2010 World Cup discussion

[Judai]

Stopping the transition from one end of the field to another, i.e. the difference between a goal kick, a kickoff, and a deep passing ball, is a massive fundamental change.

I should not have to explain such simple statements.

Not giving a clear goal or giving a clear non-goal is a bigger fundamental change.

How about the effort the players exerted the score and not be rewarded? How about the strategy changes that took place to get that goal? How about England being forced to push hard and end up giving several goals to counterattacks because they were down after not being given a clear goal?

[Darlantan]

First off, a huge percentage of goals are scored shortly after another, on both sides. It's an extremely common phenomenon in soccer, the aspects of build ups and let downs are huge.

Way to exaggerate.

Watching replays of important actions from 4-5 different camera views/angles doesnt take longer than 30 seconds, and an expert should be able to figure out what the right call is in a heart beat after watching them.

I think a more accurate scenario would be something like this:

- 5 matches.

- Matches go on with little to no interruptions, due to both teams knowing not only referees are doing their best, but there are some experts watching replays and able to fix any unfair calls. They may believe that a player that scored was offside, but they wont take 3 minutes complaining to the referee because they know its being reviewed.

- 100 replayed important actions.

- 85 were called right. Nothing happens.

- 15 were incorrect calls.

- During the time the incorrect calls were reviewed, 3 important actions were played that now got to be canceled. No goals or any major things happened during the 12 other recalls. 15 x 30 (secs) / 5 (matches) = 90 seconds.

So would have to add around 90 seconds at the end, while probably saving minutes due to no stopping to deal with complains, dives, QQs, fights...

Obviously numbers are made up, but I think they are way closer than your figures, and its not hard to understand tecnology would not only make the sport more fair and enjoyable, but speed it up in quite a few cases.

sigh @ trying to argue soccer's ebb and flow with people that don't understand the game in the least

Sigh indeed.

[Plow]

This Just in, Plow doesn't think laser sensors exist. Or that more than one refereeing staff can be in charge of checking for offsides. IT'S TOO FUNDAMENTAL GUISE WE CAN'T CHANGE IT.

Please, point out to me where I've objected to any changes other than replay, anywhere, ever.

Perhaps it was here, in my first post on the topic:

The real issue with replay is the same as commercials:

It's a 90 minute game.

Do you shorten the game to allow for replays (and therefore commercials)?

Or do you attempt to make a 90 minute game fit into a reasonable time slot while allowing for a system that will occasionally put you having as many breaks as a basic football or basketball game while having time and a half to twice as long actual play time?


Where do you draw the line? Like, literally? Are we looking at a replay every time someone curves in a cross over the endline, or a long ball down the sideline?

How do you handle that, then? If you're not sure, do you let the play go so it doesn't directly stop a goal, and then a minute or 2 later stop and go back? And, then what, replay those 2 minutes so you're actually in a 92 minute game but 2 of them didn't count (not the same as stoppage time, I hope I don't have to explain why).

Even a goal line call can have that kind of situation. Let's say before Donovan's big goal in group play, the ball looked like it may have crossed the line. Howard grabs it, throws it out, U.S. scores 10 seconds later.

What happens if the whistle gets blown and they stop to review, but they were wrong, and they should have allowed play to continue, but we never even know that goal would have happened?


I'm all for some kind of detection system on the goals to make it more accurate, and certainly in favor of post game reviews over the flopping and stuff, but replay would really fuck with soccer.

Golly gee... it's almost like I'm trying to argue with people that haven't even bothered to keep up on the conversation.

Ok... you do realize that in neither of the last two mistakes made, i.e. the Mexican offsides with Tevez or the Lampard disallowed goal, there was absolutely no transition after the situation occurred and the scoreline was directly effected? I know this is going to be difficult for you to accept, but the reason why nobody understands what you are saying is because you aren't making any sense.

nvmnd pt canceled

I'm not referring to these specific instances. I'm not objecting to more referees. I've specifically suggested more advanced goal detection systems.

The reason I'm not making any sense is the combination of the fact that people haven't fucking read the conversation, and many don't understand the basic concepts of soccer.

[Correction]

Please, point out to me where I've objected to any changes other than replay, anywhere, ever.

Replay is only valuable in cases of disputed goals and offsides calls. Therefore you're arguing against it for uses not endorsed by anybody in this thread.

[Rhyis.]

Can you guys like read the whole conversation then try again or something? I'm assuming I don't have to restate the last 10 pages for everyone to figure out where we are in the conversation.


If you stop the play because you think you might need to look at replay, you directly prevent a huge part of the game, the transition.


If you don't stop the play, you then have to make a decision between playing less than 90 minute games, or adding extra time, specifically often the transition phase where much of the hardest running occurs; with that time being made meaningless and replayed from a set position.

I'm going to say this one more time. If a referee has to look at a replay, the game has already been stopped because of a foul/goal. There is no transition. When a free kick is given, the play does not begin again until the referee decides the game begins again (whistle). It is not up to the players. Players want to make a quick free kick, but you don't feel it's warrented? TS for them. The ref owns that field.

Also again:

Should have replays and use them like the NFL does. Each team gets 3 replays they can use in a game, but instead of using a timeout you use a substitution. The good thing about this is, you're only really taking away from the time of a substitution anyway.

No time, at all, is being added to the game if replays are implemented in this way. You're simply exchanging what you're doing with the extra time. And to make it even quicker, you have an outside official that's only job is to check replays.


Seriousy, I'm beginning to feel as if I'm being trolled.

[Mugekuge]

So moving on, can't wait for Spain tomorrow, gonna be a close game with the portuguese, i am a bit scared with Del Bosque system in this world cup.

[Rhyis.]

I'm 6/6 in my round of 16 picks. I got Spain, so you got nothing to worry about. Also, Japan is going to turn some heads tommorow.

[Tagus]

I'm not making any sense

I think I understand what you are saying... well more accurately, I think I understand the argument I would be making in your place if I was tasked with supporting a non-replay system that has been absolutely atrocious. If I was to assume that the basic gist of your argument is that replay would effect the flow of the game and allow teams to strategize, rest, or benefit in some other way from a stoppage of play, my response would be that the scoreline being effected directly by a bad call is the greater of evils. On that note... time for bed.

[Plow]

Way to exaggerate.

It's really not an exaggeration. Especially at lower levels of play, it's pretty amazing how close together tons of goals are.

Watching replays of important actions from 4-5 different camera views/angles doesnt take longer than 30 seconds, and an expert should be able to figure out what the right call is in a heart beat after watching them.

Do you really believe this? Have you not watched other sports with replay systems? Disregarding how often they still get shit wrong, the arguments of replays always being fast have been thrown out the window by anyone that's paying attention.

I think a more accurate scenario would be something like this:

- 5 matches.

- Matches go on with little to no interruptions, due to both teams knowing not only referees are doing their best, but there are some experts watching replays and able to fix any unfair calls. They may believe that a player that scored was offside, but they wont take 3 minutes complaining to the referee because they know its being reviewed.

Holy shit have you ever played sports? Having things reviewed is not going to stop people from arguing with the refs. Sure, it might stop one side from arguing something... only to make the other argue instead.

- 100 replayed important actions.

- 85 were called right. Nothing happens.

- 15 were incorrect calls.

- During the time the incorrect calls were reviewed, 3 important actions were played that now got to be canceled. No goals or any major things happened during the 12 other recalls. 15 x 30 (secs) / 5 (matches) = 90 seconds.

So would have to add around 90 seconds at the end, while probably saving minutes due to no stopping to deal with complains, dives, QQs, fights...

First off, again, all of these things you're talking about wasting time are parts of how the game is designed. Even if you were a fucking wizard and managed to completely remove all of these things from the game (which is a joke to suggest), you'd have made a significant change then in the reality of how long people have to be able to run. Probably big enough to need to allow another sub... yet another drastic change.

Obviously numbers are made up, but I think they are way closer than your figures, and its not hard to understand tecnology would not only make the sport more fair and enjoyable, but speed it up in quite a few cases.

Wait, what figures? Are you talking about the times I used for a marathon, which is 2-3 times (and sometimes much more) as long as a soccer game, while trying to explain to someone that hadn't bothered to read the thread in terms he could understand?

Secondly, how do you declare that no major things happened? Because a goal wasn't scored, a long run that exerted a ton of effort and revealed a weakness to then be covered up, but ended with a bad shot, it's no longer major?


edit to fix quote fail

[Plow]

I think I understand what you are saying... well more accurately, I think I understand the argument I would be making in your place if I was tasked with supporting a non-replay system that has been absolutely atrocious. If I was to assume that the basic gist of your argument is that replay would effect the flow of the game and allow teams to strategize, rest, or benefit in some other way from a stoppage of play, my response would be that the scoreline being effected directly by a bad call is the greater of evils. On that note... time for bed.

And my response is quite simple:

I'm all for more refs.

I'm all for a better detection system on boundaries, and multiple people on offsides duty.

I'm all for reviewing cards and decisions affecting future games after the fact and taking appropriate action.

Stopping the game to look at replays, or letting the game continue then calling it back due to replays, both are simply terrible options.

[Plow]

Let's not pretend that everyone on the field is out running sub 3:00's; They're conditioned, no doubt about it, but let's not make it out that they are going to roll over and die after jogging an extra five minutes. Hell, they get a break after 45 minutes of a jogging at a pace that most amateurs recover at. In full 90 minute game (with a break), they run a bit over 10k. If you can't handle a 14 minute mile over 10 kilometers with a break at 5k, you need to get the fuck off the couch.

First off, let me explain to you one of the most basic fundamentals of soccer:

You can push people around all you want, as long as you do it by putting your body against theirs, then pushing with your body. No extending the arms, no running in with momentum.

Every time you see 2 players sprinting for a ball, there's something going on that you probably don't realize: they're pushing against each other with all of their strength trying to get the other person off the ball. Not just when they're sprinting, either. Any time they're up against each other, there's a level of exertion you're just not understanding.

Try running your marathon off and on between sprints, jogs, and breaks constantly. Then make it all in one group, where half the time you have to literally push the person in front of you along. And, oh yeah, they're one of the best athletes in the world, and they're pushing right back against you.

Overtime in soccer is extremely taxing. Having it be a regular thing would force the games to be shortened, plain and simple.

[Jefe]

A Mexican rooting for Spain would be like a Jew cheering for the nazis. Just sayin'.

[Kuya]

Mexicans must feel very special then.

[Zoolander]

Mexicans must feel very special then.

lmao


Mexicans are cool with rooting for Portugal? I guess that would make some sense...Idk how it all works though, I just know you guys are like the red headed bastards of the hispanic world. Guess that doesn't include Brazil and Portugal on the mexican haterade, or does it? Kinda curious now.

[Kuya]

I didn't know that mexicans were the latinos that all the other latinos hated until i went to New York. Boy do they hate mexicans.

[Maaglin]

And what do you do with the time in between where you "weren't disrupting the flow?"

Just going to add that in at the end?

I'm guessing you've never run for 90 minutes the way a world class soccer player does.


Further, as the U.S. gave a perfect example of, what do you do if they then scored a goal off the "non-save"? It's a completely different scenario from the kick-off that would have happened otherwise then.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. It doesn't make any sense.

[Denchi]

Really unfortunate that USA and England didn't make it through, but Ghana and Germany just always seemed to have the better attacks.

My question is, through watching a lot of these matches, what is the strategy? Is it just that Germany and Ghana have better forwards/strikers, or is their mindset/scheme just more in attack mode? Obviously not just them, but Brazil, Argentina, etc. The teams that score the goals and build a cushion for themselves seem to be the ones that are attacking, taking people 1 on 1, instead of relying on 28 different passes which, a lot of the time, are intercepted and turned into advantageous breakaways, rather than just risking the challenge through the defense and still having a decent number of defenders. Is it that these teams just don't trust their defense to get the job done, or don't feel comfortable going 1 on 1 with anyone?

I wouldnt say that england or the USA never had the ability to attack.......it just didn't seem like they were motivated to unless they were behind. Seems kind of backwards to me.

[Plow]

Really unfortunate that USA and England didn't make it through, but Ghana and Germany just always seemed to have the better attacks.

My question is, through watching a lot of these matches, what is the strategy? Is it just that Germany and Ghana have better forwards/strikers, or is their mindset/scheme just more in attack mode? Obviously not just them, but Brazil, Argentina, etc. The teams that score the goals and build a cushion for themselves seem to be the ones that are attacking, taking people 1 on 1, instead of relying on 28 different passes which, a lot of the time, are intercepted and turned into advantageous breakaways, rather than just risking the challenge through the defense and still having a decent number of defenders. Is it that these teams just don't trust their defense to get the job done, or don't feel comfortable going 1 on 1 with anyone?

I wouldnt say that england or the USA never had the ability to attack.......it just didn't seem like they were motivated to unless they were behind. Seems kind of backwards to me.

It's a playstyle thing.

The Dutch, for example, are the masters of passing around waiting for an opportunity to stick it down into the corner and move across. Not that they won't take the middle when it's open, but their aim is to get it down deep outside for crosses.

The Brazilians, on the other hand, focus on attacking towards the goal, but they'll take the opportunities to set up a good cross when it presents itself.

[Osede]

Really unfortunate that USA and England didn't make it through, but Ghana and Germany just always seemed to have the better attacks.

My question is, through watching a lot of these matches, what is the strategy? Is it just that Germany and Ghana have better forwards/strikers, or is their mindset/scheme just more in attack mode? Obviously not just them, but Brazil, Argentina, etc. The teams that score the goals and build a cushion for themselves seem to be the ones that are attacking, taking people 1 on 1, instead of relying on 28 different passes which, a lot of the time, are intercepted and turned into advantageous breakaways, rather than just risking the challenge through the defense and still having a decent number of defenders. Is it that these teams just don't trust their defense to get the job done, or don't feel comfortable going 1 on 1 with anyone?

I wouldnt say that england or the USA never had the ability to attack.......it just didn't seem like they were motivated to unless they were behind. Seems kind of backwards to me.

You can see that Germany last 2 goals are based on counter attack strategy. Which is a very common used by many teams in europe, where they are more focus on defending. Another good counter attack example should be the japan, except the last match.

While if the team is overall better skill, and they has some real super star, like Brazil, Argentina,usually they will playing through the short passing attack or attacking alone. Because they don't need to afraid that their pass keep intercepted due to bad pass/bad skill.

[Not not Mattaru]

Paraguay sporting some neck-beard action. Ew.