Well then, Scott, I would suggest that you kindly get the fuck out. The rest of the football-watching world enjoys and respects the fallibility of a game that is entirely human, and the most popular sport in the world will not suffer any great loss because it doesn't live up to your standards and you stop watching. I watch games with some of the hardest-hitting English fans this side of fucking London, and even they said their team deserved the loss and they all hate the idea of removing human fallibility from football.
Fuck replays, and fuck you. More licorice and beer for Nine.
So what your saying is we should be like Neanderthals to keep your precious game from being adjudicated in a manner that befits Humanity of the 21st century? And what for? Because it makes it more human? Fuck you, caveman. Wimbledon has had replays since a few years back and Tennis hasn't spontaneously imploded into some Non-sport because of it. There's two options here, ether we get officials who actually have a fucking clue or we use technology to augment the fallacy of human referees. We don't continue as is.
So what your saying is we should be like Neanderthals to keep your precious game from being adjudicated in a manner that befits Humanity of the 21st century? And what for? Because it makes it more human? Fuck you, caveman. Wimbledon has had replays since a few years back and Tennis hasn't spontaneously imploded into some Non-sport because of it. There's two options here, ether we get officials who actually have a fucking clue or we use technology to augment the fallacy of human referees. We don't continue as is.
Yeah, the point I stopped taking you even close to seriously is "Befits Humanity of the 21st Century". It's just a game of fucking soccer. Why don't we play monoply in a way that befits the 21st century, with the bank collapsing, all of the players losing their houses? Because it's just a board game, and it doesn't matter a thin streak of pelican piss to humanity.
We're not looking for a reflection of 21st century humanity, we're watching a bunch of (mostly) europeans kick a ball around in tiny shorts. Get over it.
As for Technology? Cry me a fucking river. It's not "OH MY THOSE HORRIBLE NEANDERTHALS ARE RUINING MY PRECIOUS GAME" - there is plenty of technology in Soccer. Just not the technology you want, so you have a whinge. We have players in uniforms that are lightweight and strong, breathe well, and wick away sweat to keep them cool with evaporative cooling greater than what a player would be able to achieve naked. Shoes with intricate designs that are scientifically aided to be the absolute best shoes for the purpose of each individual player possible. Gloves with reinforcing ribs to prevent broken fingers, thin but extremely effective padding, and high-grip contact patches on the palms and fingers, and high impact ABS plastic Shin-guards 3d modeled and designed in CAD according to the principles of physics and thoroughly tested to provide the greatest protection and impact deflection. Even the ball is a perfectly spherical ball, moulded from ethylene-vinyl acetate and thermoplastic polyurethanes, with grooves to improve the aerodynamics and grip the players have on the ball.
But, Because you don't have exactly what you want, as someone who has absolutely no involvement other than watching the game on TV, suddenly, it's a problem of "Neanderthals", despite the fact that you'd have to change some of the fundamental rules of the game - that the ref's decision is final, a rule that's been around for hundreds of years, and from which many of the developments within the game have observed or relied upon - and that would slow down the game immensely. Great argument, Champ.
The rest of the football-watching world enjoys and respects the fallibility of a game that is entirely human
Then you respect a game where players can and should try to cheat if they can slip it past the ref's notice. The ref is now a factor in the game, as opposed to a neutral enforcer of the rules.
the most popular sport in the world will not suffer any great loss because it doesn't live up to your standards and you stop watching.
It's popular among the rest of the world, but we live in a nation where we have several "World Cups" for several different sports entirely our own. Part of the reason it's not popular her, aside from the fact that there's professional competition against it, is that it isn't managed to our standards. Your refs are very quaint, but we are more interested in fair athletic competition.
I watch games with some of the hardest-hitting English fans this side of fucking London
Oh, you watch the game with some tough guys? So tough! ;^)
even they said their team deserved the loss and they all hate the idea of removing human fallibility from football.
So, they believe that their team would deserve to lose if a coinflip went against them? It's not removing human fallibility to have verifiable enforcements of the netural rules of a game: the players are still fallible.
You're free to enjoy unnecessary randomness in your games, but you cannot deny that subjective rule enforcement reduces the effect of skill as a determiner of victory. If you want that, then you want a fundamentally flawed competition.
Because you don't have exactly what you want, as someone who has absolutely no involvement other than watching the game on TV, suddenly, it's a problem of "Neanderthals", despite the fact that you'd have to change some of the fundamental rules of the game - that the ref's decision is final, a rule that's been around for hundreds of years, and from which many of the developments within the game have observed or relied upon - and that would slow down the game immensely. Great argument, Champ.
You're bad at this.
Tradition is a weak argument at best, unless you choose to ignore the primacy of the argument that it clearly makes the game less about skill and more about luck. You've also failed to demonstrate that this "tradition" is indeed something the majority of the fans care strongly about.
You're also assuming that the whole "the ref is the king" thing is actually integral to the game, that this "fundamental" rule will somehow ruin it in the changing. You've demonstrated no evidence of this despite the assertion, and appear to be arguing solely from emotion.
Your little blob in the middle about technology is almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion, and makes for a poor point against the adoption of further technological improvements.
You also argue that it would slow down the game. How is this the case? In real professional sports, no such thing happens except in the rare event of a poor call, and soccer would clearly have soccer-specific technology in place. It would be trivial to implement something without substantially "slowing down the game." You're arguing against a straw man unless you pick a specific proposal to angrily decry.
Hardly anyone arguing against the implementation of neutral technology to rectify frequent referee errors is making anything but the most base and paltry emotion-driven arguments. You really haven't done much better.
Because you don't have exactly what you want, as someone who has absolutely no involvement other than watching the game on TV, suddenly, it's a problem of "Neanderthals", despite the fact that you'd have to change some of the fundamental rules of the game - that the ref's decision is final, a rule that's been around for hundreds of years, and from which many of the developments within the game have observed or relied upon - and that would slow down the game immensely. Great argument, Champ.
You're bad at this.
Tradition is a weak argument at best, unless you choose to ignore the primacy of the argument that it clearly makes the game less about skill and more about luck. You've also failed to demonstrate that this "tradition" is indeed something the majority of the fans care strongly about.
You're also assuming that the whole "the ref is the king" thing is actually integral to the game, that this "fundamental" rule will somehow ruin it in the changing. You've demonstrated no evidence of this despite the assertion, and appear to be arguing solely from emotion.
Your little blob in the middle about technology is almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion, and makes for a poor point against the adoption of further technological improvements.
You also argue that it would slow down the game. How is this the case? In real professional sports, no such thing happens except in the rare event of a poor call, and soccer would clearly have soccer-specific technology in place. It would be trivial to implement something without substantially "slowing down the game." You're arguing against a straw man unless you pick a specific proposal to angrily decry.
Hardly anyone arguing against the implementation of neutral technology to rectify frequent referee errors is making anything but the most base and paltry emotion-driven arguments. You really haven't done much better.
Have you seen a football match? You even said so yourself "...to rectify FREQUENT referee errors" you've seen the players throw themselves to the ground at the slightest touch, you know that the coaches and the players will demand a replay on every single foul and call.
Yes, calls are unfair, but they are neutral as well, the referee can make a bad call to both teams, one of the fundamental aspects of soccer is sportsmanship and the ability to be played the same way in a dirt field with your friends or at the world cup with the pros. The rules are set by FIFA so that every country has equal standing on international matches. A team from Central America for example, wouldn't be able to pay for all the technology and would be in great disadvantage against the US that would be able to pay. Now if your answer is "Oh I'm sorry, it's your responsibility to pay for the tech, you are dragging back the sport" the you CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND FOOTBALL.
Have you seen a football match? You even said so yourself "...to rectify FREQUENT referee errors" you've seen the players throw themselves to the ground at the slightest touch, you know that the coaches and the players will demand a replay on every single foul and call.
This can easily be fixed by only allowing reviews to certain situations/penalties. Additionally, you can limit the number of reviews a team is allowed to use. Also, maybe reviews will get the players to stop diving at a stiff breeze and actually play the fucking game. You dive and it's reviewed to be found be erroneous? Red card. GTFO
Yes, calls are unfair, but they are neutral as well, the referee can make a bad call to both teams, one of the fundamental aspects of soccer is sportsmanship and the ability to be played the same way in a dirt field with your friends or at the world cup with the pros.
There is no way a referee is guaranteed to judge each team equally. And even if they were pressured to be neutral, a ref might call penalties on non-penalty situations just to "balance it out". I understand the romanticism of having the same rules for all levels, but it's just not feasible. There aren't millions of dollars changing hands during a dirt field match.
A team from Central America for example, wouldn't be able to pay for all the technology and would be in great disadvantage against the US that would be able to pay.
This is a separate argument. If FIFA were to require review technology for international matches, I'm sure it would find a way to make sure all countries had access to it.
This can easily be fixed by only allowing reviews to certain situations/penalties. Additionally, you can limit the number of reviews a team is allowed to use. Also, maybe reviews will get the players to stop diving at a stiff breeze and actually play the fucking game. You dive and it's reviewed to be found be erroneous? Red card. GTFO
So if a team gets their 5 calls, its a green light for the other team to start playing dirty since the other team has no more reviews left? How can you penalize the player with a red card for throwing themselves to the ground? Again, the match would end up being just the goalies on the pitch.
There is no way a referee is guaranteed to judge each team equally. And even if they were pressured to be neutral, a ref might call penalties on non-penalty situations just to "balance it out".
They judge equally to their best capabilities that's why there are assistants, both teams have the same chances of the referee making a bad call to either one.
This is a separate argument. If FIFA were to require review technology for international matches, I'm sure it would find a way to make sure all countries had access to it.
Yes the magical powers that be will grant the thousands of dollars to every country in the world to set up all the tech needed on their stadiums. I don't think there is a reasonable and cost efficient way to solve this.
I think it would be FIFA's responsibility to pay for the tech, but that is besides the point. I understand football, I love it, but you can't just cover your ears and go "na na na na - I don't hear you." It is flawed, and it needs to be addressed one way or the other. Sure England would have lost either way, sure Mexico totally fell apart, and couldn't pull it together when they could. You don't want coaches challenging every single call? Then don't let them, give the 4th referee something to do, let him use replays whenever he feels a controversial call has been made. No challenges, no replays every single call, just whatever he thinks needs to be reviewed. We can still keep our precious human error, and it would still make the refs the kings of the soccer field.
Yes the magical powers that be will grant the thousands of dollars to every country in the world to set up all the tech needed on their stadiums. I don't think there is a reasonable and cost efficient way to solve this.
How about the thousands of dollars TV networks make with local and international soccer tournaments, I'm sure they must have found a way to get cameras in various places around a stadium
How can you penalize the player with a red card for throwing themselves to the ground?
Some refs have done that, in numerous times, not just in local leagues but on international games
give the 4th referee something to do, let him use replays whenever he feels a controversial call has been made. No challenges, no replays every single call, just whatever he thinks needs to be reviewed. We can still keep our precious human error, and it would still make the refs the kings of the soccer field.
Then there is really not that much of a difference no?
How about the thousands of dollars TV networks make with local and international soccer tournaments, I'm sure they must have found a way to get cameras in various places around a stadium
Why should the networks pay for something they don't own? How much do they have to pay? Local stations have to pay as much as the multi-million Networks? I don't know about you, but I haven't paid a single cent to watch the games live, all local stations have the feed for free, no ads just the game.
Some refs have done that, in numerous times, not just in local leagues but on international games
It happens, but it's not that often.
And yes, it's flawed, no one said it isn't, and it'll be like that until we get a cyborg league.
The rules are set by FIFA so that every country has equal standing on international matches. A team from Central America for example, wouldn't be able to pay for all the technology and would be in great disadvantage against the US that would be able to pay. Now if your answer is "Oh I'm sorry, it's your responsibility to pay for the tech, you are dragging back the sport" the you CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND FOOTBALL.
This is a terrible argument.
For one, if a team is disadvantaged when playing on an objectively fair field, then it means that their style of play outside of this field is basically cheating that they were only able to get away with in the first place due to poor officiating.
Second, this "unfairness" already exists in terms of the level of training, equipment, and expertise different teams have available. The impact of objective officiating in individual matches would be far less of a problem for poor teams than the existing inequality due to perfectly acceptable differences.
Try harder. You're still arguing mostly from emotion, but you're not making arguments with any substance. How would objective officiating in important matches (and all World Cup matches) disadvantage a poor team in any way other than eliminating cheating practices they already engage in due to poor officiating in their home countries?
How would objective officiating in important matches (and all World Cup matches) disadvantage a poor team in any way other than eliminating cheating practices they already engage in due to poor officiating in their home countries?
I think I've got an explanation for these soccer fans are so against replay.
It's because they are fans, and the teams they are fans of are full of great actors. If the game is changed, a team that was a championship team yesterday will be a joke tomorrow. They will need to get rid of all their team of actors and build a team of athletes.
Also, I think the unfair officiating is actually intentional. FIFA definitely does not want teams like the US to win, so they throw in a few bad calls. If those were the only bad calls it would be obvious corruption. They obviously can't have any objective judgment, or their corruption would be foiled. The only solution is to make a ton of bad calls all over the place. If it becomes commonplace, then malice is disguised as ignorance.
Because you don't have exactly what you want, as someone who has absolutely no involvement other than watching the game on TV, suddenly, it's a problem of "Neanderthals", despite the fact that you'd have to change some of the fundamental rules of the game - that the ref's decision is final, a rule that's been around for hundreds of years, and from which many of the developments within the game have observed or relied upon - and that would slow down the game immensely. Great argument, Champ.
You're bad at this.
Tradition is a weak argument at best, unless you choose to ignore the primacy of the argument that it clearly makes the game less about skill and more about luck. You've also failed to demonstrate that this "tradition" is indeed something the majority of the fans care strongly about.
You're also assuming that the whole "the ref is the king" thing is actually integral to the game, that this "fundamental" rule will somehow ruin it in the changing. You've demonstrated no evidence of this despite the assertion, and appear to be arguing solely from emotion.
Your little blob in the middle about technology is almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion, and makes for a poor point against the adoption of further technological improvements.
You also argue that it would slow down the game. How is this the case? In real professional sports, no such thing happens except in the rare event of a poor call, and soccer would clearly have soccer-specific technology in place. It would be trivial to implement something without substantially "slowing down the game." You're arguing against a straw man unless you pick a specific proposal to angrily decry.
Hardly anyone arguing against the implementation of neutral technology to rectify frequent referee errors is making anything but the most base and paltry emotion-driven arguments. You really haven't done much better.
The rules are set by FIFA so that every country has equal standing on international matches. A team from Central America for example, wouldn't be able to pay for all the technology and would be in great disadvantage against the US that would be able to pay. Now if your answer is "Oh I'm sorry, it's your responsibility to pay for the tech, you are dragging back the sport" the you CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND FOOTBALL.
This is a terrible argument.
For one, if a team is disadvantaged when playing on an objectively fair field, then it means that their style of play outside of this field is basically cheating that they were only able to get away with in the first place due to poor officiating.
Second, this "unfairness" already exists in terms of the level of training, equipment, and expertise different teams have available. The impact of objective officiating in individual matches would be far less of a problem for poor teams than the existing inequality due to perfectly acceptable differences.
Try harder. You're still arguing mostly from emotion, but you're not making arguments with any substance. How would objective officiating in important matches (and all World Cup matches) disadvantage a poor team in any way other than eliminating cheating practices they already engage in due to poor officiating in their home countries?
You suck
First, let's look at the professional sports, the official time on basketball and American football is less than the time for a soccer match, yet, they tend to last longer than a soccer match.
Second, the training "unfairness" from training, equipment, and expertise is void, lots of great teams come from poor countries or poor players (look at pele and maradona), and some of the worst teams have the equipment and the money to pay for the expertise (look at the US in previous international events).
Try harder. You're arguing mostly out of what you think works for the USA that is fascinated with high scores and stats, you are used to that stuff in your games and thus believe that it is the solution to the problem, changing the way the game is officiated, it's changing the game, its something else, your argument is as emotionally based as mine.
Also, I think the unfair officiating is actually intentional. FIFA definitely does not want teams like the US to win, so they throw in a few bad calls. If those were the only bad calls it would be obvious corruption. They obviously can't have any objective judgment, or their corruption would be foiled. The only solution is to make a ton of bad calls all over the place. If it becomes commonplace, then malice is disguised as ignorance.
You're arguing mostly out of what you think works for the USA that is fascinated with high scores and stats
I think if soccer (football) kept stats, each player would have a separate stat just for the number of dives they perform a match.
First, let's look at the professional sports, the official time on basketball and American football is less than the time for a soccer match, yet, they tend to last longer than a soccer match.
Strawman argument. Both of these sports have fundamentally different clock rules than soccer.
Try harder. You're arguing mostly out of what you think works for the USA that is fascinated with high scores and stats, you are used to that stuff in your games and thus believe that it is the solution to the problem, changing the way the game is officiated, it's changing the game, its something else, your argument is as emotionally based as mine.
Ice Hockey proves that you are wrong. Furthermore, just saying that his argument is emotionally based doesn't make it so.
Protip: Starting with "You suck" doesn't help your case in making a logical and rational argument against review tech.
Protip: Starting with "You suck" doesn't help your case in making a logical and rational argument against review tech.
But it makes it all the more fun to write . Also I was just mock the patronizing tone that Rym's arguments have. You don't go saying "This is terrible" or "This is a bad argument" at the beginning of the conversation, because you then become judge and jury of the argument and conceding to it you are just accepting defeat to the eyes of a third party.
You can't take this conversation seriously, no side has the answer to a problem than has persisted for years. Both sides are full of it and neither will convince the other one.
Strawman argument. Both of these sports have fundamentally different clock rules than soccer.
That is the whole point, they are different sports with different pacing, some things that work for some, won't for others.
You can't take this conversation seriously, no side has the answer to a problem than has persisted for years. Both sides are full of it and neither will convince the other one.
One side is at least trying to find a solution while the other wishes to stay ignorantly numb in the status quo.
That is the whole point, they are different sports with different pacing, some things that work for some, won't for others.
Except it's a non-sequitur. It's neither impossible nor difficult to determine a way to implement fair officiating with technology in a way that does not impact the "pacing" of the sport.
First, let's look at the professional sports, the official time on basketball and American football is less than the time for a soccer match, yet, they tend to last longer than a soccer match.
American Football is a game that does not consist of continuous play. They take necessary breaks between plays because they get the shit kicked out of them every down.
Basketball sucks as much as soccer, for some of the same reasons, and some different ones.
The correct sport to use as an example is ice hockey. It has continuous play. It is low scoring and exciting. It has an offsides rule that works, and it is extremely rare that it is judged improperly. It has epic international play in the Olympics. It also has the most advanced technological judging system there is. Even before they had video cameras ice hockey had goal judges. At each end of the ice a judge would sit in what was basically a phone booth. He had only on job, his job was to look at the net and the line. If the puck went over the line, he pressed a button which turned on the light. The light meant a goal.
Hockey also has penalties, and the ref is required to judge them, and they are not reviewed. Yet, it is somewhat rare that a penalty is called wrongly. It also isn't a huge deal if a penalty call is incorrect because you lose a player for a few minutes, not for a game or more, unless they do something heinous. The reason is that all the penalties in hockey are objectively defined in detail. Hooking means you are using your stick to restrain an opponent. Boarding is when you violently smash someone into the boards, face first, who is a few feet away from the boards.
In soccer how do they define fouls versus cards? On Wikipedia it says you can get a yellow card for a "poor challenge or tackle." Compare that to the high stick rule in hockey which says you may not put your stick above shoulder height, or above the crossbar of the goal. One of these is objective. One of them is subjective. It is obvious which is which.
Imagine a subjective board game. Oh wait, that's Apples to Apples. There's a reason there are no Apples to Apples tournaments. It would be moronic. What is the meaning of winning an Apples to Apples tournament? There is none. It's a subjective game. They may has well have picked a winner at random. The contrast would be a Street Fighter tournament. The winner of such a tournament could rightfully claim to possess some superior skill compared to the other participants.
Soccer in the fashion it is being played is only slightly better than an Apples to Apples tournament. How can you respect the result of the game when athletic skill and prowess is not the only, or even primary, factor for determining victory.
I also don't understand how a winning team can feel good about themselves if they knowingly won for reasons other than their own skill. If you won the World Cup, but it was entirely because of luck, could you celebrate? Would you feel like a champion? I definitely would not feel very good at all. The trophy would have no meaning for me. If I were a fan of a team that won based on luck, I also wouldn't be able to celebrate. If the US had won because of bad calls, I could not gloat. I could not be proud. Can you be proud of winning a coin toss? Can you gloat after winning a game of Apples to Apples? If the championship were a true testament of your abilities, then there is no greater feeling in the world than to win on the highest level of competitive play.
When the officiating decides a game, then everyone is cheated. The players, the fans, everybody.
First, let's look at the professional sports, the official time on basketball and American football is less than the time for a soccer match, yet, they tend to last longer than a soccer match.
And this is relevant how? You're addressing a previous point I'm assuming. Did you normalize for the long commercial delays that are a part of US sports?
Second, the training "unfairness" from training, equipment, and expertise is void, lots of great teams come from poor countries or poor players (look at pele and maradona), and some of the worst teams have the equipment and the money to pay for the expertise (look at the US in previous international events).
So, you've argued for my point rather than against it, and have still not addressed it. How is a team disadvantaged in any way in playing on a neutral, objectively-officiated field unless they rely on strategies that are against the rules and not caught by referees? Your ignoring of this question belies your entire attempt at argument.
You're arguing mostly out of what you think works for the USA that is fascinated with high scores and stats, you are used to that stuff in your games and thus believe that it is the solution to the problem, changing the way the game is officiated, it's changing the game, its something else, your argument is as emotionally based as mine.
You're kidding, right? Who says I like high scoring games? I like hockey, after all.
Better officiating won't make my like soccer any more than I do now. But it will make it a better game. You know, game theory? Determining what you're testing? Soccer now currently tests athletic skill AND the ability to manipulate fallible officials. If you want that to be a factor in your game, then so be it. I would rather see a game of skill at the intended game, not the meta game.
The correct sport to use as an example is ice hockey. It has continuous play. It is low scoring and exciting. It has an offsides rule that works, and it is extremely rare that it is judged improperly. It has epic international play in the Olympics.
And yet so few countries play and follow hockey, even within the US, it's not as popular as you make it sound, I worked as a bookie for 5 years, guess what sport got the least attention?
Also, the sport is not as subjective as you make it sound, yes, the calls are subjective, but that's just a part of the game, the game itself is pretty much straight forward. In most games, skill and athletic prowess is the primary factor for determining the win (take the Argentina vs Mexico match for example)
And yes, it's flawed, no one said it isn't, and it'll be like that until we get a cyborg league.
No, it will be until we open up the discussion and come up with a solution, not just turn a blind eye to it.
Why should the networks pay for something they don't own? How much do they have to pay? Local stations have to pay as much as the multi-million Networks? I don't know about you, but I haven't paid a single cent to watch the games live, all local stations have the feed for free, no ads just the game.
First, there won't be any extra investment, if you are able to air a game, you can just as easy give the ref a TV and a open line to the production booth. And you are a lucky man, I have to pay if I want to watch my local team home games. Other games are filled with in game banner ads, sometimes the narrators will do the promotion, in game. Replays are sometimes payed for, so the transition between the live game and the replay will show a Coca-Cola logo or a banner for cellphone carriers.
In other words, FIFA is either evil or stupid.
I think it is a biased stupidity. FIFA wants the popular teams to get ahead, even if you don't want it to the "weight" of a big team will take a toll on one of the refs. FIFA will probably turn a blind eye if a bad call is beneficial to one of the teams that will sure bring in the big money.
FIFA definitely does not want teams like the US to win [...]
This is just my opinion, but I think you are wrong here. FIFA wants so bad for football to be popular in the USA, it would bring tons of money for them. Bill Clinton siting next to Blatter (FIFA's presindent) is not just formalities, it is a play to try to get USA to host a world cup in the near future. While this World Cup is sure to bring lots of money, stadiums are not full, they are even reports that tickets are given away outside of the stadiums so they look full on TV. Not only is expensive to travel to South Africa, there is also a fear of insecurity . Next World Cup will be in Brazil, so that would help in bringing all the fanaticism from Latin America, but still Brazil is one dangerous country, and believe it or not still expensive to travel there.
Now the USA has the convenience of being closer for Central and South Americans than traveling to Europe. They have all the infrastructure, and they have the experience is logistics, and security to handle an event like this. And well they are right next door to me, so I fully support that
I should also point out that I argue from pure intellectual interest. I have zero emotional investment in soccer or the World Cup. Your accusations of emotional arguments on my part are laughable. I'm just an indifferent observer to perceives obvious problems and suggests equally obvious solutions in something you're too emotionally attached to to consider objectively.
it is a play to try to get USA to host a world cup in the near future.
We just had the World Cup. Why would we have it again so soon?
And yet so few countries play and follow hockey, even within the US, it's not as popular as you make it sound, I worked as a bookie for 5 years, guess what sport got the least attention?
This actually supports our argument. When a game is a game of skill, gambling on it becomes much less profitable because the outcome is much more predictable. There's a reason casinos don't let you play games of skill against the house, they only let you play games of chance. Carnivals let you play games of "skill", but they jury rig them with tricks to deceive you. They also give out prizes less valuable than the price of admission in order to guarantee profits.
Better officiating won't make my like soccer any more than I do now. But it will make it a bettergame. You know, game theory? Determining what you're testing? Soccer now currently tests athletic skill AND the ability to manipulate fallible officials. If you want that to be a factor in your game, then so be it. I would rather see a game of skill at the intended game, not the meta game.
See, it keeps peeking out again and again, you claim that the arguments are not valid because they are emotional, yet your reasoning for the changing of the officiating is just that, adapting the game more to your liking and what you believe is a better game. It's like prohibiting poker players from bluffing, it's just the way it's played. I think that the way to settle a tied game in American football is the most ridiculous thing in the world, but that doesn't deter me from enjoying the game or thinking less of it. In the end, its just that, a game, don't like it? don't watch it.
This actually supports our argument. When a game is a game of skill, gambling on it becomes much less profitable because the outcome is much more predictable.
Are you kidding me? how can a predictable outcome be less profitable? If you know who is going to win the match, then you'd just bet the moneyline every single time and win.
I agree that it's part of the game, I don't agree that it makes it worse or better for it, it's just what it is.
Therefore it logically follows that the Winner of the World Cup is not necessarily the team which is best at the athletic component of the game. Agree?
Comments
And what for? Because it makes it more human? Fuck you, caveman. Wimbledon has had replays since a few years back and Tennis hasn't spontaneously imploded into some Non-sport because of it.
There's two options here, ether we get officials who actually have a fucking clue or we use technology to augment the fallacy of human referees. We don't continue as is.
We're not looking for a reflection of 21st century humanity, we're watching a bunch of (mostly) europeans kick a ball around in tiny shorts. Get over it.
As for Technology? Cry me a fucking river. It's not "OH MY THOSE HORRIBLE NEANDERTHALS ARE RUINING MY PRECIOUS GAME" - there is plenty of technology in Soccer. Just not the technology you want, so you have a whinge. We have players in uniforms that are lightweight and strong, breathe well, and wick away sweat to keep them cool with evaporative cooling greater than what a player would be able to achieve naked. Shoes with intricate designs that are scientifically aided to be the absolute best shoes for the purpose of each individual player possible. Gloves with reinforcing ribs to prevent broken fingers, thin but extremely effective padding, and high-grip contact patches on the palms and fingers, and high impact ABS plastic Shin-guards 3d modeled and designed in CAD according to the principles of physics and thoroughly tested to provide the greatest protection and impact deflection.
Even the ball is a perfectly spherical ball, moulded from ethylene-vinyl acetate and thermoplastic polyurethanes, with grooves to improve the aerodynamics and grip the players have on the ball.
But, Because you don't have exactly what you want, as someone who has absolutely no involvement other than watching the game on TV, suddenly, it's a problem of "Neanderthals", despite the fact that you'd have to change some of the fundamental rules of the game - that the ref's decision is final, a rule that's been around for hundreds of years, and from which many of the developments within the game have observed or relied upon - and that would slow down the game immensely. Great argument, Champ.
You're free to enjoy unnecessary randomness in your games, but you cannot deny that subjective rule enforcement reduces the effect of skill as a determiner of victory. If you want that, then you want a fundamentally flawed competition.
Tradition is a weak argument at best, unless you choose to ignore the primacy of the argument that it clearly makes the game less about skill and more about luck. You've also failed to demonstrate that this "tradition" is indeed something the majority of the fans care strongly about.
You're also assuming that the whole "the ref is the king" thing is actually integral to the game, that this "fundamental" rule will somehow ruin it in the changing. You've demonstrated no evidence of this despite the assertion, and appear to be arguing solely from emotion.
Your little blob in the middle about technology is almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion, and makes for a poor point against the adoption of further technological improvements.
You also argue that it would slow down the game. How is this the case? In real professional sports, no such thing happens except in the rare event of a poor call, and soccer would clearly have soccer-specific technology in place. It would be trivial to implement something without substantially "slowing down the game." You're arguing against a straw man unless you pick a specific proposal to angrily decry.
Hardly anyone arguing against the implementation of neutral technology to rectify frequent referee errors is making anything but the most base and paltry emotion-driven arguments. You really haven't done much better.
Yes, calls are unfair, but they are neutral as well, the referee can make a bad call to both teams, one of the fundamental aspects of soccer is sportsmanship and the ability to be played the same way in a dirt field with your friends or at the world cup with the pros. The rules are set by FIFA so that every country has equal standing on international matches. A team from Central America for example, wouldn't be able to pay for all the technology and would be in great disadvantage against the US that would be able to pay. Now if your answer is "Oh I'm sorry, it's your responsibility to pay for the tech, you are dragging back the sport" the you CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND FOOTBALL.
And yes, it's flawed, no one said it isn't, and it'll be like that until we get a cyborg league.
For one, if a team is disadvantaged when playing on an objectively fair field, then it means that their style of play outside of this field is basically cheating that they were only able to get away with in the first place due to poor officiating.
Second, this "unfairness" already exists in terms of the level of training, equipment, and expertise different teams have available. The impact of objective officiating in individual matches would be far less of a problem for poor teams than the existing inequality due to perfectly acceptable differences.
Try harder. You're still arguing mostly from emotion, but you're not making arguments with any substance. How would objective officiating in important matches (and all World Cup matches) disadvantage a poor team in any way other than eliminating cheating practices they already engage in due to poor officiating in their home countries?
It's because they are fans, and the teams they are fans of are full of great actors. If the game is changed, a team that was a championship team yesterday will be a joke tomorrow. They will need to get rid of all their team of actors and build a team of athletes.
