Saturday, April 14, 2012

Hasn't this World Cup been brilliant?

Hasn't this World Cup been brilliant?
I’ve been saying for years that a video ref should be used in football and this WC has been brilliant in proving that. IFAB, Sepp Blatter and his FIFA cronies are not interested. Their reasons are fears about effects on the game's universality, fans who love debating incidents, the cost and fear of extended use of technology, loss of the human element and interference with the flow of the game. So let’s look at them: The game’s universality. The introduction of technology isn’t going to stop kids kicking a ball about in the park. There is already a huge gulf between that and playing in front of 80,000 people for a major trophy. Technology won’t alter that. Fans who love debating incidents. Technology won’t stop debates. It will add to them. There’ll be a fair bit of “Ooh, the ref should never have gone upstairs for that one” and “How can he not go to the video ref for that?” in addition to all the debate on incidents where a video ref would not have been an option. The cost and fear of technology. When did FIFA’s vast wealth suddenly disappear? And when did they suddenly lose the ability to find sponsors for everything remotely connected to football? More to the point, how much do they think it’s going to cost? A video ref just needs a live feed from the cameras that the broadcasters already have at the games and access to the intercom that the referee already wears. The technology is already in place, it’s already being used and it’s already influencing games. Loss of the human element. Anything shown by technology has to be decided on by a human and whatever the video ref recommends, the final decision will still stay with the pitch ref. The flow of the game. Presumably this means worries about stopping the game continually to look at replays. When you bring in video refs, you specify when the pitch ref can use him and in all other cases the video ref has no say and therefore doesn’t alter the flow of the game. I would suggest that close offside decisions leading to a goal and penalty-box incidents leading to a goal, serious infringement or serious injury could be referred to a video ref but most other things could be excluded. This would mean no more than 3 or 4 incidents in most games and none at all in some (Spain-Germany last night only had one incident where a video ref might have been used and the pitch ref we had probably wouldn’t have used him even for that). If we therefore accept that technology has to be used, we have to decide what sort of technology and how we use it. Goal-line technology: Lampard’s goal proves the need for that. Offside decisions: Argentina’s first goal against Mexico Penalty box incidents: Spain’s retaken penalty against Paraguay and the foul on Fabregas. I have to confess I’m not a great fan of goal-line technology as it would only be used rarely, it still isn’t able to give a rock-solid answer in the tight decisions (ie most of them), it would be the most expensive to install and it would be the least adaptable. All the commentators and pundits took one look at one replay of Lampard’s “goal” and agreed that it should have stood and a video ref would do the same. Why not make it part of his duties and save the cost of cameras in the goalposts or chips in the balls? Argentina’s first goal against Mexico was shown as being offside before they’d had the chance to restart the match. A video ref would do the same. A video ref would also have picked up the foul on Fabregas and the need for another penalty after no more than two replays. So bring in video refs and you have fairer matches without loss of time or money and the pitch ref still has control. Unfortunately, the only way FIFA and IFAB seem likely to change their minds is if the final of their showpiece tournament (ie the match on Sunday) is decided by a goal from an offside position scored by someone wrongly allowed to stay on the pitch after a second bookable offence (don’t mock, I’ve seen it happen) who’s just committed a red-card foul that nobody’s noticed. I’m not optimistic.
FIFA World Cup(TM) - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Nope SHIT. Goal line technology and better refs are needed...
2 :
i was going to answer this question with "yeah this world cup rocks" but looking at this looong question.. i can see this is a question for a really terrifying kinda sports fan! :P
3 :
If FiFA is serious about adding refs to sit on a folding chair by the goals why is it not implemented now and immediately? I still believe that the refs' union holds the trump card. Why would they want change? I had an argument online with a guy who said he refs - about refs being corrupt. He says they aren't and i say they are. A German friend of mine has a son who refs and he has been approached each and every game with offers to ignore fouls by such and such player! Even in minor leagues when he first started !
4 :
As Homer Simpson might say "Mistakes were made". The introduction of technology in the goals is long overdue, as is Seth Blatters retirement! I would go further than just having goalline cameras and have "Robo Refs" who could instantly cull any dissenting or cheating unsporting types. Spitting on the pitch would be penalized by a kneecapping!!!! No more red or yellow cards just instant vaporisation!!
5 :
The FIFA has a very traditionalist stance and is delayed. I also support the chip in the ball. As for replay, I think it isn't feasible, but would rather have a video to the fourth referee to accompany the game and pass the information via radio to the referee on the pitch. The FIFA needs to train more referees and assistants. There was a ludicrous failure at this World Cup, but even so, football is a sport very exciting. There's an urgent need for change. Have much money involved to let FIFA reach this level so low. And one more thing, make the World Cup in Brazil is a bad idea.


Posted by at