South Africa 2010

[Harlequin]

Oh yeah don't get me wrong I reckon Spain would've made the semis easy if they were on form, I do think they would've lost to a well managed Argentina side though. I guess I'm just pissed Brazil fell short, although I think we were brutalised worse than Spain. If you play pretty football, you're going to get kicked. We see it with Arsenal every week, but will there be any retrospective action introduced? I'd say no, because if that were the case it would ruin negative footballing cultures and positives one's would dominate. It's too profound a change to implement that kind of arbitration because for every one club that benefits ten will suffer. Sadly, football thrives on human error, on controversy.

Oh well, Brazil 2014 next.

As for European bias, no that was just the South American teams imploding in the quarter-finals. Brazil lost their heads in the second half against Holland and Argentina were just blown away by Germany.

FIFA is very Eurocentric. It's run by Europeans.

Did the referee see the Netherlands player handle the ball? He certainly gave the freekick for handball, but why wasn't a yellow card issued? When Dani Alves reminded the ref Van Bommel had fouled persistently and cynically, why didn't the referee react? Holland tried to play football against Brazil and had the ball in the back of their own net twice in ten minutes. Then they realised they could brutalise Brazil and came out the second half to break them.

How many representatives do Europe get? 16.
South America? 5 and a play off between 3rd place North/Central America.

Out of 32. Fair? No.

 

[CassinoChips]

How many representatives do Europe get? 16.
South America? 5 and a play off between 3rd place North/Central America.

Out of 32. Fair? No.

CONMEBOL has what, 10 teams? So either 50% or 60% make it to the World Cup.

UEFA has how many teams? I bet it's more than 32. Just checked, it's 50. So they get 32% of their teams in.

That doesn't seem fair for UEFA.

If anybody has beef, it's the other associations. 4 out of 47 from Asia, 1 out of 11 from Oceania, 2 or 3 out of 35 from CONCACAF, and 5 out of 53 from Africa. But you weigh that against the quality of play from the 4 "lesser" associations, and it tends to even out. Though, in my biased opinion, I think CONCACAF deserves that playoff spot outright.

EDIT: UEFA only got 13 spots in this World Cup.

 

[charliepanayi]

Oh yeah don't get me wrong I reckon Spain would've made the semis easy if they were on form, I do think they would've lost to a well managed Argentina side though. I guess I'm just pissed Brazil fell short, although I think we were brutalised worse than Spain. If you play pretty football, you're going to get kicked. We see it with Arsenal every week, but will there be any retrospective action introduced? I'd say no, because if that were the case it would ruin negative footballing cultures and positives one's would dominate. It's too profound a change to implement that kind of arbitration because for every one club that benefits ten will suffer. Sadly, football thrives on human error, on controversy.

Oh well, Brazil 2014 next.



FIFA is very Eurocentric. It's run by Europeans.

Did the referee see the Netherlands player handle the ball? He certainly gave the freekick for handball, but why wasn't a yellow card issued? When Dani Alves reminded the ref Van Bommel had fouled persistently and cynically, why didn't the referee react? Holland tried to play football against Brazil and had the ball in the back of their own net twice in ten minutes. Then they realised they could brutalise Brazil and came out the second half to break them.

How many representatives do Europe get? 16.
South America? 5 and a play off between 3rd place North/Central America.

Out of 32. Fair? No.

As Terry Tate has pointed out, Europe gets 13 places (not 16) and South America only has 10 nations anyway, exactly how many places do you think they should have? Give them more than 5 and more teams would be qualifying than not qualifying, which seems daft. The way the World Cup spots are allocated by continent is pretty fair in my opinion.

Holland brutalised Brazil? I must have been dreaming Melo's stamp then...Stop being bitter because Brazil etc messed up, they only have themselves to blame.

 

[Harlequin]

So why isn't there proper proportional representation? Why not put all the western European nation in one league, the central Europeans in one league and the eastern Europeans in another? Because England would rarely make it to a WC competing with France, Holland, Portugal and Spain. The way it is now is a farce. Teams are selected by how many points they've accrued on ranking system drawn up by FIFA and you get England playing the likes of Andorra and Kazahkstan to qualify for a WC. It stunts the European game tremendously but it ensures it's good for business.

How many countries do Africa have? Do you give them more representatives? No. Why? Because FIFA have decided they're not worth as much as European teams in the tournament.

