Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: The Irish have been cheated (and I'm not even Irish!)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,881
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 266 Times in 258 Posts
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default The Irish have been cheated (and I'm not even Irish!)

    As I said: CHEATED.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE PA USA
    Posts
    30,495
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 3,449 Times in 3,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    I, boat day still 'ave whiskey toe, eh?

    (I can say that because I'm part Irish)
    Last edited by jscheuer1; 11-21-2009 at 07:23 AM. Reason: spelling ;)
    - John
    ________________________

    Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 319 Times in 318 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Henry has always been my absolute favorite player, but if Ireland doesn't receive a rematch, I will lose all me respect for FIFA and never watch a game again.. Maybe they now realize the necessity of technology. Had they have had the two extra linesmen like they did the the Europa league, this would not have happened. Seriously, get the extra linesmen and hawk-eye.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bristol - UK
    Posts
    842
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 132 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    It seems pretty stupid if they don't get a rematch, since Henry himself even admits handling the ball and it's just so obvious on the video...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,881
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 266 Times in 258 Posts
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmoopy View Post
    Henry himself even admits handling the ball
    That's what makes him very sympathetic.
    ===
    Arie.
    ===

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    That's a huge error on the part of many people involved (players, coaches, etc., at the time), and especially the refs.
    However, I must say that isn't that part of the game? If the refs don't see it, it is within the rules. It's stupid, but in this case it's kinda just how it goes-- at the time they didn't figure it out.
    But this should convince them to use cameras and instant replays to check, so that it never happens again. That can't really retroactively be applied within the boundaries of the original rules, though.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE PA USA
    Posts
    30,495
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 3,449 Times in 3,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Instant replay in sports is an odd convention. There was a time (for the vast majority of human existence) when this was a technological impossibility. The question then becomes, "Just because we can do instant replay now, should we, and how, and when?"

    What happens in a sporting event is spontaneous. This includes the crowd/fans (present and via TV, radio, etc.) view, and all of the players, commentators, refs, etc.

    In most, if not all sports with refs, umpires, whatever (mediators), whenever a questionable call or even just a given situation arises, the mediator(s) have always had final say (if even only by virtue of saying nothing). Now we also have instant replay as a possibility. When, if at all, should it be invoked? Who mediates it and/or its invocation? After all, even the replay is subject to interpretation.

    It's my opinion that we can never always 'get it right', no matter what system is put in place. So where do we draw the line? Are fans, players, etc. such babies that they can't live with what happens (including questionable calls and calls that are never made because they were missed, which are all just a part of the action anyway)? Do they have to constantly or frequently replay in their minds (with or without the aid of instant replay video) the already transpired action of the game until they get the outcome they desire?

    If that is the case, someone will always be disappointed. No different than with or without instant replay.

    Add to this the fact that in most, again if not all sports using refs of one kind or another, if the refs feel they have gotten it wrong, but it is too late to do anything about it immediately, they will almost invariably try to correct this with another call later. This is influenced of course by protests (correct or otherwise by coaches, or any allowed to protest, or any who do so even when not allowed). None of this is perfect, but that's no different than if replay is used.
    - John
    ________________________

    Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,023
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 319 Times in 318 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Look at tennis, if you think a call is wrong you have a chance to challenge it and get hawk-eye's help. If your challenge is wrong, you lose it, and you have a limited number of challenges which prevents players from challenging every decision that isn't in their favor.

    This could easily be implemented in football, if the players think something is wrong (and usually they have a better chance in spotting mistakes since they have 11 viewing angles, on the field at least), they could talk to the team captain, who is the only one would be able to submit a challenge.

    All FIFA and UEFA games are (I'm pretty sure) televised which means the fourth referee or even an eventual fifth one with a screen in front of them, could take a much better look and improve the decision. This does of course not mean that all decisions will be correct but such huge flaws as the one discussed above can be avoided.

    Other, additional solutions are, like I mentioned before, two extra linesmen. This was tested in the Europa League and we've haven't heard much from it again. This solution covers the two areas on the field with the worst visibility from the three current officials, coincidentally (perhaps not so much due to the bad visibility) the are where the handball occurred.

    Like I said, Henry is much all time favorite player and I am happy that France got through, but I would have certainly preferred it without such scandals and controversies. I believe this is the absolute last required proof that there is a great need of reform in football (and probably other sports).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    Yes, this is a great example for using new technologies to improve the regulations.
    But those can't realistically be implemented retroactively, so even more reason to fix it now-- before it happens again and again they can't do anything about it.

    On the other hand, sports are about the natural elements that occur. Technology is a bad part in many ways (better shoes = faster runners, delays for tv commercials, steroids), and it detracts from the main point. If referees could be replaced by computers (not that impossible, at least within a few years), should they be? Or, rather, if a computer/camera is backing up the referees, are they actually DOING anything, or just wearing a silly outfit and talking for the computer. At that point a computer might as well just calculate who will win by stats and go from there.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE PA USA
    Posts
    30,495
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 3,449 Times in 3,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    That's what I was saying. It can be such a slippery slope. What's next then? Once we replace all the refs with machines, how about the players?

    The only sport I really follow, and not all that well, though better than the casual observer, is baseball. They've instituted replay for certain calls, but I believe the umpires (refs in that sport) must first agree that it is warranted, and only at a manger's (head coach) request, and only for certain types of calls. I really don't feel it has done anything to improve the game. Sure, some calls that should have gone one way and didn't at first are corrected, but others are not. I feel that if the umpires miss a call, it just means that the play was too close for the human eye and probably shouln't have counted anyway. It (not having replay) presents a challenge to the players to be good sports about things while still letting their views be known. If they have a valid point, 9 times in 10 the umpires will rectify the situation with a later call. If the players can't keep their heads, perhaps they don't (in the spirit of the game) deserve further consideration from the umpires. Also, expert gamesmanship and/or reputation can influence a call in one's favor. These are all just elements of the sport. Replay doesn't really change any of that in any material way. So I say, "Why bother?"
    - John
    ________________________

    Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •