BF2S Forums Does FIFA Hate Technology?

I don't get the argument that technological advances would need to be integrated on all levels of play, and therefore it's too expensive to consider.



Highschool, collegiate and semi-professional sports in the U.S. don't utilize the same replay systems that you see in their respective pro sports, but the systems in place still work for all levels of play.



I agree with the OP, it does seem like a bunch of crotchety old folks must be pulling reasons to not use newer technologies out of their asses.

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?

unless the judge in the field is 100% sure the game's to be stopped, nothing happens immediately when that particular episode occurs. the game continues normally, while the judges at the cameras rewind a dosen seconds back and watch the episode zoomed and from different angles. it shoudn't take more than, like, twenty or so seconds for them to make a desision - then they either make a call to stop the game or not according to their findings and to the current position on the field. no unnecessary interruptions, no unfair desisions, no problem whatsoever.

KingCheese wrote:

I don't see how you can draw a line and say this is important enough to warrant a replay, but this doesn't matter.  To me it's all or nothing, you accept human fallability on all decisions or take away any element of doubt at all.

The way I see: use technology as long as it doesn't destroy the free flow of the game. We don't have the technology to use it in all situations, it would break the game in pieces. But we should use our technology to our advance as much as possible.

mikkel wrote:

In the sense that comparable situations would be handled the same in the second division as they would in the top division? No.

Compare every possible contributing factor between top and lower divisions if rule set is the only solid thing in football. It's stupid, but yeah go ahead.

We don't have as good referees (in regards of experience) as is used in top divisions. Due not having headsets we don't have as good communication link between our referees as top divisions have.  Africans, Chinese, South-American and many of the countries in Middle East (and maybe even Russia) sure as hell are not in the same boat either. Playing conditions aren't as good here as in top divisions, in many of the 3rd world countries most of the games aren't even played on grass field.

Here situations are unlikely to be handled in the same as they are in top divisions because even our way of playing is not same, all we have common with everyone else in the world are our very same rules that we try to follow the best we can

mikkel wrote:

A red card in the bottom division is as indisputable during the match as a red card in the top division is. A goal in the bottom division is as indisputable after play has been resumed as it is in the top division. Likewise, a situation in the bottom division cannot be reviewed, just like it can't be reviewed in the top division.

Knowing the truth changes everything. You are unlikely to see slow motion replays of bottom division games, so how can someone tell if that ball was in the goal or not, how can someone tell if that red card was called for or not? It's all different here, we can see every situation couple seconds later in super slow motion if we wish, even the players can see it. What's the point to have such strict rules in football if we don't even try to enforce them to our best without breaking the free flow of the game?

We are entitled to see how all the stupid mistakes referees make change the outcome of matches but there's nothing anyone can do about it. No, because then we would have to rely on technology that some 3rd world country is never able to use anyway.

mikkel wrote:

The system for observing the rules is part of the rules, You change the system, you change the rules.

...
There are rules in football and we should try to enforce them the best we can without destroying the flow of the game.

Edit: mumble with the editing deleting shit...

Last edited by BLdw (2010-06-28 13:56:04)

I'll definitely argue on the side of video referees and technological upgrades. The way I see it is that if old Sepp Blatter really cares for the rules of the game, and in interviews I do believe him too, I don't see why he doesn't impliment methods where the rules of the game can actually become a more decisive and determining factor in games. At the moment in far too many cases the rules have less impact on games than calls made by referees - and while it is intended for referees to be the on-field judiciary as such in their role in interpreting and applying the rules I don't think it's fully considered in Blatter's "classic" interpretation of the rules of Football that referees are going to be completely and utterly wrong as often as they are. Surely getting the rules wrong is more an offence than double checking the referee's "final decision" to ensure hat the rules are in fact followed correctly.

But Mek and some others raise good points and I failed to conside what implimenting video referees and the like would actually mean. Rules would have to be changed to dictate how restarts are made and it would be a much more important decision in a game where posession is paramount, unlike Rugby or American Football when it's more an equasion between posession and territory. Maybe this the great "rule violation" that Blatter fears. Really I don't see it as being too difficult and solutions would be fairly easy to determine.

As to the argument "there have to be the same rules on all levels" - I say this is moot. The rules would be the same on all levels. The only differency would be leagues that decide to use video refereeing would have better means to make correct calls. I played Rugby when I was younger and club Rugby doesn't have video refs but the rules are still the same as the higher levels of Rugby which do. There are already rules for allowed and disallowed goals so nothing would change there if referees just had better tools to determine which was which. The only change I can see is how to deal wih dives - a rule probably not even considered by the godfathers of the sport who were probably gentlemanly types who would never dream of such poor sportsmanship. A simple change there would be to simply penalise the team that made the dive if it is determined that one was taken.

I'm not even suggesting hardcore systems like HawkEye, just a video replay from a couple of angles lie they have in Rugby and other sports so a referee can think "right, I didn't quite see that properly so let me just check so I can make the correct decision".

If FIFA really want to help their sport they would impliment video referees. While there arguments for and against most 'againt' arguments talk about respect for tradition while "for" arguments speak out of respect for the rules of the game. I suppose FIFA could really really care for tradition but even then their arguments are far from compelling and to be honest, sound like a simple unwillingness to share the absolute power they have over the game to me.

Nice of him to pander to his critics. Wonder if he means it sincerely.

Ty wrote:

But Mek and some others raise good points and I failed to conside what implimenting video referees and the like would actually mean. Rules would have to be changed to dictate how restarts are made

no need for that. no need for specific restart rules, because there no need to stop the game at all - camera referees can review any moment quickly enough and stop the game after they made a desision.

I really don't see the problem with having a slightly different set of rules for the big leagues and cups ... let each national league decide for themselves if they want to apply xtra judges, goal-cameras or a video judge ... and in what degree they will apply it ...