What a Balls up!

They think its all over... got cancelled.


b0wser
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: The Game

Postby b0wser » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:59 pm

The ball is way too light - why did they have to fuck with it?

One change they could do with is something in the goal that can detect whether or not the ball has gone over the line or not.
www.primehosting.co.uk is rather good.

User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 27658
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:27 pm
Location: Tottenham

Postby Adam » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:09 pm

Two refs, camera's GPS in the ball? Where does it stop? Me i think the only change worth while is four linesman. It doesnt hamper the on pitch activities and may help out but anything else is too much. Football has mistakes, unfair goals, "It was never offside"'s thats the game.


That's a ridiculous argument. Rape and murder are a part of life. Meh, leave it, that's life.

What are you meaning? If something can be done to stop those things happening, it should be done, particularly now that so much rests on games in terms of financial benefits.
www.thelineofbestfit.com

p.s. - I am wanking as I write this

User avatar
:Dan
 
Posts: 12834
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 5:54 pm

Postby :Dan » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:56 am

DjchunKfunK wrote:Bad decision on the ball I think. It is moving all over the place and players are able to shoot from miles out without really needing much skill.


Eh? Unless you actually strike it cleanly, it will be wildly off-target.

User avatar
threelions
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:44 pm

Postby threelions » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:01 pm

Adam wrote:That's a ridiculous argument. Rape and murder are a part of life. Meh, leave it, that's life.

What are you meaning? If something can be done to stop those things happening, it should be done, particularly now that so much rests on games in terms of financial benefits.


Yeah because football and rape are just so related. :roll:

If something can be done that doesnt interfere with the flow of play sure but ive yet to hear one.

Take not of the "Does not hamper on pitch activities."

Camera's for goals mean waiting for a decision and it wont stop with goals either, two refs mean two twats getting in the way etc. Most of the changes like the ball are pretty uneccasary anyway.

You'll still get people moaning as technology always mucks up.
I went into the gas station, said, "Fill 'er up, Harry."
The guy said, "Regular?"
I said, "No, put on a gorrila suit and dance like a fairy."

User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 27658
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:27 pm
Location: Tottenham

Postby Adam » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:09 pm

Yes, but less moaning because less will be left to human error.

I love how in your head the ref is a "twat who gets in the way" - does he not perform a valid function and should he not perform that function the best he possibly can, and having a second opinion is one way that could help in this respect?


And what is a minute or so of game time if it means a goal is discounted because someone cheated and scored illegally? Are you really saying you're an advocate of Drogba handling the ball into the goal because "that's the game"? If scummy cheats like him can be stopped surely it's a good thing.
www.thelineofbestfit.com

p.s. - I am wanking as I write this

User avatar
threelions
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:44 pm

Postby threelions » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:52 pm

Adam wrote:Yes, but less moaning because less will be left to human error.

I love how in your head the ref is a "twat who gets in the way" - does he not perform a valid function and should he not perform that function the best he possibly can, and having a second opinion is one way that could help in this respect?


:lol:

Of course he does a valuable job but referees do get in the way of passes and another person on the pitch means another person to avoid. What if they both blow for a foul on the halfway line but for opposing teams?


And what is a minute or so of game time if it means a goal is discounted because someone cheated and scored illegally? Are you really saying you're an advocate of Drogba handling the ball into the goal because "that's the game"? If scummy cheats like him can be stopped surely it's a good thing.


Because a minute or two becomes 10 then 20 when its for every single goal, plus offsides, then handballs, then clearances off the line, then any other foul. It opens up the flood gates. Plus watching it in other sports it can take a good three to five minutes at times. What about people who dive in the penalty area? That is going to need checking, then any fouls around the box? Referees can let genuine fouls go without any punishment that end up leading to goals so what about them?

It doesnt take away the human error either it still has to have someone sitting in a room somewhere making the decision, was it ball to hand, was it deliberate, was it more than halfway over the line. Even with TV footgae people still make mistakes, especially with a time limit. Managers still squabble over incidents even with footage after the game.

You can punish cheats with bans and fines, a certain amount of deliberate cheating by players of a club and they get points docked. The game doesnt get interferred with.
I went into the gas station, said, "Fill 'er up, Harry."
The guy said, "Regular?"
I said, "No, put on a gorrila suit and dance like a fairy."

