|
Really, if FIFA wants to move it AND be corrupt, they should re-bid it and choose the 2026 World Cup at the same time, so that they have one more chance to line their pockets with bribe money before they collapse and die. Really, I'd say FIFA was hilariously corrupt (a guy literally went over to Qatar to inspect the work, came back saying 'everything's fine', and got in trouble for not declaring all the $20k watches he came back with) if there weren't people dying over there building stadiums for a World Cup that should not, and hopefully WILL not, happen.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
And this is all at the highest administrative level, ignoring the corruption and incompetence of the the refs at world cups and other major events year after year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
I don't think there's a lot of ref corruption there definitely is some but refereeing a pro soccer game played at the highest level is really loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
blakout posted:I don't think there's a lot of ref corruption there definitely is some but refereeing a pro soccer game played at the highest level is really loving hard. Put an extra ref or two on the field and let them talk it out if one calls a foul or wants to book a player.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
KKKLIP ART posted:Put an extra ref or two on the field and let them talk it out if one calls a foul or wants to book a player. The extra ref thing is not always great, the NRL in Australia has a similar system to what is being proposed (and instant replays for scoring) and it's not great. NRL internationally retains a 1 referee system. There are actually calls from some quarters to move back to one referee as it results in a more consistent standard being applied in some decisions. Dual refs has a bunch of tradeoffs, but I'm not sure it would radically improve things (It might, but it might not).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Sooo... how many of our brackets had Spain going pretty far? A quick scan reveals almost everyone had Spain making at least the quarterfinals, with many putting them in the semifinals. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
I know basically nothing about soccer, even after reading these 90 thread pages, but this LP is great and habeasdorkus should feel great. Every chapter in this epic football saga is riveting, and I'm gonna be sad when it ends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Took the American job eh? Good luck. Despite the thousands of hours I've put into FM over the years, I've yet to do any national team management. Taking control of Canada would just be disheartening. Anyway, it'll be fun to see the ins and outs of it for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
I checked the predictions and found no one that predicted Spain out of the group phase. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Yeah, this is like a 1 seed going out against a 16 seed. Everyone gets at least a little hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
blakout posted:I don't think there's a lot of ref corruption there definitely is some but refereeing a pro soccer game played at the highest level is really loving hard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2010_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies And 4 years back with Japan and Korea getting some help making deep runs in the World Cup they hosted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
KKKLIP ART posted:Put an extra ref or two on the field and let them talk it out if one calls a foul or wants to book a player. Baseball has 4 or 5 refs on the field, with the ability to see the same replay the fans see, and they still routinely gently caress it up. At some point, refs of every sport that has a strong tradition behind it end up being headstrong fucks that think they're better than the game, and some portion of the fans fight change because bah gawd some guy 150 years ago didn't have fancy replay or extra officials, and he was the greatest of all time! Basically, incompetent officiating isn't fixed by adding more incompetent officials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2010_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies There's only one entry on that page that even implies a bought official as opposed to one that didn't see anything. Where's that actual article about shady poo poo in 2010? There was a Tanzanian ref I think. Zaodai posted:Baseball has 4 or 5 refs on the field, with the ability to see the same replay the fans see, and they still routinely gently caress it up. At some point, refs of every sport that has a strong tradition behind it end up being headstrong fucks that think they're better than the game, and some portion of the fans fight change because bah gawd some guy 150 years ago didn't have fancy replay or extra officials, and he was the greatest of all time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
GBS did a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
I do love how I basically can't go to the next two World Cups because the countries hosting them absolutely hate gay people for some reason. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry. I'm sure our noble leader thought long and hard about how he could help out gay fans at those events!Sepp Blatter posted:"I'd say they should refrain from any sexual activities."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
A Tartan Tory posted:I do love how I basically can't go to the next two World Cups because the countries hosting them absolutely hate gay people for some reason. I was gonna say "well, it's not like being openly homossexual amidst football culture wouldn't lead to humiliation and unashamed prejudice everywhere else, so it's not that different" but then I realized that wouldn't really make you feel better. In fact, it made me feel bad now. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Dias posted:I was gonna say "well, it's not like being openly homossexual amidst football culture wouldn't lead to humiliation and unashamed prejudice everywhere else, so it's not that different" but then I realized that wouldn't really make you feel better. In fact, it made me feel bad now. It's quite bizarre really, considering peoples view of football hooligans in Scotland, but they are pretty tolerant to homosexuality. The problem comes if you are Catholic or Protestant most of the time, so being Atheist helps!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Baseball has 4 or 5 refs on the field, with the ability to see the same replay the fans see, and they still routinely gently caress it up. At some point, refs of every sport that has a strong tradition behind it end up being headstrong fucks that think they're better than the game, and some portion of the fans fight change because bah gawd some guy 150 years ago didn't have fancy replay or extra officials, and he was the greatest of all time! So has anyone considered the option of perhaps adding more competent officials? Because if the counterproposal is that omniscience is an impossible standard and it's therefore not worthwhile to try and fix officiating, then why not try more officials. I seriously doubt they could do worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
GenHavoc posted:So has anyone considered the option of perhaps adding more competent officials? Because if the counterproposal is that omniscience is an impossible standard and it's therefore not worthwhile to try and fix officiating, then why not try more officials. I seriously doubt they could do worse. Sadly (and completely seriously), any claims that the officials are incompetent is shot down with a combination of "nobody is perfect!" and "blown calls are a part of the game, they have been forever!". They prefer to call it the "human element". I, for one, welcome our robot official overlords. With their laser eyes and slow motion perception of time. We'll never get more competent officials because once you make it to the top level of officiating, you're there for life or until someone can prove you're not just stupid, you're corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Well, there's some legit reasons to take technology/refereeing changes in soccer with a grain of salt, and they're usually related to the flow of the game. For instance, one of the big mistakes you can make in soocer is screwing up an offside call. It's also very hard to get an offside call right unless it's an obvious one, since it happens in a blink of an eye and it requires you to watch at least three different players and their movement at the same time. So what do you do with those? Do you review every single offside call? What about the ones that aren't called, do you allow for challenges? What if an offside isn't called, the other team gets the ball back and starts to break away, then the first team challenges and it turns out that wasn't an offside after all? How do you make up for the loss of momentum the other team suffered, without punishing the challenging team too harshly? There are no yards to be gained or bases to be filled in soccer, advantage isn't easily measured. Things like the goal-line technology are awesome and almost always beneficial to the sport, but then again, those require a financial investment that's not feasible to most soccer teams - lower league clubs that fire players on the offseason because they can't afford to keep paying them when there's no soccer to be played. So even those have a downside, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Everything has a downside. It's how the world works. Some kind of oversight for officials that had the power to remove or demote them (or reward ones who don't do a poo poo job) would be required. But that's a lot of work, and the current officials would never allow it because it'd put their jobs in jeopardy. I'm not saying technology is inherently the solution. I'm just saying it would at least be consistent. The core problem is that anyone who has the requisite skills to be a great ref probably has the skills to do something besides referee. It's shades of our prior discussion as to why the USA has a poor presence in global soccer. If all our great athletes can get paid 20 times more to play a different sport, they're not going to piss away their talents playing soccer. Same thing for refs in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Dias posted:I was gonna say "well, it's not like being openly homossexual amidst football culture wouldn't lead to humiliation and unashamed prejudice everywhere else, so it's not that different" but then I realized that wouldn't really make you feel better. In fact, it made me feel bad now. Ironically American soccer fans tend to be on the left (for us) and would probably be way more welcoming than most other nations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
I think it's kinda funny that America, which has possibly the world's largest capitalism fetish, is one of the few places that doesn't use promotion/relegation, which is-- in a way-- akin to a market system for sports.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Sadly (and completely seriously), any claims that the officials are incompetent is shot down with a combination of "nobody is perfect!" and "blown calls are a part of the game, they have been forever!". They prefer to call it the "human element". I understand that Blown Calls happen, and will continue to happen, because this is a sport played by humans, but there's a difference between acknowledging the reality and claiming it to be the ideal. Surely nobody is actually claiming that it is an intentional and valued part of the game to be screwed by a bad call. I understand why they happen, but if we're going to just throw our hands in the air and pretend there's nothing that should ever be done about it, then why the hell play the game at all? Dias posted:Well, there's some legit reasons to take technology/refereeing changes in soccer with a grain of salt, and they're usually related to the flow of the game. Well for starters, how about an additional official stationed either up in a broadcast booth whose sole job is to watch for offsides? Yes, that involves money that smaller clubs don't have, but surely the World Cup/Champions League/Premier League etc can afford the expense, given everything. National and International titles have been won or lost on bad offisdes calls. If we're unwilling to even TRY making those calls better, then what does that say about the value we place on the results of the tournaments? I appreciate that Soccer is a different sport than Baseball or US Football and you can't treat it like either of the above in terms of replay or the like. It may not be amenable to instant replay at all, frankly. But there are simple things you can do, and it's consequently hard to take seriously claims that change is impossible and we should all be satisfied with blown games in the largest sporting event on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
GenHavoc posted:Well for starters, how about an additional official stationed either up in a broadcast booth whose sole job is to watch for offsides? Yes, that involves money that smaller clubs don't have, but surely the World Cup/Champions League/Premier League etc can afford the expense, given everything. National and International titles have been won or lost on bad offisdes calls. If we're unwilling to even TRY making those calls better, then what does that say about the value we place on the results of the tournaments? I mean, that's already the sideline judges' main job. Having him running (theoretically) parallel to the defenders means he has a better angle on the play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
GenHavoc posted:I appreciate that Soccer is a different sport than Baseball or US Football and you can't treat it like either of the above in terms of replay or the like. It may not be amenable to instant replay at all, frankly. But there are simple things you can do, and it's consequently hard to take seriously claims that change is impossible and we should all be satisfied with blown games in the largest sporting event on Earth. Honestly, baseball in the US had the same problem as soccer where people insisted on 'the human element' staying in the game, and the calls just got more and more ridiculous until finally MLB instituted replay for home runs, and for a whole lot more this year. If people want replays, it has to be a league to do it as an experiment, to show that A) it works, B) it doesn't make the game slow and C) people like it. Only then will FIFA run out of excuses and institute it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I think you could introduce "non-disrupting" replays after the referee blew the whistle on a penalty or offside without much effort. Not sure how you'd deal with a correctly challenged offside that didn't result in a goal, maybe give the team a free kick, indirect if it happened inside the box? It's when you get to stuff that didn't stop play that things get hairy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:I think it's kinda funny that America, which has possibly the world's largest capitalism fetish, is one of the few places that doesn't use promotion/relegation, which is-- in a way-- akin to a market system for sports. They also use that most Communist system of *shudder* drafting. I have to say that I am against any technology that interferes with the flow or tempo of the game, even if it results in removing the human element in decision making.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Dias posted:I think you could introduce "non-disrupting" replays after the referee blew the whistle on a penalty or offside without much effort. Not sure how you'd deal with a correctly challenged offside that didn't result in a goal, maybe give the team a free kick, indirect if it happened inside the box? It's when you get to stuff that didn't stop play that things get hairy. Just have replays for penalties and goals with goal line technology for actual scoring. That would stop the most critical stuff - goals that are not goals and correctly give goals that were scored but not spotted. Given the ratio of chances : scoring in most football matches, it's highest reward to regulate those. Even if 100% of penalties and goals are reviewed, it wouldn't disrupt match flow to much (there is a reset anyway if the goal is up held), and those are the critical decisions. You are correct in noting that overturning a bad call of offside is harder and probably shouldn't be touched - there was no certainty that the player was going to beat the keeper either so its less impactful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Dias posted:I think you could introduce "non-disrupting" replays after the referee blew the whistle on a penalty or offside without much effort. Not sure how you'd deal with a correctly challenged offside that didn't result in a goal, maybe give the team a free kick, indirect if it happened inside the box? It's when you get to stuff that didn't stop play that things get hairy. Just have replays for penalties and goals with goal line technology for actual scoring. That would stop the most critical stuff - goals that are not goals and correctly give goals that were scored but not spotted. Given the ratio of chances : scoring in most football matches, it's highest reward to regulate those. Even if 100% of penalties and goals are reviewed, it wouldn't disrupt match flow to much (there is a reset anyway if the goal is up held), and those are the critical decisions. You are correct in noting that overturning a bad call of offside is harder and probably shouldn't be touched - there was no certainty that the player was going to beat the keeper either so its less impactful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Dias posted:I think you could introduce "non-disrupting" replays after the referee blew the whistle on a penalty or offside without much effort. Not sure how you'd deal with a correctly challenged offside that didn't result in a goal, maybe give the team a free kick, indirect if it happened inside the box? It's when you get to stuff that didn't stop play that things get hairy. It's not like hockey doesn't have an offsides rule, as well as instant replay. This isn't an insoluble problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
The . problems disolved in water?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's not like hockey doesn't have an offsides rule, as well as instant replay. This isn't an insoluble problem. And hokey as arguably a faster paced game at that. I think it is a problem that could be addressed, but the football community has to come together to fix those problems. I think the NBA started issuing fines for flops, reviewed and doled out after the game. I think that would also help curb when it does happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's not like hockey doesn't have an offsides rule, as well as instant replay. This isn't an insoluble problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I know almost nothing about hockey, but I thought offsides weren't review-eligible. Also, a lot easier to spot than in soccer because it relates to those colored lines and not defenders. Regardless, that was pretty much what I was arguing, whenever there's a stoppage, you should be able to review it. But traditions and FIFA being a terrible organization makes everything harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Dias posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, because I know almost nothing about hockey, but I thought offsides weren't review-eligible. Also, a lot easier to spot than in soccer because it relates to those colored lines and not defenders. Regardless, that was pretty much what I was arguing, whenever there's a stoppage, you should be able to review it. But traditions and FIFA being a terrible organization makes everything harder. The only things that are actually reviewable are whether or not a goal actually crossed the line, whether or not a stick was above the crossbar when it contacted the puck prior to entering the net, and whether or not a player kicked the puck into the net, or directed it in with a different part of their body, although the latest GM meetings are debating being able to review other stuff and instituting a "coach's challenge". The "crossed the line" reviews are pretty easy, usually, since there are more than enough cameras, unless the puck is directly underneath a player or goalie as it enters. The other two reviewable plays are far more difficult to determine, unless they're completely blatant, and, even after review, are occasionally left to the judgement of the referee, in consultation with the NHL head office in Toronto, which has access to all of the cameras on the ice surface and in the nets to make a determination, and to which each referee has a direct line. Offsides in hockey are not reviewable, and, although they're based on fixed lines on the ice, and not defenders, they usually occur at a much quicker pace, and the offsides aren't called based on the position of the player when the ball was kicked, but whether or not the player's back skate enters the zone completely before the puck does. If the player is fully in the zone, no part of his skate touching the line when the puck enters, the player is deemed offside. This is further complicated by the fact that there is a "delayed offside" rule which is in place for when a team does not particularly care whether or not a player is offside, and just wants to "dump the puck in" to get a change of bodies, or to relieve the pressure. In this case, the whistle isn't blown until either the player from the opposing zone touches the puck without the zone being cleared or it is determined by the referee that no attempt is going to be made to clear the zone. Even further complicating the issue is the fact that the faceoff can take place in one of six places, based on the judgement of the linesman, where the pass was made from, whether or not any attempt was made to clear the zone, and so on, and so on. Soccer actually has a rather elegant offsides rule in comparison. One situation, one call, one ball placement. It's a little more up to the judgement of the referee (or linesman, if your league can afford them), but it's also less subject to interpretation. As we see you manage the US national team, I'm sure you'll get more into the difference, but I'm wondering what kind of rapport an international coach usually has with his or her players, especially in the game. Would having a primadonna international superstar make it significantly harder to coach and train the team, and if you did sanction or kick off the player, would there be any kind of repercussions from the fans or the country itself? This has to be one of the more in-depth simulation games I've ever seen, and I would not be surprised in the least if there were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Fusbolito McGiggola posted:Soccer actually has a rather elegant offsides rule in comparison. One situation, one call, one ball placement. It's a little more up to the judgement of the referee (or linesman, if your league can afford them), but it's also less subject to interpretation. This isn't really true, though. The offside position is very straightforward, but what an "offside offence" is is not. Sure, it's easy in situations where it's as simple as the ball being passed to a player in an offside position, but it's not always that simple. I'm sure there's logic to it, but despite considering myself a casual soccer fan I still cannot explain why, for example, New Zealand's goal against Italy in the last World Cup stood despite appearing to be offside (and I don't think the answer is that it was a blown call, since I seem to recall everyone saying that it was the right call). Offside in hockey is much more straightforward. If you were in the zone before the puck was, you can't be part of the play until you leave and re-enter. The only tricky bit is when the linesman will stop the play, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Viscardus posted:This isn't really true, though. The offside position is very straightforward, but what an "offside offence" is is not. Sure, it's easy in situations where it's as simple as the ball being passed to a player in an offside position, but it's not always that simple. I'm sure there's logic to it, but despite considering myself a casual soccer fan I still cannot explain why, for example, New Zealand's goal against Italy in the last World Cup stood despite appearing to be offside (and I don't think the answer is that it was a blown call, since I seem to recall everyone saying that it was the right call). Obviously this is just opinion on both our parts, but let's just agree that both are fairly simple ideas that are complicated by the fact that referees are human and prone to errors of judgement, bias, and plain old distraction/missing a call. About that specific incident, most of the articles that I (just now) went and read seem to agree it's offside, and either the referee missed the New Zealand player getting his head on the ball on the cross in, and assumed the first touch was by the Italian defender, or that it was just a plain blown call. Most of them agree it seems offside. For our edification, though: Here is FIFA's official offside rule. Here, in contrast, is the NHL's offside rule Honestly, the hockey rule makes more sense to me, since I grew up playing hockey from the age of 6, but I still think that soccer's offside rule is pretty simple in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Fusbolito McGiggola posted:Obviously this is just opinion on both our parts, but let's just agree that both are fairly simple ideas that are complicated by the fact that referees are human and prone to errors of judgement, bias, and plain old distraction/missing a call. About that specific incident, most of the articles that I (just now) went and read seem to agree it's offside, and either the referee missed the New Zealand player getting his head on the ball on the cross in, and assumed the first touch was by the Italian defender, or that it was just a plain blown call. Most of them agree it seems offside. Well, fair enough if I was wrong about the call in that game being correct. My understanding was that it had something to do with the nuance of the New Zealand player being offside but not having been considered to have affected the play until the Italian defender touched the ball, which seems like a rather absurd explanation, because how can you really determine whether his offside position affected the play? But regardless, it's my understanding that this can be relevant in some circumstances, which seems a little bizarre. And you're right that ultimately it's a matter of opinion (I grew up watching hockey more than soccer, so the hockey rule is more familiar to me as well). However, comparing those rules is a little unfair, because the NHL rule is an exhaustive explanation, while the FIFA rule is a fairly basic description. What does it mean to "be involved in the active play by gaining an advantage by being in that position"? That is an obviously unsatisfactory (and presumably rather subjective) explanation. I'm sure there are more guidelines somewhere for exactly what that means, but those should be counted against the simplicity of the rule. Conversely, the NHL rule is very long and detailed, but it is still fairly simple. It is only long and detailed because it it exhaustive. It explains exactly what parts of the players' bodies are relevant to the determination of offside, for example (both skates need to be completely over the leading edge of the blue line). The FIFA rule, on the other hand, provides no such explanation for what it means for two players to be level or not level - one could plausibly come to multiple different conclusions on the issue without further explanation. So I'm pretty sure the issue is really just one of detail - Wikipedia, for example, explains offside in hockey in fewer words than offside in soccer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Offsides wouldn't be too hard to automate or be called by a TV ref - you just have a fixed camera set up behind each goal and a virtual game line tracking up and down the pitch following the last man. I'm all for teams getting 1 video challenge too - the way it works in field hockey is a team can ask to review anything that happens within 25 yards of goal. I'd also play stop clock rather than injury time to cut down on the amount of lovely time wasting you get in games but thats another story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 11:43
|
|
