The 2014 FIFA World Cup
-
Remember this one?
-
The debate over poor or seemingly unfair officiating, and the thrill of a penalty shoot out are two of the things which make football interesting in my opinion. By modifying the way it is done you remove all that, it cancels the debate and sacrifices genuine excitement with a chance of an unfair result in the name of cheap entertainment and fairness. Life isn't fair and neither is football.
There is and always will be an argument to change the way that certain things are done (goal line technology is a great example of this "progress"), but I like to keep the sport as human as possible. Without the debate over human error, or in Robbens case human cheating, you take away much of the discussion element which makes the sport so beloved all over the world.
Imagine if Maradonna's hand of god had been subject to an instant video replay and simply been disallowed and a free kick awarded. It would have denied the sport one of its biggest talking points, lessened tensions between two former adversaries and deprived Englishmen of a generations worth of righteous indignation.
-
The semi-final of the 1968 European Championships between Italy and USSR saw Italy progress after a drawn game as the result of a coin toss. Compared to that a penalty shoutout seems very fair and progressive!
-
As not brit, same agreememt with mega.
Fotball has to stay the much possible human. With all the goods and all the shits!
What a joke this i don't know 3D view on the keeper line…
Referee is a full actor of the football. Of every match. That's the rule. A good one.
Too much video is, will kill what is the football.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Interesting fact about the etymology of the term 'soccer' that I just looked up:
soccer (n.)
1889, socca, later socker (1891), soccer (1895), originally university slang (with jocular formation -er (3)), from a shortened form of Assoc., abbreviation of association in Football Association (as opposed to Rugby football); compare rugger. An unusual method of formation, but those who did it perhaps shied away from making a name out of the first three letters of Assoc.We could all be watching asser now instead!
-
Well, the last I'll say on it is that complaining about cheating while defending a system that rewards it and rhapsodizing/romanticizing cheating in another instance with Maradona doesn't seem consistent to me. I'm not saying replay is warranted per se, they actually already have the ability to show cards for flops and they need to be doing it more.
EPL has goal cam technology, so to say it is or isn't a football culture thing to want fairness doesn't seem correct either. Someone in England obviously wanted the human element given a little help, and to me there's no reason not to extend that technology to offsides. In US sports where replay has been rolled out, you also had people who wanted it, and people who wanted to keep more of the imperfect human element in key decisive moments.
-
+1 to all of that.
Even sumo, the most traditional sport around, uses instant replay!
(not that I necessarily support "instant replay" for soccer, just would like to see some sort of surveillance/punishment of diving. I mean if they used replay to locate a bite, certainly they can do the same for a dive).
-
When the game was solely played in England, by gentlemen, referees and other such irritating and interfering officials weren't even required. It was only the international uptake of the sport by Johnny Foreigner that introduced the concepts of cheating and foul play, thereby requiring referees to arbitrate and enforce the rules. A return to the English Corinthian spirit by all will once again render these petty bureaucrats redundant.
-
Mac, I never said that any of it is consistent and indeed it shouldn't be. It should be contradictory and infuriating and unfair because that is where the debate and the passion lies. If it were simple, automated and inherently fair then it would also be devastatingly sterile and boring.
-
@Maynard:
When the game was solely played in England, by gentlemen, referees and other such irritating and interfering officials weren't even required. It was only the international uptake of the sport by Johnny Foreigner that introduced the concepts of cheating and foul play, thereby requiring referees to arbitrate and enforce the rules. A return to the English Corinthian spirit by all will once again render these petty bureaucrats redundant.
And imagine if Johnny Foreigner had not been authorized to play football. England might have won another world cup (or maybe two, but I doubt it, they are so great at not winning)
-
In truth, if England had entered the World Cup in 1930, 34 and 38, we'd probably have won the tournament 4 times by now!
It's also important to remember that it wouldn't be a World Cup if England was the only participant - note to our transatlantic cousins!
-
@Maynard:
The semi-final of the 1968 European Championships between Italy and USSR saw Italy progress after a drawn game as the result of a coin toss. Compared to that a penalty shoutout seems very fair and progressive!
I was reading a study by LSE which said that there's a 60/40 advantage for the team which shoots first, so the comparison may not be as farfetched as you might think!
Drawing lots is indeed a sorry way to determine a match, and a disservice to the athletes to have all their skills and efforts determined arbitrarily by some outside force (wink).
I like this concept very much: http://www.theadgalternative.com/
-
Our British friends here suffer from no lack of patriotism …..
Am watching the French struggling with Nigeria (where did their game go?) and we are all a little on edge here before the evening game of the German team.