User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 27658
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:27 pm
Location: Tottenham

Postby Adam » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:09 pm

The problem with punishing them after the incident is that if cheating helps their team progress to the World Cup final, or win it, or whatever, then the aftermath probably won't bother them. I realise that's an extreme case, but... actually, this is a different matter completely I'm about to start debating. And:

Threelions wrote: :lol:


...

Piss off.



So. Them balls are as light as bees!
www.thelineofbestfit.com

p.s. - I am wanking as I write this

User avatar
threelions
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:44 pm

Postby threelions » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:00 pm

Adam wrote:The problem with punishing them after the incident is that if cheating helps their team progress to the World Cup final, or win it, or whatever, then the aftermath probably won't bother them. I realise that's an extreme case, but... actually, this is a different matter completely I'm about to start debating.


Well yeah it is an extreme case. If someone comes up with a decent change then fine but ive yet to hear one and everything that gets brought up seems to be just to show the top guys actually do something to earn their money.

Why is it only me and Adam are posting you lazy bastards!
I went into the gas station, said, "Fill 'er up, Harry."
The guy said, "Regular?"
I said, "No, put on a gorrila suit and dance like a fairy."

User avatar
Gunner
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:22 pm
Location: National Portrait Gallery... Being Hypnotised

Postby Gunner » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:42 am

threelions wrote:
And what is a minute or so of game time if it means a goal is discounted because someone cheated and scored illegally? Are you really saying you're an advocate of Drogba handling the ball into the goal because "that's the game"? If scummy cheats like him can be stopped surely it's a good thing.


Because a minute or two becomes 10 then 20 when its for every single goal, plus offsides, then handballs, then clearances off the line, then any other foul. It opens up the flood gates. Plus watching it in other sports it can take a good three to five minutes at times. What about people who dive in the penalty area? That is going to need checking, then any fouls around the box? Referees can let genuine fouls go without any punishment that end up leading to goals so what about them?


How many games will you see that has 20 goals requiring looking at by a video ref?

I agree it would be really silly to look at every incident and decision via video, however it could be used at the referees descression, if there were reasonable rules set down as to when it should/shouldn't be used.

It could be reserved for simple descision such as after a foul has been spotted by the ref, asking whether or not it was inside the box, etc.

I don't really see video referees interfearing with the the play in rugby, as it is used sparingly, ie only to see if the player got the ball down in that massive pile of men, which only stops the play for around 30 seconds to 1 min.

Yes, there will still be, and always be, human error and things to disscuss after games, but having the video ref to support the ref then these will be reduced.

threelions wrote:You'll still get people moaning as technology always mucks up.


Technology in most cases usually works it just only gets in the news or people moan about it when it does fuck up. Besides the video camera is hardly bleeding edge, untested technology.
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become."
-Buddha

User avatar
threelions
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:44 pm

Postby threelions » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:38 pm

gunner_uk2000 wrote:How many games will you see that has 20 goals requiring looking at by a video ref?


It wont stop at goals.

I agree it would be really silly to look at every incident and decision via video, however it could be used at the referees descression, if there were reasonable rules set down as to when it should/shouldn't be used.

It could be reserved for simple descision such as after a foul has been spotted by the ref, asking whether or not it was inside the box, etc.


The point was it wont stop with goals. It will be offsides, freekicks, handballs etc. Thats the problem it starts with the occasional goal, but then refs dont ask for the camera when a manager thinks he should so it gets used more and more often.


I don't really see video referees interfearing with the the play in rugby, as it is used sparingly, ie only to see if the player got the ball down in that massive pile of men, which only stops the play for around 30 seconds to 1 min.


Rugby was already a very stop start game football is supposed to be a flowing game.
I went into the gas station, said, "Fill 'er up, Harry."
The guy said, "Regular?"
I said, "No, put on a gorrila suit and dance like a fairy."

User avatar
Vidrageon
 
Posts: 12809
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:37 pm
Location: London

Postby Vidrageon » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:11 pm

I'd argue that if the audience at home can get these instant replays, why can't they assign some more refs who sit by these tvs and have voice-link to the main ref and tell him if it's a goal or not, that is, on very dubious offside / goalie catches the ball over the line cases. The game rarely continues when those incidents occur anyway.

Previous

Return to A Question of Sport

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests