The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No holes barred now, I've been stewing on this for days.
This world cup has been an exercise in pointing out one thing about the beautiful game; the way it's refereed has got to change. Especially at this level. What we have seen is unfair bookings, dodgy decisions, disallowed goals, and illegal penalties, all due to error on the part of the officials. I won't bother to try to imply that any of it is due to any level of corruption, since the very thought is as daunting as it is destructive for football. But to err is human, this we know, we even live by it. With this in mind, how can we expect equity and fair play in a game effectively controlled by human decision making?
Sure, in club football, the odd disallowed goal, or the odd harsh yellow card all evens out over the course of a season. But at national level, and in the world cup, a harsh decision to issue a yellow card could mean the difference between winning the world cup and an entire nation celebrating a triumph, and not winning, and an entire nation feeling cheated and disheartened.
Imagine if you will, how Italy feel right now. Goals disallowed, and a player unfairly dismissed costing them a place in the quarter finals. Consider Spain, with two of their own goals disallowed - one of which was a goal no matter what way you look at it (except the linesmans) - and a penalty saved by a keeper who had come over a yard off his line cost them their world cup dreams. No offence to South Korea, who have played with heart and passion in their most succesful world cup campaign in history, but with all due respect, they would have been eliminated by now were it not for dodgy decision making by the officials.
Consider Brazil. A terrible decision leading to one of their star players being dismissed, and costing him a place in their semi final clash (with luck though, this suspension will be overturned).
With so much at stake for everyone concerned, it must be said that the introduction of playback footage for the use of referees to make the best decision in difficult circumstances in long overdue. We have the technology, yet we refuse to use it. Why? Some will say that not using the footage will save game time or keep the "human touch" in the decision making of the game.
Well I say those people are wrong, on both counts. How much time is wasted in every single game with players arguing with the referee? The ref makes a decision, and instantly, half the team on the wrong end of that decision are in his face, under the false impression that shouting at him will change his mind. A waste of time. If the ref consulted a replay of events, from a few angles, tough decisions could be resolved in moments. There would be no arguments, as it's not just the referee's opinion of events from what he saw, it's the fact, as shown on TV, and is indisputable.
As for the "human touch", it is this touch which has ruined the dreams of a number of national football sides recently, and if it comes down to a decision of forcing new rules into the game, or seeing people's dreams unfairly go down the proverbial drain, I'd choose the rules any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
I'm not saying have the referee's consult coverage in every game worldwide, clubs, pubs and nations. But it makes sense where important games are concerned - especially at national level - that we ensure the most accurate decisions are made. This doesn't just beneift the dreams of the people relying on their team, it benefits the game itself.
We have the technology, we have the requirement, why don't we have the common sense to do the right thing?
The time is now.
IB
This world cup has been an exercise in pointing out one thing about the beautiful game; the way it's refereed has got to change. Especially at this level. What we have seen is unfair bookings, dodgy decisions, disallowed goals, and illegal penalties, all due to error on the part of the officials. I won't bother to try to imply that any of it is due to any level of corruption, since the very thought is as daunting as it is destructive for football. But to err is human, this we know, we even live by it. With this in mind, how can we expect equity and fair play in a game effectively controlled by human decision making?
Sure, in club football, the odd disallowed goal, or the odd harsh yellow card all evens out over the course of a season. But at national level, and in the world cup, a harsh decision to issue a yellow card could mean the difference between winning the world cup and an entire nation celebrating a triumph, and not winning, and an entire nation feeling cheated and disheartened.
Imagine if you will, how Italy feel right now. Goals disallowed, and a player unfairly dismissed costing them a place in the quarter finals. Consider Spain, with two of their own goals disallowed - one of which was a goal no matter what way you look at it (except the linesmans) - and a penalty saved by a keeper who had come over a yard off his line cost them their world cup dreams. No offence to South Korea, who have played with heart and passion in their most succesful world cup campaign in history, but with all due respect, they would have been eliminated by now were it not for dodgy decision making by the officials.
Consider Brazil. A terrible decision leading to one of their star players being dismissed, and costing him a place in their semi final clash (with luck though, this suspension will be overturned).
With so much at stake for everyone concerned, it must be said that the introduction of playback footage for the use of referees to make the best decision in difficult circumstances in long overdue. We have the technology, yet we refuse to use it. Why? Some will say that not using the footage will save game time or keep the "human touch" in the decision making of the game.
Well I say those people are wrong, on both counts. How much time is wasted in every single game with players arguing with the referee? The ref makes a decision, and instantly, half the team on the wrong end of that decision are in his face, under the false impression that shouting at him will change his mind. A waste of time. If the ref consulted a replay of events, from a few angles, tough decisions could be resolved in moments. There would be no arguments, as it's not just the referee's opinion of events from what he saw, it's the fact, as shown on TV, and is indisputable.
As for the "human touch", it is this touch which has ruined the dreams of a number of national football sides recently, and if it comes down to a decision of forcing new rules into the game, or seeing people's dreams unfairly go down the proverbial drain, I'd choose the rules any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
I'm not saying have the referee's consult coverage in every game worldwide, clubs, pubs and nations. But it makes sense where important games are concerned - especially at national level - that we ensure the most accurate decisions are made. This doesn't just beneift the dreams of the people relying on their team, it benefits the game itself.
We have the technology, we have the requirement, why don't we have the common sense to do the right thing?
The time is now.
IB
I think the old mickey taking would remain. In standard league club football, in fact everywhere not in a cup final. But when it comes to games that are absolutely crucial (perhaps a team that needs one point to be clear of relegation, or a team that needs 1 goal to take the championship, or for international cup qualifiers, where things are tight) then these should be watched carefully, as bad decisions break hearts.
To clarify:
1) Standard Premiership and league games should go on as normal
2) ordinary club cup games should go on as normal
3) ordinary nation cup qualifiers should go on as normal
4) club games where the game can decide promotion/relegation/champions should be "aided"
5) similar with nation cup qualifiers
6) nation cup finals (world cup etc) every game should be "aided"
that way, for the vast majority of football you watch, there is no change. But in the games that matter most, when you really want the best decisions to be made, you should make the logical step and help the game evolve.
To clarify:
1) Standard Premiership and league games should go on as normal
2) ordinary club cup games should go on as normal
3) ordinary nation cup qualifiers should go on as normal
4) club games where the game can decide promotion/relegation/champions should be "aided"
5) similar with nation cup qualifiers
6) nation cup finals (world cup etc) every game should be "aided"
that way, for the vast majority of football you watch, there is no change. But in the games that matter most, when you really want the best decisions to be made, you should make the logical step and help the game evolve.
Good post this! I agree without reservation.
The only possible argument for keeping things the way they are, is this: your post wouldn’t exist if things were different, no one would be discussing it and therefore one of the great bastions/traditions/enjoyable factors of football would be lost at a stroke. We couldn’t take the mick out off the referee!
A game of football lasts 90 minutes (or 97 minutes at Old Trafford) but the discussion about the decisions made by the ref, linesman forth official last a lot longer. Which is very enjoyable.
Though like you point out, one bad decision can cost a team dearly and it isn’t so enjoyable if your team is knocked out (or relegated) because of it.
The only possible argument for keeping things the way they are, is this: your post wouldn’t exist if things were different, no one would be discussing it and therefore one of the great bastions/traditions/enjoyable factors of football would be lost at a stroke. We couldn’t take the mick out off the referee!
A game of football lasts 90 minutes (or 97 minutes at Old Trafford) but the discussion about the decisions made by the ref, linesman forth official last a lot longer. Which is very enjoyable.
Though like you point out, one bad decision can cost a team dearly and it isn’t so enjoyable if your team is knocked out (or relegated) because of it.
Wow! My first non-gaming GAD. Thanks SR crew!
The more control you try to impose, the less control you actually have.
To quote Star Wars (heh): "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers". Apt, I think.
Further, the stricter penalties you put on the existing rules, the more players will try to take advantage of this by exagerating their circumstances.
To quote Star Wars (heh): "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers". Apt, I think.
Further, the stricter penalties you put on the existing rules, the more players will try to take advantage of this by exagerating their circumstances.
It's a strange situation that we have come to. It seems that the more and more FIFA try to clamp down on the rules, the worse the officiating has become.
These problems didn't occur in previous tournaments as much as this one, yet no tournament before has been as strictly controled as this one.
It may be that the more FIFA try to bring in strict guidelines like automatic bookings for players that dive, or tackle from behind, the more excuses they are giving to the referees to book players, and more bookings surely means more wrong decisions?
The more FIFA try to set the rules in stone, the more players are not given the benifit of the doubt. The refs are now told 'If a player does.... then you must.....' but surely it is always open to interpretation whether the player has commited the offence he has been accused of? Perhaps referess are now being forced to jump to hasty conclusions.
Apart from the odd decision from Russian linesmen in World cup finals, refereeing has never been as much as a problem as now. Yet the game has never been more scrutanised, or controled.
Is it that the rules are not yet strict enough, Or is it that they have become too strict?
These problems didn't occur in previous tournaments as much as this one, yet no tournament before has been as strictly controled as this one.
It may be that the more FIFA try to bring in strict guidelines like automatic bookings for players that dive, or tackle from behind, the more excuses they are giving to the referees to book players, and more bookings surely means more wrong decisions?
The more FIFA try to set the rules in stone, the more players are not given the benifit of the doubt. The refs are now told 'If a player does.... then you must.....' but surely it is always open to interpretation whether the player has commited the offence he has been accused of? Perhaps referess are now being forced to jump to hasty conclusions.
Apart from the odd decision from Russian linesmen in World cup finals, refereeing has never been as much as a problem as now. Yet the game has never been more scrutanised, or controled.
Is it that the rules are not yet strict enough, Or is it that they have become too strict?
I personally think that the sending off of Ronaldinho evens things out for Turkry, who had a player sent off due to Rivaldo's play acting.
Howeve in both these instances a video replay would have been good for the ref. Rivaldo would have been sent off and Ronaldinho would have stayed on the pitch.
I also think that fifa should have powers to send off players after the match has ended, for example Rivaldo, for a blatent bit of cheating that lead to Brazil having an advantage.
Howeve in both these instances a video replay would have been good for the ref. Rivaldo would have been sent off and Ronaldinho would have stayed on the pitch.
I also think that fifa should have powers to send off players after the match has ended, for example Rivaldo, for a blatent bit of cheating that lead to Brazil having an advantage.
No holes barred now, I've been stewing on this for days.
This world cup has been an exercise in pointing out one thing about the beautiful game; the way it's refereed has got to change. Especially at this level. What we have seen is unfair bookings, dodgy decisions, disallowed goals, and illegal penalties, all due to error on the part of the officials. I won't bother to try to imply that any of it is due to any level of corruption, since the very thought is as daunting as it is destructive for football. But to err is human, this we know, we even live by it. With this in mind, how can we expect equity and fair play in a game effectively controlled by human decision making?
Sure, in club football, the odd disallowed goal, or the odd harsh yellow card all evens out over the course of a season. But at national level, and in the world cup, a harsh decision to issue a yellow card could mean the difference between winning the world cup and an entire nation celebrating a triumph, and not winning, and an entire nation feeling cheated and disheartened.
Imagine if you will, how Italy feel right now. Goals disallowed, and a player unfairly dismissed costing them a place in the quarter finals. Consider Spain, with two of their own goals disallowed - one of which was a goal no matter what way you look at it (except the linesmans) - and a penalty saved by a keeper who had come over a yard off his line cost them their world cup dreams. No offence to South Korea, who have played with heart and passion in their most succesful world cup campaign in history, but with all due respect, they would have been eliminated by now were it not for dodgy decision making by the officials.
Consider Brazil. A terrible decision leading to one of their star players being dismissed, and costing him a place in their semi final clash (with luck though, this suspension will be overturned).
