a change of rules, it would just make the game more fair. This world cup we are seeing would be very different if the matches had followed the rules and not the mistakes of the referees and his assistants.
  9. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    And what would change with that 3 possibilities rule?

    btw.: I'm willing to bet 25 bootleg DVDs that the final won't be decided by a bad ref decision.


    It would give the players an opportunity to challenge a mistake but not overuse it for every incident. Whilst they must accept the referees decision, sometimes, the players know more than the referees.

    We saw in the Mexico game how quick a replay can be displayed (though it shouldn't have been) and the linesman knew immediately that the decision was wrong and Tevez was offside. It's wrong I'm afraid and in this day and age, professionals of the game should not stand for this kind of stuff happening in games. The only way we will know if technology would be a bad thing for football is to try it.

    UEFA successfuly used the 5th and 6th official in the Europa League last season and the 5th official would've seen that and said it was a goal today. Likewise he would've said that he thought Tevez was offside and asked the referee to consult the linesman again. We've seen technology used in U17 competitions and no major disruptions have been caused.

    EDIT: I'll take you up on that bet.
  10. For the record, I did say the English were going to be destroyed.

    Wasn't expecting myself to be correct though, complete and utter domination by the Germans - nearly as bad as our loss to Germany and Capello thought this team could make it to the finals.

    Well at least France and Italy won't feel so bad now that they have company.
    Next should be Brazil - they have it too easy on their side of the knockout comp only the Dutch will be a problem.

    All the other good teams - Spain, Portugal, Germany, Argentina are on the other side and only 1 can come out of that scrap.

    Germany vs Argentina next - I feel sorry for the Argentines all their flair and talent might not stand up to the precision football machine that is the Germans. But we will see

  11. I like the 3 challenges idea
  12. Originally posted by iTim:[..]

    It's the beautiful game for other reasons. Technology won't destroy a teams ability to perform, it won't remove all the slick passing, great tackles, silky dribbles and jaw dropping tricks. Technology will ensure fair play and just decisions that don't damage a teams progress in the competition.


    I've said the same before, the biggest problem with the game is the refereeing.
    Winning is like 50% down to team performance and 50% down to favourable ref decisions (or unfavourable to the other team).

    Blatter is just an arrogrant prick, who wants to set apart football from all the other sports who use replays to keep it fair.
    It must just stoke his and FIFA's ego that how they, being all powerful can dictate ridiculous terms to the footballing world, despite the widespread complaints and teams just have to take it lying down.

    Perhaps he's getting inspiration from Steve Jobs, this is typical Apple behaviour - "there's no fault with us or the product, the fault lies with you."
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.