Holland brutalised Brazil? I must have been dreaming Melo's stamp then

Obviously you've chosen to ignore what I said about the preferential treatment handed out to the Dutch. Melo stamped on Robben yes, but Robben had continuously dived throughout the tournament (a trait we're made to believe is very South American) and Ooijer, Van Bommel and De Jong were as brutal against Brazil as they were against Spain. In terms of the actual quality of football on display the Netherlands had no choice but to resort to it.

...Stop being bitter because Brazil etc messed up, they only have themselves to blame.

Read my posts again. Please don't turn this into something it isn't.

 

[Warbsywoo]

Actually, I wouldn't mind 64 teams being allowed to qualify for the World Cup so we can get twice as much football in twice the amount of time.

Anyways, I don't get it, if you're going to win the World Cup, you're going to have to beat everyone anyway, regardless of whether you're playing Kazkhstan in the semi-finals or Brazil in the finals. If the referees are getting you down, adjust to it or something. That's why you play the game.

Also, if the European teams were allowed to qualify in the "ideal" way, then we'd get teams like San Marino or something in the World Cup, which is less than interesting for the casual fan.

 

[Black Butler]

this thread will still be alive lol, so espagna got the cup i knew they would,netherlands were going to lose anyway. I wasnt into this cup much cuz of italy losing before the last remaining groups until the finals, its all the stupid bald referees fault.

 

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

The Italy v New Zealand match was probably Howard Webb's best match of the tournament. You can't go blaming the referee when Italy played about 5 minutes of good football across three games. It's like France trying to heap all the blame on Raymond Domenech. Yes, he was responsible for some crazy decisions and not being able to properly coach his side, but once the game starts it's down to the players to perform.

 

[charliepanayi]

Howard Webb did Italy v Slovakia, not Italy v New Zealand - minor note.

No, I think France's problems were mainly because they didn't get rid of Raymond Domenech after Euro 2008. The players didn't like him and didn't want to play for him, it was a recipe for disaster.

 

[VinnieJones]

Howard Webb did Italy v Slovakia, not Italy v New Zealand - minor note.

not really minor; the NZ game had some of the worst refereeing ever, while the Slovakia game had some of the best refereeing.

At the end of the day Domenech was to blame for France's disaster. He was responsible for squad selection, motivating, picking the captain (probably the worst decision he made this tournament was pick Evra as captain, as I'll explain later) etc.

The way he dropped Vieira after telling him he'll be captain back in January was also bad. Not only that, he did't even call Vieira before the squad announcement on why he wasn't getting picked. How very respectful to the then-captain. Although it did end up with ITV having at least one pundit who knew something about football.

Obviously it is down to the players when the game starts, but without a proper leader who gets the others working it won't happen; Evra did nothing to motivate others, just moaned and moaned throughout. No pride whatsoever. He was the one that started the boycott after telling the media about the 'traitor' (why would you do that mid-tournament), but this all comes down to Domenech picking him as captain.

 

[DarkShadow]

Now wehere all talking about the ref..............I agree with Sepp Blatter,it was a very hard game to referee,thanks to th dutch; who don't know what fair play is.But FIFA need to decide what to do to improve things........So manybad decisions this world cup.........Plus in the premier league as well...........FIFA definately need to change things in the system,BEFORE this season even starts,never mind the next world cup. A wrong decision is almost made in every game.

Anyway english referee's have a history of bad refereeing........remember Grame Poll.........3 yellow cards to one player.

 

[charliepanayi]

I don't think you can institute changes for a season that starts next month at such short notice! Any technology introductions etc (if they ever happen) will need to be trialled first anyway. And FIFA moves at the pace of a very old snail with these things, they'll still be refusing to change things by 2025 at this rate.

 

[DarkShadow]

I don't think you can institute changes for a season that starts next month at such short notice! Any technology introductions etc (if they ever happen) will need to be trialled first anyway. And FIFA moves at the pace of a very old snail with these things, they'll still be refusing to change things by 2025 at this rate.

That could be true...........They did trial referees on the goal-line in the UEFA Europa Cup,but never decided to use them in the world cup. Dont know why?

But personally I'd prefer goal-line technology instead of extra referees........
But Sepp Blatter did say once he prefers the human option more.......

But they need to do something at least before the Euro 2012 begins

 

[Ipsen]

That could be true...........They did trial referees on the goal-line in the UEFA Europa Cup,but never decided to use them in the world cup. Dont know why?

But personally I'd prefer goal-line technology instead of extra referees........
But Sepp Blatter did say once he prefers the human option more.......

But they need to do something at least before the Euro 2012 begins

I disagree. I think doing that would cause more harm to the game than good, it's not like tennis where you have 2 or 4 people hitting a ball back and forth. You've got 22 players on the field, and it's all croded int he box scrapping it out to get a goal in from a corner. It's brilliant. But if you are stopping play every 15 minutes like in say... American Football, we would not be getting out money's worth because the clock wont be stopped. It wont just be goalline technology, they'll expect it to be taken into account for corners, goal kicks and throw ins. So it'll be far more than two camera's, one in each net.

It'll eventually change the face of the beautiful game. Stopping play every 15 minutes to debate if a tackle was for the ball or not. It is taking the referees job away. I admit that the extra linesmen have been hopeless but replacing them with cameras will not be the solution.

What about the widely debated offside rule? Hardly anyone understands it anymore, and with tachnology added into the game, we will eventually see the likes of Offside being abolished or something along those lines.

A trial period would be good, but be honest, how many games out of the many hundreds that you have seen has their been a dodgy decision where the ball has crossed the line but they say it hasn't? Maybe..10, 15 at most? So really it's not happening every game, so I think they should focus more on the aspects which are pollouting the game such as diving, mobbing the referee and so on.

In all hoensty though, I think they'll have it by 2014.

 

[Ewan]

I don't see why it would be a bad thing anymore. I mean, so much time is wasted when players run up to the referee trying to change his mind on a decision. Right or wrong, he isn't going to change his mind so it's pointless, yet players still do it.

The time they spend arguing could be taken up by an official checking a monitor to see if a decision is right. How long would it take? A couple of seconds? Not much more than that. The game is already stop start by the indiscipline shown by players to the ref anyway. Why not put some technology in there to stop it?

I don't see how technology will see offside being abolished. Also, a dodgy decision in some random league may not matter, but what about the big games like WC matches or games when teams are fighting to avoid relegation?

 

[charliepanayi]

Personally for now I'd stick to having some sort of technology for 'was the ball over the line' decisions, this could be done very quickly without much delay in the game. And obviously it helps to eradicate incidents like the Lampard strike against Germany. Things like offsides and diving etc are much murkier and I think those are more complicated to deal with. For now, introduce technology but keep it simple.

 

[CassinoChips]

Personally for now I'd stick to having some sort of technology for 'was the ball over the line' decisions, this could be done very quickly without much delay in the game. And obviously it helps to eradicate incidents like the Lampard strike against Germany. Things like offsides and diving etc are much murkier and I think those are more complicated to deal with. For now, introduce technology but keep it simple.

Agreed. The only place in soccer for instant replay is for allowing/disallowing goals. It doesn't fit the game anywhere else. I see it more like basketball than football. Basketball is a game of flow and transition, so stopping the game randomly to check a monitor is more disruptive than anything else. That's why there are basically only 2 instances where replay is used, and only 1 that would cause play to be stopped. (American) Football on the other hand, has plays that last for 5 to 8 seconds, with natural 40 second breaks in between each. Much more suited to replay.

What FIFA really needs to implement, in my opinion, is a second referee on the field. There are very few goals that are allowed that shouldn't be, or vice versa, but there are several (read: far too many) fouls/cards/etc. that are awarded or not awarded that shouldn't be or should be, respectively. On set pieces alone, having a second set of eyes on the players would improve the overall quality of the game. As someone who officiates a sport at a fairly high level, I'm at a loss trying to explain how they expect one guy to officiate 21 players on a single play. Mind-boggling.

 

[Donald Trump]

What FIFA really needs to implement, in my opinion, is a second referee on the field. There are very few goals that are allowed that shouldn't be, or vice versa, but there are several (read: far too many) fouls/cards/etc. that are awarded or not awarded that shouldn't be or should be, respectively. On set pieces alone, having a second set of eyes on the players would improve the overall quality of the game. As someone who officiates a sport at a fairly high level, I'm at a loss trying to explain how they expect one guy to officiate 21 players on a single play. Mind-boggling.

There's a fourth official who is supposed to tell the ref about anything he missed. I think it was the fourth official who saw Zidane headbutt Materazzi. Two referees would slow down the game, what justifies a foul or a booking is subjective. With one referee you get, in theory, consistency, which you wouldn't get with two.

I think Goal line technology and video replays should be used when there is a stoppage in play. So Argentina's goal against Mexico would have been a free kick for mexico not a goal. I also think that when a goal hasn't been given and play continues, like Lampard's non goal, then the fourth official or whoever could watch a replay and then tell the referee who could award a goal. As long as players aren't standing around waiting for a decision I'm in favour of it.

 

[CassinoChips]

There's a fourth official who is supposed to tell the ref about anything he missed.

The 4th official that stands at midfield and brings subs in and holds up the injury time board? Yeah, I'm sure he has a great look at holding and grabbing on corners.

Two referees would slow down the game, what justifies a foul or a booking is subjective.

It wouldn't slow it down at all. In fact, every time a sport brings in an additional official, fouls/penalties/etc. decrease in number. I know there was a study done in basketball wherein with two officials, there were 49 fouls called per game, and with three there were 42 per game. But regardless, while fouls etc. are subjective to a point, you and I can both look at the Brazilian player handling the ball twice on the same play en route to a goal and say that it should have been disallowed, or look at Edu's goal against Slovenia being disallowed and say "what the eff?"

Bottom line: A second official increases the amount of correct calls in a game.

With one referee you get, in theory, consistency, which you wouldn't get with two.

Consistency is relative. I'll take correct 100 times over consistent.

 

[Donald Trump]

The 4th official that stands at midfield and brings subs in and holds up the injury time board? Yeah, I'm sure he has a great look at holding and grabbing on corners.

It's the linesman's job to do that if the referee wishes. However most referees only want them to call for offside, and nothing else. The fourth official watches the whole match, he'd have a better view than any second referee.

It wouldn't slow it down at all. In fact, every time a sport brings in an additional official, fouls/penalties/etc. decrease in number. I know there was a study done in basketball wherein with two officials, there were 49 fouls called per game, and with three there were 42 per game. But regardless, while fouls etc. are subjective to a point, you and I can both look at the Brazilian player handling the ball twice on the same play en route to a goal and say that it should have been disallowed, or look at Edu's goal against Slovenia being disallowed and say "what the eff?"

Bottom line: A second official increases the amount of correct calls in a game.

Basketball is an entirely different game. It isn't free flowing, there are time outs and stops for fouls etc. There is no reason to have a second referee, the fourth official or the fifth would be able to do the job far better whilst watching a tv. Having two referees will just cause more problems.

Consistency is relative. I'll take correct 100 times over consistent.

I don't think consistency is relative. Being correct is though. A lot of the calls in soccer are about individual judgement, whether something warrants a yellow card or a red card or a penalty etc. The best way to do that would be to have someone watching a tv rather than a replay.
I'd rather not have every foul eliminated, holding at corners is part of the game. It's not broken, don't fix it etc etc.

 

[CassinoChips]

I don't think consistency is relative. Being correct is though. A lot of the calls in soccer are about individual judgement, whether something warrants a yellow card or a red card or a penalty etc. The best way to do that would be to have someone watching a tv rather than a replay.

A lot of the calls in every sport are about individual judgment. That doesn't prevent them from using multiple referees. In football, holding could be called on every play, according to the letter of the law. But the Referee and Umpire make that judgment. Every time there's contact in basketball, it is up to the officials' judgment whether that contact is illegal.

If referees are properly trained, "consistency" takes care of itself, as two individual referees at the World Cup level looking at the same play would come up with the same call or non-call upwards of 99% of the time. Having two on the field wouldn't change that. It would bring more correctness onto the field. Thus, more consistency.

I'd rather not have every foul eliminated, holding at corners is part of the game. It's not broken, don't fix it etc etc.

This World Cup showed that it's clearly broken. Holding during corners is a part of the game, certainly. Tackling is not. Phantom fouls are not. Handballs leading to opportunities for goal are not. I have no problem with a referee missing a common foul here and there, or awarding a corner instead of a goal kick. They're human, they're going to make mistakes. It's the "everybody in the stadium except the referee" calls that were missed far too often that cry out for change.