World Cup 2010 - Round of 16 (Knock-out stage) **spoilers**

Status
Not open for further replies.
Netherlands v Slovakia teams:

Netherlands: 1-Maarten Stekelenburg; 2-Gregory van der Wiel, 3-John Heitinga, 4-Joris Mathijsen, 5-Giovanni van Bronckhorst; 7-Dirk Kuyt, 6-Mark van Bommel, 10-Wesley¡ Sneijder, 8-Nigel de Jong, 11-Arjen Robben; 9-Robin van Persie.

Slovakia: 1-Jan Mucha; 2-Peter Pekarik, 3-Martin Skrtel, 16-Jan Durica, 5-Radoslav Zabavnik, 7-Vladimir Weiss, 15-Miroslav Stoch, 17-Marek Hamsik, 11-Robert Vittek, 19-Juraj Kucka, 18-Erik Jendrisek.

Referee: Alberto Undiano (Spain)
 
Why is this so clouded, none of that is needed.

You could simply have a panel of three (random figure) watching the game, any dodgy goal incidents they are replayed instantly for the three(however many). They make the decision, tell the ref, goal given, or not. Carry on game.

The disruption to the game would be minimal, we had replays seconds after Lampard's goal. It would not have hindered the game in anyway shape or form.

Yes this is only available at the top level, but it's where it is needed most, they said it after the game, big decisions/money is made/lost on decisions like these.
 
If they're going to use technology then it shouldn't ruin the flow of the game (as has been discussed to death in the last decade). I'm up for more officials, chips in balls, or lasers across the goal line as they're not intrusive. Say it's setup such that the officials are vibrated when a team scores.

I don't like tv replays because you have to stop the game. Football isn't rugby or tennis because the play is different. In tennis I still think it's daft that a point can be replayed based on a player's call.

Say hypothetically yesterday Lampard didn't score, the Germans quickly broke and did themselves. If we hadn't got it over the line then how fair is it that the Germans are denied the tactical opportunity of a break. Even worse, it's not hard to imagine that sides would start asking for replays to avoid their opponent from breaking away.
 
Last edited:
You wouldn't stop play for many seconds at all, the keeper would be instructed to hold the ball for seconds until the decision is made.
 
anticonscience said:
You wouldn't stop play for many seconds at all, the keeper would be instructed to hold the ball for seconds until the decision is made.
Click to expand...

The speed with which a decision arrives is irrelevant. In my example, Germany would still lose their tactical advantage of breaking away. A few seconds is all that is needed for this, and it's unfair if no goal was originally scored.

I do of course agree that it sucks if like yesterday legitimate goals are chalked off. Which is why other uses of technology or possibly more men around the pitch isn't a bad idea. I mean weren't they bought in for the UEFA Cup this year? What happened to them, why were they stopped I don't know.
 
Tummy said:
*sighs*

Had the debate about technology before.

It would ruin football :)
Click to expand...

look at the big debates this world cup

its mostly when a goal has been allowed or disallowed wrongly. Goal line technology woud have seen england 2-1 up at half time instead of 2-1 down.

It would probably have seen the argentina mexico game go differently were Tevez's game disallowed.

The proof for me was the argentina mexico game. They get the tevez goal badly wrong, but took so long to decide that by the time they did - the big screen had already showed that the goal was offside, but because the ref couldnt rely on video replays he had to ignore it and go on what the assistants saw. Because none of them saw the offside he had to give it, knowing it was the wrong call.

Thats why its got to stop for me, when referees have evidence via video replay sooner than they can make a decision themselves, its time to use video replays.
 
I would say lol @ Nickg but it is still too :( :( :( :(

I do think they could incorporate some way of allowing play to continue briefly, then retrospectively sorting it out, in the same manner that refs now will give yellow cards to offending defenders some time after the incident, having allowed an advantage.

It's not like it would take very long to make certain decisions; the Hawk-eye inventor said it would have taken 0.5 seconds to show the Lamps goal was in.
They could sit down and sort out a way of making it work if they were minded to, but FIFA is run by backwards-thinking conservative tools.
 
thing is, even n NHL, i watch a lot of NHL, the goal decisions can sometimes take a NUMBER of minutes to agree whether it was or wasnt a goal.

what if they spot an infraction (holding in the area) or something that happened that wasnt related to the goal specifically...?so infact it could get ruled out for something that didnt happen... say lampard had handballed it on his way through and the replay showed it cross the line but was the handball intentional?

then you need a debating panel. what if they started watching 2 seconds prior and lampard was actually offside? the panel then becomes accountable for the decision and the game in almost its entirety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom