Pajiba

Excellent post. I never thought I would ever be interested in a soccer game, and I've sat through almost every one on the weekends. And the US/Algeria game when I was sick. God help me, the games are fun. And soccer fever seems to be catching a little here in the US, it would be nice if the enthusiasm stuck.

A heads up, Uruguay would be up against either the Netherlands or Brazil* if they beat Ghana.

Also, god bless soccer butts.

My error Draya. I read the brackets upside down. Thanks for the correction.

I hate this Brazil team. Hate, hate hate. Why? Because half of them are whiny fuck-ups who can't play for their club teams despite getting massive paychecks.

It's like if you took a basketball team with Rasheed Wallace, Stephon Marbury, Ron Artest, Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter and they won every game in the Olympics by 20.

But you know what, I'll still root for em over Germany. LET'S KICK THE KAISER!!

(alright Brazil's not that bad, but you get the point)

penelope

FIFA refuses to uses replay evidence for a littany of reasons, all of which are bullshit. Now, there are some legitimate concerns, such as video replay for fouls would be like reviewing penalties in the NFL or NBA -- not gonna happen.

FIFA prez Sepp Blatter has thrown out a few reasons.

--Not being able to use video replay in all leagues
--Fans don't really want to pause for the ref to go to a video monitor
--He actually likes the element of human error

There really isn't a good reason. Right now the FIFA heirarchy are quietly fans of these controversies; it stirs up interest and actually brings people in more than it pushes them out. Also the old hands in the sport don't want to break away from the flow of the game.

It's ridiculous right now. FIFA recently declared that at the World Cup, stadiums are not allowed to show instant replays of the game on the scoreboards/jumbotrons.

Even Orwell couldn't write that shit up.

http://dday02.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/blattering-idiot/

That helps to clear things up for me. Thanks, D-Day. And now I'm oddly depressed.

Ah we were rubbish! The Germans totally deserved to win, they ran circles round us. Poor David James was the only decent one, at times he looked like the only one playing. Yes that non-goal was disgraceful, and you never know how it would have gone blah blah, but I really don't think we could have won with how we were playing. Or even come close. We didn't play well for the whole tournament really.

I actually do not give a shit about football, but have been brainwashed by my loved one, who is suffering greatly today.

Yeah but FIFA is international, so doesn't that make it a broader conspiracy?

I mean c'mon, I'm not going to call it Dan Brown-esque. I'd rather just skip the verbosity and call it shitty-dumb.

I think another way around the goal problem is to put another set of refs at/around/ on the goal.

And as far the as the England goal controversy, I think there is validity to the argument that England might have played differently if the goal had counted. However, my heart always knew Deutschland would win. Auf geht's Deutschland Schiess ein Tor! Schiess ein Tooor! Scheiess ein TooOOoor!

Feh, poor Chile. I hate Brazil. I can only hope that we get a Germany-Brazil match up at some point and the Germans turn into the asskicking Terminators they were at that last game. Holy shit those guys are MACHINES.

I also quite like Argentina, even though I cannot stand Diego Maradona. I specially love them for beating the shit out of Mexico. Oooh the sweet, sweet schadenfreude.

I'd really love to see Uruguay go far, though I think they've had too much of an easy time lately, or at least compared to other teams (like Spain or Brazil).

However it falls, I think it's gonna be an insanely cool quarter-finals and I can't wait.

And something HAS to be done about the refereeing errors. That discounted England goal, for example? complete and total bullshit. Never seen such an egregiously wrong call in my life. And after the clusterfuck that ensued, the ref could have EASILY looked at a damn monitor and counted it.

MrFig said last night that they should do like in...uh...some sport, where each team gets only THREE chances to contest a call during a game. It'd eliminate the fear of wasting too much time (since they fight for hours ANYWAY when someone feels a call is unfair), it'd eliminate fights, and teams would have to be careful of contesting a call. It'd only take a few seconds at most. Something needs to change, though. There's no reason to keep ancient rules if you have modern technology that would allow you to make a game more fair.

Right now the FIFA heirarchy are quietly fans of these controversies; it stirs up interest and actually brings people in more than it pushes them out.

If that's true, screw FIFA. I gave soccer another chance this time and was disgusted by the arbitrary allowances that the rules grant. I acknowledge that applying instant replay to fouls and offside calls is too much, but goal decisions (just as home run calls in Major League Baseball are now subject to replay) that would have tied England with Germany or - going way back - would have disallowed Maradona's "Hand Of God" farce are far from unreasonable in the modern age. I refuse to believe that instant replay would slow the game down much more than the melodramatics of the plethora of fake injuries we see time and time again.

It's not just the replay issue, though. Sorry, but I think it's an absolute joke that this sport allows refs to make calls without even saying specifying the nature of the infraction. Where's the accountability in that? I don't mind if a ref blows a call, but if a ref is not required to tell you why he made the call that he did (e.g., in baseball Denkinger and Joyce both genuinely thought the players were safe), then we might as well start flipping coins to decide contests instead of letting the athletes compete.

So I might be outnumbered (although I'm skeptical of that), but count me as someone who was pushed out. If soccer is truly the great game that the world believes it is, then the quickest way to gain my fandom is to actually respect its own rules.

PD - switch to Univision. They are broadcasting all the games, and they show the abs. I don't speak Spanish AT ALL, but I've been watching all the ESPN-broadcast games on Univision because I am without cable. I actually switched back to Univision from ABC because the announcing was so insipid I couldn't stand it. They may be blathering just as nonsensically on Univision, but (a) I can't understand it and (b) there is just so much more emotion in their voices, it actually adds something to the game. Plus, if I have to leave the room to make a sandwich, I can still hear GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL - AAAAlemania!!! GOL! GOL! GOL! GOL! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! and keep up with the score. And, as I mentioned, abs. Shirt exchange. Sweaty, happy men hugging and rolling around together in joy....

Univision. I'm just sayin'.

I fall into the "no replays" category. I do think there should absolutely be goal line technology like they have in hockey. It's absurd that they don't. As for handballs and the like...I just don't know. I actually kind of get the whole human element preference, but it absolutely must be balanced out by referee accountability. I don't remember people making this big of a fuss about it before...I think this World Cup is fairly unusual for the number of egregious calls on goals.

Is this becoming a thing because Americans are showing interest and they forgot how to watch sports without constantly stopping game play to get a review?

I agree with Brenton, but the way to get past all of this is experimentation.

In the Europa League (if you know what the Champions League is, think it's little less-talented brother) they used a referee behind the goal, and wound up without any major incidents (I can recall).

The way you solve all the questions you posed is by sitting down and having real talks, which is something FIFA has not done up to this point. By not even entertaining discussion on replay, they do nothing to resolve the questions being asked.

Personally, I'd say you can only judge the infraction on the player who scored the goal. But if you have a registered official up in the booth, combined with the numerous camera angles prevalent at international competitions, give him a time limit. 2 minutes? 1.5 minutes? And if he can't make in that timeframe, the goal is allowed/disallowed as it was called on the field. But who knows? There's a ton of permutations on the replay concept, yet at this point we're all getting nothing more than middle finger from an out-of-touch, possibly outgoing FIFA President.

In between now and the next World Cup, you have all kinds of competitions to experiment with. Every continent will have a major championship, U-20s and U-21s and even the Olympics will be held. Try something. Even try international friendlies! Anything!

Obviously the issue is a complex one, and unfortunately in the space of a Pajiba comment we can't address everything. But FIFA can; that's why governing bodies exist; to do things like debate, and convene committees, and vote!

Not doing anything is the wrong course. And that should be the key here.

Arguing that replay won't work because there is too much involved in scrutinizing every single possible infraction or going back three or four passes prior to a goal does not make any sense. Start with a simple rule that would review only the goal line itself and perhaps the actions of the shooter immediately prior to the shot. The vast majority of the most controversial calls in soccer fall into this category. This slippery slope alarmist argument is not necessary and is just an excuse. As I said, MLB only reviews home run calls, and that works just fine. The limited number of replay challenges in the NFL is also a good system to consider emulating.

This slippery slope alarmist argument is not necessary and is just an excuse.
Posted by: DarthCorleone

No, good sir, it is not. I really hope something functional can be incorporated smoothly into the game, but I can't quite make it work in my head. The sports that make it work have regular stoppages all the time, whereas football has none.

According to your criteria, the Henry handball for France wouldn't be reviewable, as his action wasn't part of "only the goal line itself and perhaps the actions of the shooter immediately prior to the shot." So would you want to review that call or not? If yes, you are now on the slippery slope. If not, fair enough, but go tell that to thousands of whining Irish fans.

Unfortunately, I think that a lot of the reason that FIFA won't go modern, and that there have been so many bad calls is simple. There's a huge amount of money to be made betting on these games, and it would be very easy to bribe a ref to help get a preferred outcome.

once again, scooped by 2 minutes. must be my current karmic burden. Anyway, , is correct.

Brenton >> I didn't see the Henry handball, as I barely watch this sport. I've only watched it enough to realize that something needs to be done if they want to earn my loyal interest. Maybe this call you're talking about was a difference-maker, and by my stated criteria it wouldn't be covered, but at least my stated criteria would cover something. As I said, the England goal would have been good, and half of Maradona's goal-scoring fame (the more ignominious half) would never have happened. I'm not seeking to prevent all referee mistakes; they'll still exist. Some of the most visible and critical mistakes, however, could be corrected. I don't think that's a bad place to start.

And as someone else says: football does have stoppages. Hence, the "stoppage time" that occurs at the end of each half. A little extra stoppage time to get a call correct seems like a very minor concession. But maybe that's just me.

As for fixed games, if the reason they won't institute replay and referee accountability is that the whole thing is bent, then I'm completely mystified as to why so many people could get so invested in a sport that corrupt. They might as well go watch professional wrestling instead.

I'm not seeking to prevent all referee mistakes; they'll still exist. Some of the most visible and critical mistakes, however, could be corrected. I don't think that's a bad place to start.

I fully agree, it's a good place to start. Any solution would likely be arbitrary; I just can't figure how to differentiate between reviewable and non-reviewable when I think it through.

You should go watch the Henry handball, read a few stories about it, and then try to work out where to draw the line. That slope starts to get slippery.

Henry handball firestorm

Decent discussion at Salon.com

And as someone else says: football does have stoppages. Hence, the "stoppage time" that occurs at the end of each half.

Yah, usually between one and three minutes. Each replay could last that long. I'm not saying that's a reason not to use it, but it's an obstacle that can't be dismissed out of hand by saying they already have stoppage time, what's a few extra seconds/minutes.

I think people (and they tend to be casual fans) underestimate the value of the flow of the game. Yes, fouls are called and play technically stops, but it doesn't really stop, and it doesn't happen nearly as often as some people think.

Brenton, you missed the part where I suggested that having a cap on how many calls can be contested would be a good way to keep the complaining to a minimum. They ALREADY spend hours fighting about calls. 5 seconds looking at a screen (set a cap on how long they have to decide, too!) would get rid of that but quick, I think. I'm not saying it wouldn't change the pace of the game, but I'd rather have a moment's pause than a 5 minute clusterfuck where everyone is yelling at the referee and getting red cards for being rude or whatever the hell.

And Paddy, watching Univision is really the key. Just hearing the way the different announcers yell out "GOOOL!" is hilarious. It's better if you understand Spanish, because then you get to hear the truly nonsensical stories they tell while they're bored, like today during the Netherlands game they started talking about the delicious hotdogs they were selling at the stadium. PLUS they have Jose Luis Chilavert in their team--he was the Paraguay goalkeeper for many, many years and is considered one of the best ever. He gives really great tips and very good analysis of plays and is just an expert all around.

Yes, the whole thing is about national identity - and the French and Italians are apparently deciding not only that immigrants aren't "really" a part of their national identity, but that, in fact, immigrant players are inferior to *real* Frenchmen and *real* Italians, which is why their teams exited so early. And that is racist, fascist bullshit, whether it's Tuscans talking about "real" Italians or Alaskans talking about "real" Americans.

That said, I kind of love seeing the English play under the English flag, instead of the Union Jack. Surreal.

[sic]

In some championships in Brazil there are (in a testing capacity, I think) two extra referees behind the goals for when the doubt is if the ball crossed the line of not, and that was a solution FIFA refused in a board meeting this year.

Not sure if it was refused by FIFA specifically in regards to this WC, but the testing of the 5 man crew in the Europa League (mentioned upthread) is being done under the auspices of FIFA and there is every indication that the 5 man crew *will* be in place for Brazil 2014, as FIFA just recently gave the go ahead to expand the use of the 5 man crew into further international competitions.

Edith >> To my knowledge that's fairly common. The penalty kick shootout is much more a test of the kickers than the goalies. Statistically speaking, the goalies have almost no physical chance to stop a well-placed kick. It's not unusual to see the goalie move to block before the kicker even strikes the ball. As such, for the goalie it borders on a guessing game. For the kickers, it is an immense stage on which they try not to choke.

This is such a deep blog! What can I say, youve hit the nail right on the head! You even added some videos to make it seem so much more real. Youve got a great way of communicating with the reader, a great way of making me feel like what you have to say is just as important to me as it is to you. Keep it up!

If you've had a baby recently you've seen brochures in the doctor's sitting room. It's not cheap to keep blood for years; semiprivate cord blood banks typically charge a $1,500 - $2,000 collection fee and an annual $100 - $200 fee. Some cord blood banks allow prospective parents to open a "registry" so friends and family who would prefer not to buy clothes and clothes can share in the banking costs.

nice post :),i really saw this today ,Wedding dresses