You could do more, FIFA
4/6/16 00:04![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe top 10 of football's 95 new rules of the game
"Soccer's world governing body has introduced the biggest package of rule changes in its history. In many cases they may seem like minor details, but in others, they are actually meant to simplify things."
Sounds good - for starters. We'll see if these changes would bring benefit to the game. Some do look quite radical. Like the 4th sub in extra-time.
However, there's one thing still missing.
Introducing the so called TMO (television match official) wouldn't be such a bad idea, IMO. Those are a couple of guys with the rank of assistant-referees sitting in the computerized TV tower, and upon request from the chief ref, reviewing controversial situations from various TV angles and advising the ref through the headphones. In football, those situations could include suspicions of an illegally scored goal through an offside, or uncertainty about a committed offense inside the penalty box, or diving for penalty (those happen a lot in football, you know - and is punishable), or suspicions of foul play behind the ref's back, or if the ref is hesitating if a bookable offense warrants a red or a yellow card. The list could go on. Point is, those are situations and decisions that have a lot of subjectivity in them on part of the referees, and the problem is, they haven't been able to review those situations carefully. It just all happens so quickly, and they have to make a decision that cannot be reversed. I'm arguing that shouldn't necessarily be the case. After all, the TMO has worked just fine in rugby and other sports for years:
This would cleanse the game of its current vices a great deal. But then again, FIFA, Faffa and Fuffa and all the rest would be deprived of their ability to rig matches with the help of corrupt referees - at least to the extent that they do it these days. And they wouldn't want to do that, would they? So why not make some cosmetic changes regarding that part of the game, while introducing some other fancy changes like "tossing the ball with both hands equally during a throw-in" (which has always been the case anyway), or a 4th substitution in case of extra-time. Duh.
It's kind of odd to me (actually no, it's not - for the reasons stated above) that video replays are now being accepted, but not quite fully. In case of a goal after an offside, those still won't be available. Why? Perhaps they're denying that in order not to interrupt the game too often with endless challenges from the teams ("Stop the play! There was an offside here! And there, too!") On the other hand, refs could easily let the situation play out, see if a goal would be scored, and then roll back the tapes and review the situation for about 20-30 seconds, and make up their mind if the goal would count or not. That'd save them a lot of headaches and explanations later.
If that works fine in rugby (there are 5-6 tries or more on average in a rugby game; and one or two could require TMO intervention due to the large number of bodies usually obstructing the ref's view to the ball), then that should be possible in football, too. A single illegal goal could decide entire games, determine the outcome of entire tournaments and seasons, and spoil everything, overall. I don't think it should be that hard to make this work. In case there's the actual genuine will to change the game to the better, that is. Which I still somehow doubt.
"Soccer's world governing body has introduced the biggest package of rule changes in its history. In many cases they may seem like minor details, but in others, they are actually meant to simplify things."
Sounds good - for starters. We'll see if these changes would bring benefit to the game. Some do look quite radical. Like the 4th sub in extra-time.
However, there's one thing still missing.
Introducing the so called TMO (television match official) wouldn't be such a bad idea, IMO. Those are a couple of guys with the rank of assistant-referees sitting in the computerized TV tower, and upon request from the chief ref, reviewing controversial situations from various TV angles and advising the ref through the headphones. In football, those situations could include suspicions of an illegally scored goal through an offside, or uncertainty about a committed offense inside the penalty box, or diving for penalty (those happen a lot in football, you know - and is punishable), or suspicions of foul play behind the ref's back, or if the ref is hesitating if a bookable offense warrants a red or a yellow card. The list could go on. Point is, those are situations and decisions that have a lot of subjectivity in them on part of the referees, and the problem is, they haven't been able to review those situations carefully. It just all happens so quickly, and they have to make a decision that cannot be reversed. I'm arguing that shouldn't necessarily be the case. After all, the TMO has worked just fine in rugby and other sports for years:
[Error: unknown template video]
This would cleanse the game of its current vices a great deal. But then again, FIFA, Faffa and Fuffa and all the rest would be deprived of their ability to rig matches with the help of corrupt referees - at least to the extent that they do it these days. And they wouldn't want to do that, would they? So why not make some cosmetic changes regarding that part of the game, while introducing some other fancy changes like "tossing the ball with both hands equally during a throw-in" (which has always been the case anyway), or a 4th substitution in case of extra-time. Duh.
It's kind of odd to me (actually no, it's not - for the reasons stated above) that video replays are now being accepted, but not quite fully. In case of a goal after an offside, those still won't be available. Why? Perhaps they're denying that in order not to interrupt the game too often with endless challenges from the teams ("Stop the play! There was an offside here! And there, too!") On the other hand, refs could easily let the situation play out, see if a goal would be scored, and then roll back the tapes and review the situation for about 20-30 seconds, and make up their mind if the goal would count or not. That'd save them a lot of headaches and explanations later.
If that works fine in rugby (there are 5-6 tries or more on average in a rugby game; and one or two could require TMO intervention due to the large number of bodies usually obstructing the ref's view to the ball), then that should be possible in football, too. A single illegal goal could decide entire games, determine the outcome of entire tournaments and seasons, and spoil everything, overall. I don't think it should be that hard to make this work. In case there's the actual genuine will to change the game to the better, that is. Which I still somehow doubt.
Heresy!
Date: 4/6/16 00:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/16 05:34 (UTC)Some are using the argument that the constant challenging of ref decisions would interrupt the game too much. Well, how about having something similar to the eagle's eye rule in tennis. A team can challenge up to 3 controversial decisions in a game. If the challenge turns out true (e.g. the goal was indeed through offside), then the challenge is not considered "spent". Or something like that. There are all sorts of versions that could be worked out really.
There could be 0 such situations in a game. Actually most games pass without a single controversial situation. But there could be just 1 such decision that could decide entire games, titles, cups, etc. And millions of dollars worth of potential revenue for a team. It just doesn't make sense that, given that the technology has been available for years, the ruling bodies of the game are still stubbornly refusing to make use of it. The only possible explanation at this point is corruption. And that ultimately kills their bottom-line (profit) in the long run.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/16 06:44 (UTC)Gee. I love it when you talk dirty!
The way you describe it, I'm beginning to like that game more and more. :-D
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/16 07:24 (UTC)Indeed, football could learn a lot from rugby.