Good lord! You can highlight text and then hit quote. Nice. This would have solved my previous problems.
Anyway, are you suggested individual bias on the part of the referees? I don't believe this is the case. I believe that 'bad' refereeing calls are almost exclusively down to not seeing the incident correctly.
On the latter, subjective officiating can not but hurt the competitiveness.
Well, it's not just subjective officiating, it's also faulty officiating. They are two separate things. The handing out of yellow/red cards for fouls is subjective because there is no objective measure. It is entirely the judgement call of the officials. Instant replay can't fix this, only a rule change can fix it.
Faulty officiating is the other problem. This is when even with objective rules the officials make the wrong call. They say no goal, when it absolutely was a goal. They say nothing even when it was definitely offsides.
What really hurts soccer the most is that it has BOTH of these problems.
The handing out of yellow/red cards for fouls is subjective because there is no objective measure. It is entirely the judgement call of the officials. Instant replay can't fix this, only a rule change can fix it.
How is that different to any other refereed sport?
How is that different to any other refereed sport?
Instant replays and challenge mechanics to overturn a demonstrably faulty ruling on the field. The NHL has centralized video replay evaluation.
For the subjective stuff, it's usually broken out into specific offenses. The NFL, for example, specifically bans using the ball as a prop for celebration after a touchdown. The rule is fairly precisely written.
Look at this example of the kinds of changes that are made to American football every year. Experts identify specific problems with the game and propose specific rule modifications to correct them.
In hockey, the specific call for various misconduct is precisely defined. Charging, boarding, hitting from behind, cross-checking, high-sticking, etc... "Slew-footing" and "tripping" are two different offenses.
Also, where subjective calls are possible or expected, or where objective calls could be made in error, the impact of these calls is much lesser than in soccer/football. There are more penalties available, but less game impact per penalty in most cases. The wide spectrum of game-impact available to a referee in punishing a transgression lessens the chances of the occasional bad call actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Regarding the beautiful (fútbol). I normaly watch The Champions League and La Liga. Sometimes I watch the Bundes League, but definately the better league for me is the Spanish league, specially when Barca plays. While watching them I realize that at least during a match there was very little drama and no one dived on the penalty area. Also, one can do awesome things with a football . Specially if the one with the footbal is Lionel Messi!
How is that different to any other refereed sport?
In basketball there is also subjective officiating. I'm not really really much of a fan of spectating basketball for that reason, and many others.
In Major League Baseball the only subjective officiating is calling balls and strikes. However, the umpires are so highly trained, and are concentrating only on that one task, so poor calls are extremely rare. Much to the dismay of purists, I do think we should let computers make this call. Also, baseball is so slow and precise, it is very easy to see the correct call without instant replay in most situations. They have added instant replay for questions of home runs that are too close to call, but I think they also desperately need them for telling whether runners are safe or out at the bases.
The NHL is basically flawless in terms of officiating. There is no suggestion I can make to improve their situation.
The NFL is very close to flawless, but has a few slight problems. I think the first problem is that they take too long to do video replays. This is because they have the referee leave the field and go to a video booth to make the call. Even though viewers at home have already made the call, it takes minutes for the referee to reach the same conclusion. In the case of replay, people off the field at the NFL offices should make the call and phone it in to save time, just like the NHL.
The other problem with the NFL is the challenge flag rules. Obviously you can't hand out unlimited challenges because teams will use them as free time outs. However, there are many cases where a team is out of challenges, yet there is clearly a play that needs to be reviewed. Thus, the wrong calls stands simply because it is a game that happened to have a lot of close situations in it. I think the solution is simply to have the same booth review for the entire game that they have after the 2 minute warning. Let the NFL replay assistants review every play that needs review for the entire game. This also saves coaches the agonizing decision of whether or not to risk a time out by challenging a play.
The NFL network has a segment called "Official Review" where the vice president of officiating discusses controversial plays each week. After you watch a few, you realize just how objectively defined the rules are, and you can see with your own eyes exactly how the right call was made.
Take for example this horrible play by the Giants in week 16.
In hockey, the specific call for various misconduct is precisely defined. Charging, boarding, hitting from behind, cross-checking, high-sticking, etc... "Slew-footing" and "tripping" are twodifferentoffenses.
And the rules are changed yearly - For example, I was reading an analysis of what would happen if you got a goalie fat enough to block the entire goal, and they noted that it would only last a season, at best, before they made a rule that would stop that sillyness.
How is that different to any other refereed sport?
The NHL is basically flawless in terms of officiating. There is no suggestion I can make to improve their situation.
As big a hockey fan as I am (go Canucks!), I have to strongly disagree that NHL officiating is "flawless". It may or may not be improvable, but there are plenty of flaws. If we're talking about subjectivity in officiating, hockey has similar problems as soccer in terms of penalty embellishment -- and of course penalty calls are not reviewable. The one minor advantage hockey has in this area is that there is leeway for the referee to call an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on a player the ref thinks was diving or embellishing. Unfortunately, I don't think it gets called enough to make an impact.
Another instance of subjectivity: Close offside -- or not-offside -- calls (again, unreviewable). Also, the ref has a lot of freedom as far as how tightly or loosely he wants to call penalties. And he may decide either consciously or subconciously to call the third period differently (i.e., "letting the players play") from the first period ("establishing the tone of the game").
Although it would be hard to do in any other sport, I very much like the way F1 handles problems on the track, with the stewards taking their time to review footage and make a call, and apply a penalty once they have made up their mind, or even postpone to after the race and apply the penalty either retroactively or for the next race.
The offside rule made huge press this week in the UK when a female official appeared to make the wrong call at a crucial time. I watched the game and when it happened I thought 'uh oh, she's going to get slated for that'. The replay showed, however, that her decision was correct. Hurrah!
I skipped every post in this thread but just want to make sure that when you guys say "football" you are referring to the NFL. OK excellent now carry on.
Although, in Spain, members of the a Barcelona ultra firm, the Boixos Nois, threw a severed pig head at LuÃs Figo while he was taking a corner. This was in part because he had played for FC Barcelona but left to play for their arch-rivals (and my team), Real Madrid. We call it "Partido de la Vergüenza"-- The Game of Shame. Also, the firm is a group of Catalan separatists--they like to enter the stadium after burning the Spanish flag.
Fuck hockey--Football violence is REAL. But hooligans are a minority.
I knew there were Basque separatists, but I've never heard of Catalan separatists before just now. WTF Spain? Most of what I read about modern day Spain is good news, why do so many people want to separate from it?
Turkey's are the most intense. They go into organized street fights as squads armed with shivs with a codified set of rules, one of which includes "No stabbing above the waist."
EDIT: Also, the Basque are back in sync with Spain, and the Catalan usually are. These separatists are a super-small minority.
Turkey's are the most intense. They go into organized street fights as squads armed with shivs with a codified set of rules, one of which includes "No stabbing above the waist."
I guess Soccer sucks so much that the fans have to find reasons to make it interesting outside of the game itself.
So, wrt to those two videos posted above (one for soccer, one for ice hockey)
Do the players throwing punches in the ice hockey get sent of the ice for the rest of the game without a substitute? Do they get suspended for a number of games? That is what would happen in soccer.
I argue that diving/fake injuries do not occur in other sports because there is not nearly as much to gain from it in terms of winning the game. I hate this aspect of my chosen game but I don't think it is because soccer players are more devious and/or less tough.
Comments
Anyway, are you suggested individual bias on the part of the referees? I don't believe this is the case. I believe that 'bad' refereeing calls are almost exclusively down to not seeing the incident correctly.
Faulty officiating is the other problem. This is when even with objective rules the officials make the wrong call. They say no goal, when it absolutely was a goal. They say nothing even when it was definitely offsides.
What really hurts soccer the most is that it has BOTH of these problems.
For the subjective stuff, it's usually broken out into specific offenses. The NFL, for example, specifically bans using the ball as a prop for celebration after a touchdown. The rule is fairly precisely written.
Look at this example of the kinds of changes that are made to American football every year. Experts identify specific problems with the game and propose specific rule modifications to correct them.
In hockey, the specific call for various misconduct is precisely defined. Charging, boarding, hitting from behind, cross-checking, high-sticking, etc... "Slew-footing" and "tripping" are two different offenses.
Also, where subjective calls are possible or expected, or where objective calls could be made in error, the impact of these calls is much lesser than in soccer/football. There are more penalties available, but less game impact per penalty in most cases. The wide spectrum of game-impact available to a referee in punishing a transgression lessens the chances of the occasional bad call actually affecting the outcome of the game.
In Major League Baseball the only subjective officiating is calling balls and strikes. However, the umpires are so highly trained, and are concentrating only on that one task, so poor calls are extremely rare. Much to the dismay of purists, I do think we should let computers make this call. Also, baseball is so slow and precise, it is very easy to see the correct call without instant replay in most situations. They have added instant replay for questions of home runs that are too close to call, but I think they also desperately need them for telling whether runners are safe or out at the bases.
The NHL is basically flawless in terms of officiating. There is no suggestion I can make to improve their situation.
The NFL is very close to flawless, but has a few slight problems. I think the first problem is that they take too long to do video replays. This is because they have the referee leave the field and go to a video booth to make the call. Even though viewers at home have already made the call, it takes minutes for the referee to reach the same conclusion. In the case of replay, people off the field at the NFL offices should make the call and phone it in to save time, just like the NHL.
The other problem with the NFL is the challenge flag rules. Obviously you can't hand out unlimited challenges because teams will use them as free time outs. However, there are many cases where a team is out of challenges, yet there is clearly a play that needs to be reviewed. Thus, the wrong calls stands simply because it is a game that happened to have a lot of close situations in it. I think the solution is simply to have the same booth review for the entire game that they have after the 2 minute warning. Let the NFL replay assistants review every play that needs review for the entire game. This also saves coaches the agonizing decision of whether or not to risk a time out by challenging a play.
If you are really interested, check this out.
http://search.nfl.com/videos/search-results?quickSearch=official+review
The NFL network has a segment called "Official Review" where the vice president of officiating discusses controversial plays each week. After you watch a few, you realize just how objectively defined the rules are, and you can see with your own eyes exactly how the right call was made.
Take for example this horrible play by the Giants in week 16.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-york-giants/09000d5d81d4dc4f/Week-16-Official-Review-bonus-coverage
Look how much is going on in that play. Yet, you can see on the video and by the rules that, sadly for the Giants, the right call was made.
Another instance of subjectivity: Close offside -- or not-offside -- calls (again, unreviewable). Also, the ref has a lot of freedom as far as how tightly or loosely he wants to call penalties. And he may decide either consciously or subconciously to call the third period differently (i.e., "letting the players play") from the first period ("establishing the tone of the game").
I watched the game and when it happened I thought 'uh oh, she's going to get slated for that'. The replay showed, however, that
her decision was correct. Hurrah!
offside and gender
Although, in Spain, members of the a Barcelona ultra firm, the Boixos Nois, threw a severed pig head at LuÃs Figo while he was taking a corner. This was in part because he had played for FC Barcelona but left to play for their arch-rivals (and my team), Real Madrid. We call it "Partido de la Vergüenza"-- The Game of Shame. Also, the firm is a group of Catalan separatists--they like to enter the stadium after burning the Spanish flag.
Fuck hockey--Football violence is REAL. But hooligans are a minority.
Turkey's are the most intense. They go into organized street fights as squads armed with shivs with a codified set of rules, one of which includes "No stabbing above the waist."
EDIT: Also, the Basque are back in sync with Spain, and the Catalan usually are. These separatists are a super-small minority.
Do the players throwing punches in the ice hockey get sent of the ice for the rest of the game without a substitute?
Do they get suspended for a number of games?
That is what would happen in soccer.
I argue that diving/fake injuries do not occur in other sports because there is not nearly as much to gain from it in terms of winning the game.
I hate this aspect of my chosen game but I don't think it is because soccer players are more devious and/or less tough.