[badidea]

While I actually would support camera reviews to avoid errors like what has happened yesterday, I also think that this is not as easy as one might think!
Imagine a totally different situation: the ref sees an offside and stops the player who is running alone with the ball and all defenders are a few meters back...then they find out that the offside descision was wrong! What now? Give him the ball back and let him start again with every defender in front of him?
If you can review one offside descision, you'll have to review every offside descision that wasn't 100% clear!

[P]

Obviously camera reviews don't work in that situation, and noone suggested them for offside calls. I don't know of a sport that uses them for offside - do you?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by P 

Obviously camera reviews don't work in that situation, and noone suggested them for offside calls. I don't know of a sport that uses them for offside - do you?

No, I don't.
But the discussion about camera reviews started with Turtles post about the offside goal in the Argentina vs. Mexico match...

Originally Posted by Turtle

Man, do those referees suck.

That goal for Argentina should have never been given. Unbelievable.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by P 

Or maybe they just show than FIFA's policy of assigning refs from all parts of the world is deeply flawed, and that they should focus on ref from the professional leagues in Europe with the stamina to keep running up and down the entire game. That was really the problem here - the assistant ref was too lazy to run down to a correct position to see the goal, because he didn't perceive it to be a dangerous situation.

I think my initial reaction was correct - I did see a soccer ref talking about it on TV this morning, and he said that the assistant was in the correct position of watching for an offside.

I wonder what would have happened if all the England players had stopped playing to celebrate in a big pile on top of Lampard?

Yeah, smart play by the German goalie - I think he later said that he thought it was in as well. Of course in these situations the response is goalie-biased and players can't really stop play to celebrate (otherwise, what would have happened is that Germany would have scored )

greg

[The Final Dakar]

In a sport with as few goals as soccer, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make sure you got every one right. If you value pace of a game (where players routinely take dives and interrupt game play to get an application of miracle spray) over an accurate outcome... well I guess we have different priorities.

As far as appreciating the human error of the refs, I suppose that requires a certain romanticism of "the old days" I also don't share.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In a sport with as few goals as soccer, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make sure you got every one right. If you value pace of a game (where players routinely take dives and interrupt game play to get an application of miracle spray) over an accurate outcome... well I guess we have different priorities.

Exactly. The NHL now has replay review only for goals, precisely because each one is so important. Also: would it kill FIFA to put two referees on the field?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by badidea 

No, I don't.
But the discussion about camera reviews started with Turtles post about the offside goal in the Argentina vs. Mexico match...

It's pretty easy: if a questionable goal is involved, review for offsite violation.

5 possible scenarios:

1) Offsite happened but wasn't called, resulted in goal
=> review will nullify goal

2) Offsite happened and was called (subsequent goal is irrelevant since void)
=> no problem

3) Offsite happened but wasn't called, no goal
=> no problem

4) Offsite did not happen, but was called as one, no goal attempt made
=> tough luck, don't change call

5) Offsite did not happen, but was called as one, successful goal attempt
=> let goal stand

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's pretty easy: if a questionable goal is involved, review for offsite violation.

5 possible scenarios:

1) Offsite happened but wasn't called, resulted in goal
=> review will nullify goal

2) Offsite happened and was called (subsequent goal is irrelevant since void)
=> no problem

3) Offsite happened but wasn't called, no goal
=> no problem

4) Offsite did not happen, but was called as one, no goal attempt made
=> tough luck, don't change call

5) Offsite did not happen, but was called as one, successful goal attempt
=> let goal stand

-t

#5 is problematic, because once offsides is called (the flag goes up) play is technically dead, and you'd get situations where maybe a goal was scored, but the defense would claim they let up because of the called offsides. Offsides could only realistically be reviewed after-the-fact if it wasn't originally called.

[Jawbone54]

No replay cost one player a perfect game in MLB this year.

No replay possibly cost the U.S. a winning goal in the Slovenia match, Mexico's momentum in the Argentina offside no-call, and Frank Lampard's goal in this World Cup.

FIFA should also crack down on extreme cases of diving, and start issuing suspensions for players in post-game video review. They fined Rivaldo over 11,000 Swiss Francs for his infamous 2002 "hip/face dive" (video link). Why not clean up the game? The only down side to this is that South American teams might be hit especially hard (if you consider that a down side).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

#5 is problematic, because once offsides is called (the flag goes up) play is technically dead, and you'd get situations where maybe a goal was scored, but the defense would claim they let up because of the called offsides. Offsides could only realistically be reviewed after-the-fact if it wasn't originally called.

You could give a penalty shot.

It would depend on how close to the goal it happened.

In the example of Argentina vs. Mexico (close proximity to goal), even calling a wrong offsite would have not had any effect on the defense dropping and allowing the goal. The play is typically still alive for a few seconds.

Maybe the rule would differentiate between a play in the penalty box or outside.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Is Italy in south America?

[Jawbone54]

Italy is at home.

[turtle777]

*rimshot*



-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

First time I've ever seen the term "offsite"

[turtle777]

Well, duh

me ->

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Offsite is the most egregious offsides you will see.

Personally, if you can score a goal from the parking lot, I think they should let you keep it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Personally, if you can score a goal from the parking lot, I think they should let you keep it.

YouTube - Larry Bird vs. Michael Jordan McDonalds commercial

[P]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

#5 is problematic, because once offsides is called (the flag goes up) play is technically dead, and you'd get situations where maybe a goal was scored, but the defense would claim they let up because of the called offsides. Offsides could only realistically be reviewed after-the-fact if it wasn't originally called.

One possible answer to that is the assistant raising the flag, but no signal is given to stop play if it's considered a close call. It might then be evaluated at stop of play. I don't like it though, I'd prefer cameras only for judging if it's a goal.

FIFA is becoming more like the USSR every day. Now they're removing the disputed goal situations (here and in the US game) from the "highlights" rolls that they distribute, attempting to deny that they ever happened. In the England case they even inserted that other Lampard shot, the one that went onto the top of the bar, probably in an attempt to confuse.

[P]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

FIFA should also crack down on extreme cases of diving, and start issuing suspensions for players in post-game video review. They fined Rivaldo over 11,000 Swiss Francs for his infamous 2002 "hip/face dive" (video link). Why not clean up the game? The only down side to this is that South American teams might be hit especially hard (if you consider that a down side).

I have been arguing for this for the longest time. And I don't think that the South Americans will be hit any harder than say Spain or Italy - or anyone with players that play for Spanish or Italian teams.

It's really all about how the refs focus. Refs from northern Europe tend to be hard on diving but permit a lot of rough play as long as it isn't malicious. Further south, diving is more part of the game and the forwards need to be protected from those nasty defenders.

[P]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In a sport with as few goals as soccer, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make sure you got every one right. If you value pace of a game (where players routinely take dives and interrupt game play to get an application of miracle spray) over an accurate outcome... well I guess we have different priorities.

FIFA seems to have done a 180, or possibly a 165 or something. Blatter has apparently apologized to the delegations of the affected nations, and goal cameras will be discussed at the next FIFA meeting after the World Cup. Blatter himself apparently doesn't like the idea though, and he isn't above buying votes to get his way, so we'll see how that goes.

[angelmb]

Solved :-P

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

YouTube - Larry Bird vs. Michael Jordan McDonalds commercial

Awesome outfit, Michael.

[Rumor]

I work at a sports bar and can't wait until this thing is over. Those horns are damn annoying.

On a positive note, since people are waiting for someone to actual score they don't use the bathroom as often. That means less dudes pissing all over the floors. Sadly, basketball, football, and baseball fans piss every five minutes and have serious problems with either aim or depth perception or both.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by P 

FIFA seems to have done a 180, or possibly a 165 or something. Blatter has apparently apologized to the delegations of the affected nations, and goal cameras will be discussed at the next FIFA meeting after the World Cup. Blatter himself apparently doesn't like the idea though, and he isn't above buying votes to get his way, so we'll see how that goes.

Pffftt.... old people.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by P 

Blatter has apparently apologized to the delegations of the affected nations...

He still hasn't apologized to the U.S. for the Slovenia no-goal. We're not holding our breath.

Originally Posted by P 

I have been arguing for this for the longest time. And I don't think that the South Americans will be hit any harder than say Spain or Italy - or anyone with players that play for Spanish or Italian teams.

It's really all about how the refs focus. Refs from northern Europe tend to be hard on diving but permit a lot of rough play as long as it isn't malicious. Further south, diving is more part of the game and the forwards need to be protected from those nasty defenders.

All of my U.S. friends who aren't fans of soccer (but have been watching the World Cup) always come back to the same thing: diving. They tell me that they enjoyed the games, but diving killed the entire experience for them. The Ghanian players stalling and faking at the end of the game might have turned some of them off forever.

The U.S. will likely never fully come on to soccer until something is done about excessive diving, and that's never going to happen.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I work at a sports bar and can't wait until this thing is over. Those horns are damn annoying.

Dog vs. Vuvuzela

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I work at a sports bar and can't wait until this thing is over. Those horns are damn annoying.

At work we have the World Cup on in the breakroom, when it's quiet you can literally hear the vuvuzelas coming through the ductwork in rooms a floor above. Or else they're permanently stuck in my head.

[The Final Dakar]

My favorite sequence so far was a two on two where one of the guys on offense got legitimately taken down near the box, but immediately popped right back up because rolling on the ground would have wasted a two on one.

Amazing how resilient they are when they can taste a goal.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I work at a sports bar and can't wait until this thing is over. Those horns are damn annoying.

On a positive note, since people are waiting for someone to actual score they don't use the bathroom as often. That means less dudes pissing all over the floors. Sadly, basketball, football, and baseball fans piss every five minutes and have serious problems with either aim or depth perception or both.

Improving Men’s Urinal Aim | Richard Thaler | Big Think

[Jawbone54]

I'm expecting some great dives during today's Spain/Portugal game. Ronaldo, don't let me down.

Diving aside, it should be one of the most exciting games thus far.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Dog vs. Vuvuzela

ROTFLMAO

-t

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm expecting some great dives during today's Spain/Portugal game. Ronaldo, don't let me down.

...and he didn't!
I really liked that the referee ignored all his stupid diving attemps.

[Spheric Harlot]

Indeed.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My favorite sequence so far was a two on two where one of the guys on offense got legitimately taken down near the box, but immediately popped right back up because rolling on the ground would have wasted a two on one.

Amazing how resilient they are when they can taste a goal.

Well, the point of going down and staying down when you were legitimately fouled isn't to feign suffering, but to make sure the referee sees what happened.

In a risky situation, I'd take the gamble - maybe he saw and calls the foul, but if for whatever reason he doesn't, I'm still up and taking care of business.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by badidea 

...and he didn't!
I really liked that the referee ignored all his stupid diving attemps.

That was the most enjoyable aspect of the game.

There was a time late in the game that he was legitimately fouled, and I cheered the no-call.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Well, the point of going down and staying down when you were legitimately fouled isn't to feign suffering, but to make sure the referee sees what happened.

Actually it's neither - the player is trying to "sell" the foul.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

In a risky situation, I'd take the gamble - maybe he saw and calls the foul, but if for whatever reason he doesn't, I'm still up and taking care of business.

If the referee sees a foul he should call it regardless if it made you almost trip or completely face plant. The theatrics is nothing more than an attempt to change the referee perception of what actually happened to something more favorable but possibly (probably) less accurate.

[Jawbone54]

Proof the U.S. could dominate in soccer if we actually cared.

[The Final Dakar]

...and you know where we learned it from? The influx of Euros (and South Americans). Flopping seems to be in the world's blood.

[Jawbone54]

I miss the old days.

The training of players, pace of the games, business aspects, and management have all become so refined and deliberate that the joy of the game seems diminished. Or maybe I'm just an old fart now. [note: I could be speaking about almost any modern sport]

[The Final Dakar]

Is that the Rambis clothesline? (I can't watch videos at work)

[Jawbone54]

Nah, just some '86 or '87 gameplay footage between Lakers/Celtics. The pacing of those games stands out, but what always blows my mind is how nearly everyone had an amazing jumper. Such an awesome era.

[The Final Dakar]

How many teams back then? 24?

[-Q-]

23.

Less talent dilution and the refs just let them play.

[The Final Dakar]

Just let them play is overrated.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I miss the old days.

I need to find some Weapon 86 low black. Can't find them anywhere… Actually I did, but but they didn't have my size, d'oh.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Actually it's neither - the player is trying to "sell" the foul.

If the referee sees a foul he should call it regardless if it made you almost trip or completely face plant. The theatrics is nothing more than an attempt to change the referee perception of what actually happened to something more favorable but possibly (probably) less accurate.

You have a point, but do note that I included the phrase "LEGITIMATELY fouled" in the post you quoted.

[boy8cookie]

Did anyone see the Ghana v Uruguay match? What a finish!!!

[Jawbone54]

Suarez's hand ball at the end cost Ghana big (obviously), and it's tacky to see a team resort to those kind of tactics. I'd hate to say it yet again, but South American teams seem to be determined to abuse the structure of the rules.

That being said, Arjen Robben flopped like a fish the entire match against Brazil. I was annoyed watching at home; I can only imagine how frustrated the Brazilians were.

[boy8cookie]

That handball could've just as easily lost them the game. I dont really see it as abuse of the rules.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Suarez's hand ball at the end cost Ghana big (obviously), and it's tacky to see a team resort to those kind of tactics. I'd hate to say it yet again, but South American teams seem to be determined to abuse the structure of the rules.

This makes no sense.

I've done the exact same thing as Suarez before - the goalie's down and out, it's a sure goal, so you play goalie yourself and let them try a penalty kick. The odds are still massively with them, but at least it's not a sure goal. (Having said that he probably should've just taken it off the face, but whatever.)

It's the same thing in hockey with "covering the puck in the crease" or basketball with "hard fouls." Those are penalized actions, but sometimes you have to do them and put the onus back on the other team.

This statement makes no sense when you harken back to the wonderful basketball days of yore in the previous post. 80s basketball was all about abusing the rules as much as possible. The reason we have a ticky-tack foul regime today is because of the backlash from that era.

That being said, Arjen Robben flopped like a fish the entire match against Brazil. I was annoyed watching at home; I can only imagine how frustrated the Brazilians were.

Hahaha... well there were a few legitimate fouls in there(somewhere) - he was also getting hacked on almost every possession. That's his game though - he's sort of like a Sean Avery type, except with talent to match. And it's not like you can't say Robinho was any less annoying, with his outrageous antics after every legitimate foul call....

Either way, fantastic game! I managed to catch most of it but had to run to court with about 7 minutes left and Brazil pressing hard. Ended up sneaking some texts to get the final score....

greg