Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The International FA Board (IFAB) will approve soccer goal-line technology today. Sepp Blatter's wife is reported to have added, "It doesn't surprise me, I've been asking him for years whether it was in or not"   (uk.eurosport.yahoo.com) divider line 34
    More: Obvious, Sepp Blatter, goal-line technology, Michel Platini, Frank Lampard, International Football Association Board, Chelsea F.C. managers, soccer, 2010 World Cup  
•       •       •

577 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Jul 2012 at 11:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-05 10:31:24 AM  
Sepp Blatter can rot in hell for how he sold out the sport in 2018 and 2022.

// stadium air conditioners, they has them.
 
2012-07-05 12:28:51 PM  
The International FA Board (IFAB) will approve soccer goal-line technology today. Sepp Blatter's wife is reported to have added, "It doesn't surprise me, I've been asking him for years whether it was in or not"

static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-07-05 12:41:57 PM  
TFA: The IFAB, who are meeting in Zurich, will also insist that the technology is used only as an aid to referees to make a decision, rather than being the deciding factor in whether the ball has crossed the line. It means referees can still decide not to award a goal based on what they see even if the systems are indicating the ball has crossed the line.

Well, WTF is the point then?
 
2012-07-05 12:52:40 PM  

rugman11: TFA: The IFAB, who are meeting in Zurich, will also insist that the technology is used only as an aid to referees to make a decision, rather than being the deciding factor in whether the ball has crossed the line. It means referees can still decide not to award a goal based on what they see even if the systems are indicating the ball has crossed the line.

Well, WTF is the point then?


Seriously.

Enough already, just add the red light from ice hockey. Light goes on, play stops. If there's any doubt, take a look. Award a goal kick if it turns out to be a false alarm.

Done.
 
2012-07-05 01:01:46 PM  

rugman11: TFA: The IFAB, who are meeting in Zurich, will also insist that the technology is used only as an aid to referees to make a decision, rather than being the deciding factor in whether the ball has crossed the line. It means referees can still decide not to award a goal based on what they see even if the systems are indicating the ball has crossed the line.

Well, WTF is the point then?


Eventually, the refs, given enough time, realize they don't want to be "that guy they always show in bad ref montages" if they incorrectly overrule the goal line system. When you add new tech, eventually the refs get used to it and depend on it. NFL replays didn't work all that well initially, but they've gotten a lot better (in terms of getting calls right.)
 
2012-07-05 01:04:21 PM  

Generation_D: Sepp Blatter can rot in hell for how he sold out the sport in 2018 and 2022.

// stadium air conditioners, they has them.


Yaaa, about that...
 
2012-07-05 01:09:42 PM  
Sepp Blatter's Star Wars name is "Sepp Blatter"
 
2012-07-05 01:11:47 PM  

Eunuch Provocateur: Generation_D: Sepp Blatter can rot in hell for how he sold out the sport in 2018 and 2022.

// stadium air conditioners, they has them.

Yaaa, about that...


Let's try that again...
 
2012-07-05 01:26:31 PM  
I'd like to know if we can go back to 2002 and award the US a goal vs. germany in the quarterfinals then...

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-07-05 02:09:47 PM  
After I saw the US score a goal in the last WC which was disallowed for literally no reason, the tiny shred of interest in soccer that I was willing to give a chance thankfully died.
 
2012-07-05 02:16:17 PM  
I don't want to live in a world where Sepp Blatter gets laid.
 
2012-07-05 02:20:17 PM  
I am positive the guys who run the BCS in college football worship at the alter of Sepp as to how to run a corrupt organization.
 
2012-07-05 02:22:47 PM  
If they end up having that World Cup in the desert, it is going to be a huge failure.

Ham Sandvich: rugman11: TFA: The IFAB, who are meeting in Zurich, will also insist that the technology is used only as an aid to referees to make a decision, rather than being the deciding factor in whether the ball has crossed the line. It means referees can still decide not to award a goal based on what they see even if the systems are indicating the ball has crossed the line.

Well, WTF is the point then?

Seriously.

Enough already, just add the red light from ice hockey. Light goes on, play stops. If there's any doubt, take a look. Award a goal kick if it turns out to be a false alarm.

Done.


This. I am beyond tired of seeing those extra referees stare at what should be a goal and saying nothing. Take the decision away from the refs.
 
2012-07-05 02:28:09 PM  

Eunuch Provocateur: Eunuch Provocateur: Generation_D: Sepp Blatter can rot in hell for how he sold out the sport in 2018 and 2022.

// stadium air conditioners, they has them.

Yaaa, about that...

Let's try that again...


I've been wandering around Interlaken all day looking for a Carl's Jr., so it all worked out OK.
 
2012-07-05 02:30:06 PM  

El Brujo: After I saw the US score a goal in the last WC which was disallowed for literally no reason, the tiny shred of interest in soccer that I was willing to give a chance thankfully died.


You should have watched the very next match. It was awesome.
 
2012-07-05 02:35:42 PM  
About damn time. I admit, I was on board with the "goal line official" idea, but after seeing the guy miss Ukraine's goal v England, I had doubts about the ability of a person whose sole job it is to watch out for a sphere to cross a line for 90+ minutes. I guess it was a step in the right direction, but it's painfully obvious now that particular system won't suffice. How hard would it be to plant one of those two guys on the sideline to review video? You could have cameras inside the goal post and on the crossbar, and rather than making a big deal of it the way the NFL does, be ready to review at any point in time, and call down to the head official in the event that a particular call (or non-call) needs to be overturned, like in NCAA football.

Of course, the even-more-tech-y way to do it would be to simply install sensors, rather than relying on one or two officials to quickly watch replays while play continues on-field.
 
2012-07-05 02:36:53 PM  

lacrossestar83: El Brujo: After I saw the US score a goal in the last WC which was disallowed for literally no reason, the tiny shred of interest in soccer that I was willing to give a chance thankfully died.

You should have watched the very next match. It was awesome.


I think I inadvertently did, as I was working in an English pub at the time (place is a farking zoo during WCs)

Did anyone ever get around to explaining the disallowed goal, or it is still "just because"?
 
2012-07-05 02:39:32 PM  

TheKnownUniverse: I don't want to live in a world where Sepp Blatter gets laid.


Whores aren't that picky as long as one has the cash, you know.
 
2012-07-05 03:10:19 PM  

El Brujo: lacrossestar83: El Brujo: After I saw the US score a goal in the last WC which was disallowed for literally no reason, the tiny shred of interest in soccer that I was willing to give a chance thankfully died.

You should have watched the very next match. It was awesome.

I think I inadvertently did, as I was working in an English pub at the time (place is a farking zoo during WCs)

Did anyone ever get around to explaining the disallowed goal, or it is still "just because"?


A foul was called against the one US player who wasn't getting a Slovenian bear hug.
 
2012-07-05 03:16:09 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: El Brujo: lacrossestar83: El Brujo: After I saw the US score a goal in the last WC which was disallowed for literally no reason, the tiny shred of interest in soccer that I was willing to give a chance thankfully died.

You should have watched the very next match. It was awesome.

I think I inadvertently did, as I was working in an English pub at the time (place is a farking zoo during WCs)

Did anyone ever get around to explaining the disallowed goal, or it is still "just because"?

A foul was called against the one US player who wasn't getting a Slovenian bear hug.


right...and he wasn't in contact with any other player, correct?
 
2012-07-05 03:16:14 PM  

El Brujo: lacrossestar83: El Brujo: After I saw the US score a goal in the last WC which was disallowed for literally no reason, the tiny shred of interest in soccer that I was willing to give a chance thankfully died.

You should have watched the very next match. It was awesome.

I think I inadvertently did, as I was working in an English pub at the time (place is a farking zoo during WCs)

Did anyone ever get around to explaining the disallowed goal, or it is still "just because"?



Wait, do you mean the set piece goal where the ref blew his whistle just after impact because he saw too much pushing and puling in the box, and the ball just happened to go in afterwards?

How is that different from a ref in, say, basketball, blowing his whistle for a 3-second violation (do they even still call that?) just before a 3-pointer? It sucks for the attacking team, but the whistle was blown. In the case of the goal, the ref couldn't possibly know a goal was to be scored there (especially the way the US was playing, so it's not like he was trying to job them. Hell, he probably wanted the defenders to let go of the Americans' shirts. Unless we're talking about a different goal I'm forgetting about...

/Where's Koman when we need him?
 
2012-07-05 03:28:11 PM  

Loomy: El Brujo: lacrossestar83: El Brujo: After I saw the US score a goal in the last WC which was disallowed for literally no reason, the tiny shred of interest in soccer that I was willing to give a chance thankfully died.

You should have watched the very next match. It was awesome.

I think I inadvertently did, as I was working in an English pub at the time (place is a farking zoo during WCs)

Did anyone ever get around to explaining the disallowed goal, or it is still "just because"?


Wait, do you mean the set piece goal where the ref blew his whistle just after impact because he saw too much pushing and puling in the box, and the ball just happened to go in afterwards?

How is that different from a ref in, say, basketball, blowing his whistle for a 3-second violation (do they even still call that?) just before a 3-pointer? It sucks for the attacking team, but the whistle was blown. In the case of the goal, the ref couldn't possibly know a goal was to be scored there (especially the way the US was playing, so it's not like he was trying to job them. Hell, he probably wanted the defenders to let go of the Americans' shirts. Unless we're talking about a different goal I'm forgetting about...

/Where's Koman when we need him?


I don't recall the whistle being blown prior to the goal. If that was the case, then it is the same as with other sports (I saw this happen in hockey recently).
 
2012-07-05 03:34:27 PM  
I forgot my caveat to the first sentence: *whether there was, in fact, too much pushing or pulling is open to debate.

I just watched this video, which is a nice match recap (Donovan's goal was a thing of beauty; one of the best of the tournament). I'm assuming the correct course of action for the ref is to award a re-kick every time he feels the defenders were too aggressive (and eventually cards and PKs if it gets ridiculous). I can't recall if that happened. I'm assuming, given the outrage (even now, 2 years later), that it was ruled as a foul against the US, thereby negating a good scoring chance (very good, as it happened).

But didn't the US win their group, rendering all of this moot?
 
2012-07-05 03:39:12 PM  

rugman11: TFA: The IFAB, who are meeting in Zurich, will also insist that the technology is used only as an aid to referees to make a decision, rather than being the deciding factor in whether the ball has crossed the line. It means referees can still decide not to award a goal based on what they see even if the systems are indicating the ball has crossed the line.

Well, WTF is the point then?


It means all the technology will do is indicate that the ball has crossed the line; it will not be a "goal is automatically scored" scenario. If the officials deem the play to be illegal, i.e. offside or somesuch, then the goal is disallowed. I admit that it seems redundant, but considering soccer fans get riled when a goal is denied now because a player was so glaringly in an offside position that even his mother would raise the flag, spelling out the conditionality is, sadly, necessary.
 
2012-07-05 03:41:23 PM  

El Brujo: I don't recall the whistle being blown prior to the goal. If that was the case, then it is the same as with other sports (I saw this happen in hockey recently).


The whole thing goes down at 3:10-3:30 in that video, and the whistle did blow between free kick impact and Edu's volley, albeit much later in the ball's flight than I remembered. Upon watching it a second time (to get the time), Coulibaly did in fact indicate "Slovenia ball" after the whistle, meaning he witnessed a US foul (which is BS, since there were at least as many Slovenian hangers-on). So, yeah, major screw-up in a major tournament, but at least it was on a judgement call. Had he disallowed it without having blown for the foul..... riots.

/Hey, at least they didn't have to suffer the indignity of being massacred by the Germans...
 
2012-07-05 03:56:22 PM  

phalamir: rugman11: TFA: The IFAB, who are meeting in Zurich, will also insist that the technology is used only as an aid to referees to make a decision, rather than being the deciding factor in whether the ball has crossed the line. It means referees can still decide not to award a goal based on what they see even if the systems are indicating the ball has crossed the line.

Well, WTF is the point then?

It means all the technology will do is indicate that the ball has crossed the line; it will not be a "goal is automatically scored" scenario. If the officials deem the play to be illegal, i.e. offside or somesuch, then the goal is disallowed. I admit that it seems redundant, but considering soccer fans get riled when a goal is denied now because a player was so glaringly in an offside position that even his mother would raise the flag, spelling out the conditionality is, sadly, necessary.


If that's the case, then that makes sense. My interpretation was that, barring any fouls or offside, the ref would still be able to overrule whatever technology they use, just because. This makes a lot more sense, though.
 
2012-07-05 04:53:57 PM  

rugman11: phalamir: rugman11: TFA: The IFAB, who are meeting in Zurich, will also insist that the technology is used only as an aid to referees to make a decision, rather than being the deciding factor in whether the ball has crossed the line. It means referees can still decide not to award a goal based on what they see even if the systems are indicating the ball has crossed the line.

Well, WTF is the point then?

It means all the technology will do is indicate that the ball has crossed the line; it will not be a "goal is automatically scored" scenario. If the officials deem the play to be illegal, i.e. offside or somesuch, then the goal is disallowed. I admit that it seems redundant, but considering soccer fans get riled when a goal is denied now because a player was so glaringly in an offside position that even his mother would raise the flag, spelling out the conditionality is, sadly, necessary.

If that's the case, then that makes sense. My interpretation was that, barring any fouls or offside, the ref would still be able to overrule whatever technology they use, just because. This makes a lot more sense, though.


You just know there is going to be a time when the lights go off for a US goal and the ref will state that it went off by mistake and he saw something different. It's coming up in a crucial group stage WC match probably two WCs from now and they will lose out on the 2nd spot.
 
2012-07-05 05:20:23 PM  
Subby you for got to ad a rimshot. so hereis one for you.

Link
 
2012-07-05 05:58:17 PM  

Xlr8urfark: This. I am beyond tired of seeing those extra referees stare at what should be a goal and saying nothing. Take the decision away from the refs.


B-b-b-but the human element! Mistakes are part of the game.

/Never mind. I'll go back to my a thread now.
 
2012-07-05 06:12:18 PM  

madden101: seeing the guy miss Ukraine's goal v England,


It wasn't a goal anyways. The player was 2 yards offside when the ball was played to him.

Yes, the ball crossed the line but play should have been stopped 5 seconds sooner.

Loomy: I'm assuming the correct course of action for the ref is to award a re-kick every time he feels the defenders were too aggressive (and eventually cards and PKs if it gets ridiculous)


It all depends on whether the ball is in play.

If the ball is in play (it has been kicked and moved by the attacking team) then any malfeasance by the defenders can be punishable by a free kick (or PK) depending on the location of the foul

If the ball is not in play and the referee sees the defenders all over the attackers, he can issue a yellow card for unsporting behaviour or delay of the restart but NOT a PK as the ball is not yet in play. If play is stopped, it starts with the original restart, regardless of any shennanigans going on by either team.

/Ref
 
2012-07-05 06:22:50 PM  

skrame: /Never mind. I'll go back to my a thread now.


Meant to say ...back to a baseball thread now... Leaving feeling stupid.
 
2012-07-06 01:44:20 AM  

o5iiawah: It wasn't a goal anyways. The player was 2 yards offside when the ball was played to him.

Yes, the ball crossed the line but play should have been stopped 5 seconds sooner.


I'd forgotten that. But, assuming they wouldn't (immediately) expand instant replay to retroactively call the player offside, any sort of electronic system would have awarded a goal. Though, I guess while two wrongs don't make a right, it worked out pretty well for UEFA this time.
 
2012-07-06 07:21:23 AM  

madden101: I'd forgotten that. But, assuming they wouldn't (immediately) expand instant replay to retroactively call the player offside,


That would be hard for a machine to call since a player can be in an offside position and not be guilty of a foul. The AR should only put his flag up when the player has become active in play by either touching the ball, interfering with an opponent or blocking the keeper's view. Many times a player knowing he is in an OSP will let a through ball pass him by without flinching so a teammate can run onto it.

I think a silent buzzer to the officiating crew would be a good start.
 
2012-07-06 07:55:18 AM  

o5iiawah: That would be hard for a machine to call since a player can be in an offside position and not be guilty of a foul.


I didn't mean any sort of electronic means of judging that. Just, if someone is reviewing the Ukraine non-goal, they see a player was offside a pass or two before-hand, would they actually overturn the play because of the offside? I have a feeling FIFA wouldn't want it to go that far--at least not yet--considering how long it's taken to get some concession on goal line referees.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report