With so much at stake for everyone concerned, it must be said that the introduction of playback footage for the use of referees to make the best decision in difficult circumstances in long overdue. We have the technology, yet we refuse to use it. Why? Some will say that not using the footage will save game time or keep the "human touch" in the decision making of the game.
Well I say those people are wrong, on both counts. How much time is wasted in every single game with players arguing with the referee? The ref makes a decision, and instantly, half the team on the wrong end of that decision are in his face, under the false impression that shouting at him will change his mind. A waste of time. If the ref consulted a replay of events, from a few angles, tough decisions could be resolved in moments. There would be no arguments, as it's not just the referee's opinion of events from what he saw, it's the fact, as shown on TV, and is indisputable.
As for the "human touch", it is this touch which has ruined the dreams of a number of national football sides recently, and if it comes down to a decision of forcing new rules into the game, or seeing people's dreams unfairly go down the proverbial drain, I'd choose the rules any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
I'm not saying have the referee's consult coverage in every game worldwide, clubs, pubs and nations. But it makes sense where important games are concerned - especially at national level - that we ensure the most accurate decisions are made. This doesn't just beneift the dreams of the people relying on their team, it benefits the game itself.
We have the technology, we have the requirement, why don't we have the common sense to do the right thing?
The time is now.
IB
This world cup has been an exercise in pointing out one thing about the beautiful game; the way it's refereed has got to change. Especially at this level. What we have seen is unfair bookings, dodgy decisions, disallowed goals, and illegal penalties, all due to error on the part of the officials. I won't bother to try to imply that any of it is due to any level of corruption, since the very thought is as daunting as it is destructive for football. But to err is human, this we know, we even live by it. With this in mind, how can we expect equity and fair play in a game effectively controlled by human decision making?
Sure, in club football, the odd disallowed goal, or the odd harsh yellow card all evens out over the course of a season. But at national level, and in the world cup, a harsh decision to issue a yellow card could mean the difference between winning the world cup and an entire nation celebrating a triumph, and not winning, and an entire nation feeling cheated and disheartened.
Imagine if you will, how Italy feel right now. Goals disallowed, and a player unfairly dismissed costing them a place in the quarter finals. Consider Spain, with two of their own goals disallowed - one of which was a goal no matter what way you look at it (except the linesmans) - and a penalty saved by a keeper who had come over a yard off his line cost them their world cup dreams. No offence to South Korea, who have played with heart and passion in their most succesful world cup campaign in history, but with all due respect, they would have been eliminated by now were it not for dodgy decision making by the officials.
Consider Brazil. A terrible decision leading to one of their star players being dismissed, and costing him a place in their semi final clash (with luck though, this suspension will be overturned).
With so much at stake for everyone concerned, it must be said that the introduction of playback footage for the use of referees to make the best decision in difficult circumstances in long overdue. We have the technology, yet we refuse to use it. Why? Some will say that not using the footage will save game time or keep the "human touch" in the decision making of the game.
Well I say those people are wrong, on both counts. How much time is wasted in every single game with players arguing with the referee? The ref makes a decision, and instantly, half the team on the wrong end of that decision are in his face, under the false impression that shouting at him will change his mind. A waste of time. If the ref consulted a replay of events, from a few angles, tough decisions could be resolved in moments. There would be no arguments, as it's not just the referee's opinion of events from what he saw, it's the fact, as shown on TV, and is indisputable.
As for the "human touch", it is this touch which has ruined the dreams of a number of national football sides recently, and if it comes down to a decision of forcing new rules into the game, or seeing people's dreams unfairly go down the proverbial drain, I'd choose the rules any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
I'm not saying have the referee's consult coverage in every game worldwide, clubs, pubs and nations. But it makes sense where important games are concerned - especially at national level - that we ensure the most accurate decisions are made. This doesn't just beneift the dreams of the people relying on their team, it benefits the game itself.
We have the technology, we have the requirement, why don't we have the common sense to do the right thing?
The time is now.
IB