Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: fifafail.com
I suggest you film about refferees.. It is called Les Arbitres in French and Kill the refferee in English.
it so does... in fact one of the biggest mistakes was tv screen in football stadiums and replays on it...
Ofcourse it's wrong to show every replay in the stadiums, this should be for the refs eyes only. The biggest problem of those replays is that everyone can see the mistake of the ref and he and the coaches can't do anything anymore to correct this mistake. If this mistake has big consequences the game is immediately unfair and seen by everyone. And ofcourse tensions will rise inside and outside the stadium because of that.
But what has this example to do with technology? You give an example that wasn't working to prove another idea won't work. That's again very strange ..............
if u think its .... we eliminate refs and so on...
Again overreacting. 'What if...', you have no idea so it's ridicules to say this.
and its already fair, everyone plays under the same rules and same ref
Simply not true, don't know why you say this? Every match has it own refs and each ref can get up everyday differently. Sometimes he/she is feeling great, other days he/she won't. They are almost human ..... o wait, they are ;P
And same rules yes, same interpretation of these rules, not always! Why is the same foul in 1 match a red card but in another seen as a fake dive? Same rules, same punishment right?
The conclusion is, if clubs and players are judged differently by refs it's wrong and unfair.
u think of football as just kicking the ball around and getting it into the net, i think of it as everything combined, refs+players+mistakes+atmosphere+diving+fighting and so on....
Great that you think how I see football, but you are wrong! Please don't think for me as you absolutely don't know me.
it is popular as it is, and changes can only make it worse (because it cant get more popular)... if heads of fifa think big they will never change it... and for the right reasons...
As far as I know the number of spectators in stadiums in many countries is decreasing. I wonder why you say it's so popular when the popularity is clearly going down.
But you and I will never agree on this, that's clear to me if you stand behind the fossil gang of Blatter :)
PS. please stop posting several posts. Make your point in 1 post please if you have something to say.
Ofcourse it's wrong to show every replay in the stadiums, this should be for the refs eyes only. The biggest problem of those replays is that everyone can see the mistake of the ref and he and the coaches can't do anything anymore to correct this mistake. If this mistake has big consequences the game is immediately unfair and seen by everyone. And ofcourse tensions will rise inside and outside the stadium because of that.
But what has this example to do with technology? You give an example that wasn't working to prove another idea won't work. That's again very strange ..............
if u think its .... we eliminate refs and so on...
Again overreacting. 'What if...', you have no idea so it's ridicules to say this.
and its already fair, everyone plays under the same rules and same ref
Simply not true, don't know why you say this? Every match has it own refs and each ref can get up everyday differently. Sometimes he/she is feeling great, other days he/she won't. They are almost human ..... o wait, they are ;P
And same rules yes, same interpretation of these rules, not always! Why is the same foul in 1 match a red card but in another seen as a fake dive? Same rules, same punishment right?
The conclusion is, if clubs and players are judged differently by refs it's wrong and unfair.
u think of football as just kicking the ball around and getting it into the net, i think of it as everything combined, refs+players+mistakes+atmosphere+diving+fighting and so on....
Great that you think how I see football, but you are wrong! Please don't think for me as you absolutely don't know me.
it is popular as it is, and changes can only make it worse (because it cant get more popular)... if heads of fifa think big they will never change it... and for the right reasons...
As far as I know the number of spectators in stadiums in many countries is decreasing. I wonder why you say it's so popular when the popularity is clearly going down.
But you and I will never agree on this, that's clear to me if you stand behind the fossil gang of Blatter :)
PS. please stop posting several posts. Make your point in 1 post please if you have something to say.
Give both teams 3 timeouts to use.
Timeouts don't make any sense at all in sports where time is never stopped nor where substitues are very limited. Also, these 2 aspects are very important part of the psychology of football. Football is not a game with many important events in the game. Goals are very rare in relation to available time. This is very different to most of other popular team sports (basketball, hockey, volleyball etc.) where you can also use timeouts and frequent substitutes to change team's psychology during match.
These are also probably one of key reasons why people love football so much and why it's convincingly number one team sport in the world. These aspects make football much more simmilar to real life's team challenges where you can't ask for a break nor replace team's weakest link when under greatest pressure. And yes, in RL also, sometimes even the authority unfairly rules against you or your team and sometimes you can't even blame authority that much as these calls can also be utterly difficult to make.
Timeouts don't make any sense at all in sports where time is never stopped nor where substitues are very limited. Also, these 2 aspects are very important part of the psychology of football. Football is not a game with many important events in the game. Goals are very rare in relation to available time. This is very different to most of other popular team sports (basketball, hockey, volleyball etc.) where you can also use timeouts and frequent substitutes to change team's psychology during match.
These are also probably one of key reasons why people love football so much and why it's convincingly number one team sport in the world. These aspects make football much more simmilar to real life's team challenges where you can't ask for a break nor replace team's weakest link when under greatest pressure. And yes, in RL also, sometimes even the authority unfairly rules against you or your team and sometimes you can't even blame authority that much as these calls can also be utterly difficult to make.
Everything is possible to make it work. Fieldhockey looks like football, why can they have a timeout system? Ofcourse it can't work like basketball, volleyball etc, that's obvious, but that doesn't mean nothing can be used :)
You only look for the possibilities why it can't, ofcourse then it can't :)
You only look for the possibilities why it can't, ofcourse then it can't :)
I am not looking for possiblities why it can't. I am imagining how the game would be changed by it and I am simply not liking it. E.g. a big change made 20 years ago that GK is not allowed to pickup the ball returned by foot of its own player improved the game greatly. It was in tune with these key aspects of game flow with no interuptions. That's why it worked so well as it should have always been there. These pauses you propose for would change the game in exactly the other direction.
I really only care that my club wins when they are better and don't loose points, ever, because of mistakes. They are all professionals, training to win matches and end as high in the competition as possible, that's what they are trying to do. Mistakes of humans don't belong in this list, specially not if it is seen by everyone watching TV and often also spectators in the stadiums. Besides, it's a multi-billion euro business, mistakes can cost really a lot. FC Utrecht is a good example this year of failing refs in European matches.
To me every change that makes football more fair is an opportunitiy to look at and see if it's possible without disturbing the game to much. But at the end mistakes can never be the reason why a team won.
(edited)
To me every change that makes football more fair is an opportunitiy to look at and see if it's possible without disturbing the game to much. But at the end mistakes can never be the reason why a team won.
(edited)
Saying "mistakes of humans don't belong in this list" and "I don't want referees' mistakes ever" is extremely unfair to referees who are very important figures in football. They should be also allowed to make mistakes same as management, coaches and players.
Considering the use of electronic devices as some magic wand that will prevent referees' mistakes is very wrong. There are many situations in football that you look at from all sorts of angles and you stil have divided opinions. You can have exactly the same slow motion of 2 different duels where only 1 of them is foul because of different timing of intensities in the contact. And referees need to make their calls in seconds most of the time. Disregarding that is simply not showing any respect for the difficult job they perform which at the same time disqualifies from making any advice on how their job should be done in the first place.
Considering the use of electronic devices as some magic wand that will prevent referees' mistakes is very wrong. There are many situations in football that you look at from all sorts of angles and you stil have divided opinions. You can have exactly the same slow motion of 2 different duels where only 1 of them is foul because of different timing of intensities in the contact. And referees need to make their calls in seconds most of the time. Disregarding that is simply not showing any respect for the difficult job they perform which at the same time disqualifies from making any advice on how their job should be done in the first place.
You say referees need to make mistakes? If you ask a referee if he could lower the chance of making an error he would loudly say yes. So using devices which lower errors serve that cause.
It has nothing to do with being unfair to refs, but everything with making the right decision. I don't believe refs don't want to be helped or see this as disrespect to them. I think, no I'm sure they allso don't like the mistakes they make and the reactions they get from the spectators because of their mistakes. With dozens of cameras in stadiums we can now see everything on TV and it's just wrong the refs can't see what we see and correct their mistake.
Without any help the respect of refs will only go down as we will see more and more mistakes.
Maybe you should read the first topic again, it explains really good why electronic devices is needed. I can't say it any better :)
Without any help the respect of refs will only go down as we will see more and more mistakes.
Maybe you should read the first topic again, it explains really good why electronic devices is needed. I can't say it any better :)
You have 2 standard replies that you use whenever someone writes arguments against your unimaginative ideas based on great ideals and complete disregard of reality:
1. "You should read again what I wrote."
2. "You are part of the conspiracy that is against our ideals."
I explained well why I am convinced that use of electronic devices for referee calls is limited to "ball crossing line" situations in football. This is even the case in most sports where it's used. You offered only 1 (one) idea how they could become helpful with ruling fouls, cards, offsides or any other decision and your idea sucks.
I elaborated well why I believe that such timeouts are not good for football. Your only replies to my arguments are the standard 2 from your repertoire.
You wrote that "it only takes a few seconds" to look back at the videos which is laughably disregarding reality. I have been to many ice-hockey games with up to 5 minutes breaks of referees studying slow motions (referees decide when to watch, not coaches). It takes at least 30 secs just to start watching the tape and another 30 secs to actually watch it. Then, if there's more than 1 person present, then they need to talk about what they see for at least another 30 secs if that situation is easy to call. Imagine only the additional pressure on referees for making the right call when using the "omnipotent" technology (oh technology, you are so great, we bow to your incredible powers). And now imagine coaches using their 3 timeouts each for actually resting their team from opponent's building pressure, advising them how to regroup, keeping their score advantage, just simply annoying the opponent or retaliating for their timeouts previously called.
Do you have any real replies to these and previously written arguments? Maybe you should read them again? ;)
1. "You should read again what I wrote."
2. "You are part of the conspiracy that is against our ideals."
I explained well why I am convinced that use of electronic devices for referee calls is limited to "ball crossing line" situations in football. This is even the case in most sports where it's used. You offered only 1 (one) idea how they could become helpful with ruling fouls, cards, offsides or any other decision and your idea sucks.
I elaborated well why I believe that such timeouts are not good for football. Your only replies to my arguments are the standard 2 from your repertoire.
You wrote that "it only takes a few seconds" to look back at the videos which is laughably disregarding reality. I have been to many ice-hockey games with up to 5 minutes breaks of referees studying slow motions (referees decide when to watch, not coaches). It takes at least 30 secs just to start watching the tape and another 30 secs to actually watch it. Then, if there's more than 1 person present, then they need to talk about what they see for at least another 30 secs if that situation is easy to call. Imagine only the additional pressure on referees for making the right call when using the "omnipotent" technology (oh technology, you are so great, we bow to your incredible powers). And now imagine coaches using their 3 timeouts each for actually resting their team from opponent's building pressure, advising them how to regroup, keeping their score advantage, just simply annoying the opponent or retaliating for their timeouts previously called.
Do you have any real replies to these and previously written arguments? Maybe you should read them again? ;)
I understand your arguments, I've read them, but I think what you accept as changes are old and not of this time. If they are ready to make changes it has to be good changes, TV images is the least they can do as we already see a foul 5x in replay. That moment the refs could have walked to the sideline and watch what we see on TV. In seconds they can draw a line across the field and see if it was offside, same with goals, but also fouls can be seen etc. More advanced, a computersystems can digitize a footballfield in seconds and show exactly if a ball crossed any line, or see offside. It already exist, just need to be used.
And now imagine coaches using their 3 timeouts each for actually resting their team from opponent's building pressure, advising them how to regroup, keeping their score advantage, just simply annoying the opponent or retaliating for their timeouts previously called.
And when all timouts or hawkeyes, or however this is called in sports, are used and the opponent scores a dubious goal or offside, the coach doesn't have timouts or hawkeyes left to see it back as they used them 3x wrong. That's the punishment of misusing it. Then you can blame the coach for misusing the option, not the ref for his mistake.
But it's just 1 of the many idea's to improve fair play. On the internet you will probably find many more examples that can work.
I explained what I think, and you can disagree, fine by me. So we will never agree on this, great :)
(edited)
And now imagine coaches using their 3 timeouts each for actually resting their team from opponent's building pressure, advising them how to regroup, keeping their score advantage, just simply annoying the opponent or retaliating for their timeouts previously called.
And when all timouts or hawkeyes, or however this is called in sports, are used and the opponent scores a dubious goal or offside, the coach doesn't have timouts or hawkeyes left to see it back as they used them 3x wrong. That's the punishment of misusing it. Then you can blame the coach for misusing the option, not the ref for his mistake.
But it's just 1 of the many idea's to improve fair play. On the internet you will probably find many more examples that can work.
I explained what I think, and you can disagree, fine by me. So we will never agree on this, great :)
(edited)
On the internet you will probably find many more examples that can work.
Oh, I don't understand how I forgot about your 3rd standard answer:
3. "You should Google more to find out you are wrong." ;)
Oh, I don't understand how I forgot about your 3rd standard answer:
3. "You should Google more to find out you are wrong." ;)
there is basically no discussion... it follows this:
you: we need this!
than we give you reasons why its would be harmful
you: i dont care, we need this!
you: we need this!
than we give you reasons why its would be harmful
you: i dont care, we need this!