To which league are you referring? Most settled football associations manage leagues ranging from fully professional through semi-professional to people who play on the weekends. Cameras that can actually follow the game and capture imagery well enough to be useful in decision-making are expensive, require dedicated and qualified operators, and are needed in sets of at least three to cover the full pitch. This is a huge expense for semi-professional clubs. If it was a matter of just having someone with a camcorder keeping track of things, then half of the camera reviews would be indeterminate, and it certainly would take more than just 15-30 seconds to review.11 Bravo wrote:
thats fine but you cant give everyone a trophy in this world. if you cant afford a couple cameras then you shouldnt be allowed in the league to begin with.mikkel wrote:
Because one of the appeals of football is that due to the league structure, the rules of football must be the same on all levels. Differentiation might work in franchise sports, and it might seem like a good idea to people who are used to unpopular franchise leagues like the MLS that don't mind changing the rules to fit their systems, but it just doesn't fit into how the sport operates. When you sign up with your friends to play in the lowest national division, then you're supposed to be able play under precisely the same rules and conditions as the best players in the world, because you could end up playing against them. It makes football accessible and transparent to everyone, and that is pretty widely considered to contribute greatly to the success of the sport.11 Bravo wrote:
why does getting it right have to be compared to league structure?
you seem to get angry everytime someone suggests any kind of change to soccermikkel wrote:
I don't. What's your point?eleven bravo wrote:
mikkel why do you feel the need to constantly defend the sport that the whole world is supposed to love?
Tu Stultus Es
well your solution is great...keep getting it wrong lads. human error - 1, the players and fans - 0.mikkel wrote:
To which league are you referring? Most settled football associations manage leagues ranging from fully professional through semi-professional to people who play on the weekends. Cameras that can actually follow the game and capture imagery well enough to be useful in decision-making are expensive, require dedicated and qualified operators, and are needed in sets of at least three to cover the full pitch. This is a huge expense for semi-professional clubs. If it was a matter of just having someone with a camcorder keeping track of things, then half of the camera reviews would be indeterminate, and it certainly would take more than just 15-30 seconds to review.11 Bravo wrote:
thats fine but you cant give everyone a trophy in this world. if you cant afford a couple cameras then you shouldnt be allowed in the league to begin with.mikkel wrote:
Because one of the appeals of football is that due to the league structure, the rules of football must be the same on all levels. Differentiation might work in franchise sports, and it might seem like a good idea to people who are used to unpopular franchise leagues like the MLS that don't mind changing the rules to fit their systems, but it just doesn't fit into how the sport operates. When you sign up with your friends to play in the lowest national division, then you're supposed to be able play under precisely the same rules and conditions as the best players in the world, because you could end up playing against them. It makes football accessible and transparent to everyone, and that is pretty widely considered to contribute greatly to the success of the sport.
Not in the least.eleven bravo wrote:
you seem to get angry everytime someone suggests any kind of change to soccermikkel wrote:
I don't. What's your point?eleven bravo wrote:
mikkel why do you feel the need to constantly defend the sport that the whole world is supposed to love?
Thanks. The status quo is good.11 Bravo wrote:
well your solution is great...keep getting it wrong lads. human error - 1, the players and fans - 0.mikkel wrote:
To which league are you referring? Most settled football associations manage leagues ranging from fully professional through semi-professional to people who play on the weekends. Cameras that can actually follow the game and capture imagery well enough to be useful in decision-making are expensive, require dedicated and qualified operators, and are needed in sets of at least three to cover the full pitch. This is a huge expense for semi-professional clubs. If it was a matter of just having someone with a camcorder keeping track of things, then half of the camera reviews would be indeterminate, and it certainly would take more than just 15-30 seconds to review.11 Bravo wrote:
thats fine but you cant give everyone a trophy in this world. if you cant afford a couple cameras then you shouldnt be allowed in the league to begin with.
so lets compare this to college football. what you and some others are saying is......
sorry florida,ohio state, usc, etc...... chump university wants to join the league this year and they cannot afford replay technology so instead of getting things right this year we have to suspend replay to cater to them. so all your hard work in building a big time program goes to shit because every kid deserves a gold star.
ya great
sorry florida,ohio state, usc, etc...... chump university wants to join the league this year and they cannot afford replay technology so instead of getting things right this year we have to suspend replay to cater to them. so all your hard work in building a big time program goes to shit because every kid deserves a gold star.
ya great
but that's the point - the rules are the same, the rules of playing the game that is. the problem is with the system in place for observing the rules, which, apparently, doesn't work the way it's supposed to. "it's been that way for a hell of a lot of years"-argument is, quite frankly, completely idiotic.mikkel wrote:
Because one of the appeals of football is that due to the league structure, the rules of football must be the same on all levels.11 Bravo wrote:
why does getting it right have to be compared to league structure?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
He's defending FIFA and such. Football as a sport is fun anyway. You guys couldn't hope to play NFL or ice hockey without all your specialist equipment. Even the ghetto fabulous sport of basketball.eleven bravo wrote:
mikkel why do you feel the need to constantly defend the sport that the whole world is supposed to love?
once more and more Americans get interested in soccer there will be a much bigger push for change. especially with all the money FIFA would get from US football (soccer) fans
dude, youve obv never seen real nigs playin street ballMekstizzle wrote:
He's defending FIFA and such. Football as a sport is fun anyway. You guys couldn't hope to play NFL or ice hockey without all your specialist equipment. Even the ghetto fabulous sport of basketball.eleven bravo wrote:
mikkel why do you feel the need to constantly defend the sport that the whole world is supposed to love?
They could do it just for the World Cup. Then people will say well what about the European cup, then the Champions league... then the individual leagues. Afterwards it just spirals out and creates even bigger gaps between the leagues and changes the game too much.
You guys won't understand, you've grown up on a system of university and pro. No leagues or promotion/relegation or nothing like that. Plus all your sport is more or less confined within USA (some Canada) there's no international experience whatsoever.
You guys won't understand, you've grown up on a system of university and pro. No leagues or promotion/relegation or nothing like that. Plus all your sport is more or less confined within USA (some Canada) there's no international experience whatsoever.
yeah. i think this might be in the running for one the dumbest things youve posted.Mekstizzle wrote:
He's defending FIFA and such. Football as a sport is fun anyway. You guys couldn't hope to play NFL or ice hockey without all your specialist equipment. Even the ghetto fabulous sport of basketball.eleven bravo wrote:
mikkel why do you feel the need to constantly defend the sport that the whole world is supposed to love?
Tu Stultus Es
KingCheese wrote:
My only problems with replays (as I mentioned in the World Cup thread) are these : (a) where do you draw the line as to what is deemed replay worthy, and (b) how do you restart the game after a replay if an infringement hasn't taken place. If those two questions could be answered reasonably I'd be happy to see them.
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
a) a goal or offsides that disallows or allows a goalKingCheese wrote:
KingCheese wrote:
My only problems with replays (as I mentioned in the World Cup thread) are these : (a) where do you draw the line as to what is deemed replay worthy, and (b) how do you restart the game after a replay if an infringement hasn't taken place. If those two questions could be answered reasonably I'd be happy to see them.
b) the same way you do after excessive goal celebrations or fake injuries
(a)But the nature of the offside rule surely means we would have to vid replay every marginal call, not just goals. Then how do we deal with situations where there wasn't an offside after the replay?
(b)After excessive goal celebrations the player recieves a yellow card and the ball is returned to the centre for kick off, fake injuries are generally dealt with the same way a real injury is - a player from a team will kick the ball into touch. The other team will then generally return the ball to the team which kicked the ball out - not under any obligation, but sportingly...I'm not too sure how this would help.
(b)After excessive goal celebrations the player recieves a yellow card and the ball is returned to the centre for kick off, fake injuries are generally dealt with the same way a real injury is - a player from a team will kick the ball into touch. The other team will then generally return the ball to the team which kicked the ball out - not under any obligation, but sportingly...I'm not too sure how this would help.
Last edited by KingCheese (2010-06-28 08:55:12)
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
by having a coupla judges sitting out there in front of the cameras watching an episode in question while the game goes on. if they decide there was a offside - they make a call and only then the game is stopped, otherwise it goes on as if nothing happened.KingCheese wrote:
(a)But the nature of the offside rule surely means we would have to vid replay every marginal call, not just goals. Then how do we deal with situations where there wasn't an offside after the replay?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
It would be even quicker to have an extra pair of linesmen in each half to make that call. If they only had to cover half of the pitch each, there would never be an excuse for them not being level with play. Cost wise that's more accessible to lower tiers of football too.Shahter wrote:
by having a coupla judges sitting out there in front of the cameras watching an episode in question while the game goes on. if they decide there was a offside - they make a call and only then the game is stopped, otherwise it goes on as if nothing happened.KingCheese wrote:
(a)But the nature of the offside rule surely means we would have to vid replay every marginal call, not just goals. Then how do we deal with situations where there wasn't an offside after the replay?
Last edited by KingCheese (2010-06-28 09:09:49)
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
From what I understand, the technology is not from replay, its all live action. So it would buzz the referee who would call the offside, just as he would normally.KingCheese wrote:
(a)But the nature of the offside rule surely means we would have to vid replay every marginal call, not just goals. Then how do we deal with situations where there wasn't an offside after the replay?
(b)After excessive goal celebrations the player recieves a yellow card and the ball is returned to the centre for kick off, fake injuries are generally dealt with the same way a real injury is - a player from a team will kick the ball into touch. The other team will then generally return the ball to the team which kicked the ball out - not under any obligation, but sportingly...I'm not too sure how this would help.
What happens after a goal is scored normally?... This is the exact same as it would be in hockey where they actually use the technology (though only for replay)
1 - review goals only. any and every. including offsides and anything that directly leads to a goalKingCheese wrote:
KingCheese wrote:
My only problems with replays (as I mentioned in the World Cup thread) are these : (a) where do you draw the line as to what is deemed replay worthy, and (b) how do you restart the game after a replay if an infringement hasn't taken place. If those two questions could be answered reasonably I'd be happy to see them.
2 - a few options. either you continue play and adjust the goal count after the fact (something they do with hockey) or you stop play and review it immediately after the goal happens.
Yes but who continues play if there was no infringement? If no one has done anything wrong, who restarts?
To say only review such and such just seems a little odd to me. Try telling a side that is denied a corner in the dying seconds of a game when they need to score a goal to stay in the premiership or whatever "sorry, ref gave a goal kick and we don't review corner awards." I just think you review every decision by video, or leave them all the to the referees judgement.
To say only review such and such just seems a little odd to me. Try telling a side that is denied a corner in the dying seconds of a game when they need to score a goal to stay in the premiership or whatever "sorry, ref gave a goal kick and we don't review corner awards." I just think you review every decision by video, or leave them all the to the referees judgement.
Last edited by KingCheese (2010-06-28 09:17:19)
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
1. humans make mistakes regardless. in terms of effectiveness they will always suck compared to video replays no matter how many they are.KingCheese wrote:
It would be even quicker to have an extra pair of linesmen in each half to make that call. Cost wise that's more accessible to lower tiers of football.Shahter wrote:
by having a coupla judges sitting out there in front of the cameras watching an episode in question while the game goes on. if they decide there was a offside - they make a call and only then the game is stopped, otherwise it goes on as if nothing happened.KingCheese wrote:
(a)But the nature of the offside rule surely means we would have to vid replay every marginal call, not just goals. Then how do we deal with situations where there wasn't an offside after the replay?
2. two of them means the whole lot of situations when they don't agree with each other.
3. cameras could help resolve a whole lot of other situations.
basically, the referee in the field stops bothering with offsides, goals, outs, corners, kickoffs, and a whole lot of other stuff and can focus on other more important things.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
That I would agree with. The referee not having any say over any of those. It's not fair to say a referee is fit to judge one thing and not another because all the rules are just as important as another. I guess I'm saying it should all be done by video or none at all.Shahter wrote:
basically, the referee in the field stops bothering with offsides, goals, outs, corners, kickoffs, and a whole lot of other stuff and can focus on other more important things.
Last edited by KingCheese (2010-06-28 09:20:54)
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
Rules of the football would remain same.mikkel wrote:
Because one of the appeals of football is that due to the league structure, the rules of football must be the same on all levels.
We play under same rules but not under same conditions as the best players in the world. Being able to play under same conditions is not going to happen any time soon, unlikely to happen in our lifetime.mikkel wrote:
When you sign up with your friends to play in the lowest national division, then you're supposed to be able play under precisely the same rules and conditions as the best players in the world [...]
It's quite simple really, the higher the level of competition is the less there should be room for something else than the competing teams to change the outcome.Mekstizzle wrote:
They could do it just for the World Cup. Then people will say well what about the European cup, then the Champions league... then the individual leagues. Afterwards it just spirals out and creates even bigger gaps between the leagues and changes the game too much.
I don't see how it would change the game (sport) at all.
a) I would go for red cards and goals (maybe penalties too... haven't had too much thought on this one). Game is going to be stopped anyway so I don't see any reason for not having the right (or at least as right as possible) call.KingCheese wrote:
(a) where do you draw the line as to what is deemed replay worthy
(b) how do you restart the game after a replay if an infringement hasn't taken place. If those two questions could be answered reasonably I'd be happy to see them.
b) Referee ball, goalie kick or kickoff depending of what happened.
Technology should be used as much as possible to help to have right calls but without intervening the free flow of the game.
Last edited by BLdw (2010-06-28 09:25:45)
Ok in this example, what would happen? A defender makes a tackle on an attacker. It looks like a nasty one. The replay comes up - but the tackle was hard but fair. No one has done anything wrong. What happens? A drop ball is a shitty resolution imo, but you can't give possesion to either team because no one has done anything wrong. Where do we go from here?
Last edited by KingCheese (2010-06-28 09:27:57)
"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan." - Eric Cantona.
Referee call. He will whistle or he will not whistle, we don't have technology to have 100% right calls for every situation yet. We should use our current technology as much as possible without breaking the free flow of the sport.KingCheese wrote:
Ok in this example, what would happen? A defender makes a tackle on an attacker. It looks like a nasty one. The replay comes up - but the tackle was hard but fair. No one has done anything wrong. What happens? A drop ball is a shitty resolution imo, but you can't give possesion to either team because no one has done anything wrong. Where do we go from here?
If the tackle happens inside 16 and referee whistles, he may as well have a look at the replay (preferably listening instructions from video referee) because the game is halt for several next minutes anyway. In that kind of situation referee could try to have as accurate decision as possible. Referee ball (a drop ball it is called, eh?) would be a way better option than giving a free penalty over basically nothing. But that is very opinion dividing situation and is probably not supported by many, as this is where our technology would change the game itself a little (whistle inside 16 and suddenly a drop ball because whistle was uncalled in the first place).
Last edited by BLdw (2010-06-28 09:53:58)