Also, I think the unfair officiating is actually intentional. FIFA definitely does not want teams like the US to win, so they throw in a few bad calls. If those were the only bad calls it would be obvious corruption. They obviously can't have any objective judgment, or their corruption would be foiled. The only solution is to make a ton of bad calls all over the place. If it becomes commonplace, then malice is disguised as ignorance.
In other words, FIFA is either evil or stupid.
First, let's look at the professional sports, the official time on basketball and American football is less than the time for a soccer match, yet, they tend to last longer than a soccer match.
Second, the training "unfairness" from training, equipment, and expertise is void, lots of great teams come from poor countries or poor players (look at pele and maradona), and some of the worst teams have the equipment and the money to pay for the expertise (look at the US in previous international events).
Try harder. You're arguing mostly out of what you think works for the USA that is fascinated with high scores and stats, you are used to that stuff in your games and thus believe that it is the solution to the problem, changing the way the game is officiated, it's changing the game, its something else, your argument is as emotionally based as mine.
Protip: Starting with "You suck" doesn't help your case in making a logical and rational argument against review tech.
You can't take this conversation seriously, no side has the answer to a problem than has persisted for years. Both sides are full of it and neither will convince the other one. That is the whole point, they are different sports with different pacing, some things that work for some, won't for others.
Basketball sucks as much as soccer, for some of the same reasons, and some different ones.
The correct sport to use as an example is ice hockey. It has continuous play. It is low scoring and exciting. It has an offsides rule that works, and it is extremely rare that it is judged improperly. It has epic international play in the Olympics. It also has the most advanced technological judging system there is. Even before they had video cameras ice hockey had goal judges. At each end of the ice a judge would sit in what was basically a phone booth. He had only on job, his job was to look at the net and the line. If the puck went over the line, he pressed a button which turned on the light. The light meant a goal.
Hockey also has penalties, and the ref is required to judge them, and they are not reviewed. Yet, it is somewhat rare that a penalty is called wrongly. It also isn't a huge deal if a penalty call is incorrect because you lose a player for a few minutes, not for a game or more, unless they do something heinous. The reason is that all the penalties in hockey are objectively defined in detail. Hooking means you are using your stick to restrain an opponent. Boarding is when you violently smash someone into the boards, face first, who is a few feet away from the boards.
In soccer how do they define fouls versus cards? On Wikipedia it says you can get a yellow card for a "poor challenge or tackle." Compare that to the high stick rule in hockey which says you may not put your stick above shoulder height, or above the crossbar of the goal. One of these is objective. One of them is subjective. It is obvious which is which.
Imagine a subjective board game. Oh wait, that's Apples to Apples. There's a reason there are no Apples to Apples tournaments. It would be moronic. What is the meaning of winning an Apples to Apples tournament? There is none. It's a subjective game. They may has well have picked a winner at random. The contrast would be a Street Fighter tournament. The winner of such a tournament could rightfully claim to possess some superior skill compared to the other participants.
Soccer in the fashion it is being played is only slightly better than an Apples to Apples tournament. How can you respect the result of the game when athletic skill and prowess is not the only, or even primary, factor for determining victory.
I also don't understand how a winning team can feel good about themselves if they knowingly won for reasons other than their own skill. If you won the World Cup, but it was entirely because of luck, could you celebrate? Would you feel like a champion? I definitely would not feel very good at all. The trophy would have no meaning for me. If I were a fan of a team that won based on luck, I also wouldn't be able to celebrate. If the US had won because of bad calls, I could not gloat. I could not be proud. Can you be proud of winning a coin toss? Can you gloat after winning a game of Apples to Apples? If the championship were a true testament of your abilities, then there is no greater feeling in the world than to win on the highest level of competitive play.
When the officiating decides a game, then everyone is cheated. The players, the fans, everybody.
Better officiating won't make my like soccer any more than I do now. But it will make it a better game. You know, game theory? Determining what you're testing? Soccer now currently tests athletic skill AND the ability to manipulate fallible officials. If you want that to be a factor in your game, then so be it. I would rather see a game of skill at the intended game, not the meta game.
Also, the sport is not as subjective as you make it sound, yes, the calls are subjective, but that's just a part of the game, the game itself is pretty much straight forward. In most games, skill and athletic prowess is the primary factor for determining the win (take the Argentina vs Mexico match for example)
Now the USA has the convenience of being closer for Central and South Americans than traveling to Europe. They have all the infrastructure, and they have the experience is logistics, and security to handle an event like this. And well they are right next door to me, so I fully support that