Uruguay vs Ghana

[polomint38]

Do you think that if Uruguay go on to win this world cup, the fact that they won the first world cup is a sign to show that the the world must end before the next World cup in 2014, making the 2012 predictions correct.

[sensibleish]
Do you think that a rule should be added to football (soccer for people from uneducated cultures) that such a blatant handball should give not a penalty, but be like LBW in cricket, say a HBN (Hand before net).
[/sensibleish]

[Tony Williams]

Do you think that a rule should be added to football (soccer for people from uneducated cultures) that such a blatant handball should give not a penalty, but be like LBW in cricket, say a HBN (Hand before net).

LBW only works because the umpire is standing directly in line between the bowler and the wicket and is therefore in the best position to judge whether or not the ball would have struck the wicket if not stopped by the batsman's pad.

Given that football refs can't tell when the ball has actually entered the goal, they're never going to be able to judge whether it might have entered the goal if it hadn't been stopped

[chaggle]

It's more like the penalty try in Rugby really where the ref will give a try if one would have been scored had there not been a foul.

[Tony Williams]

It's more like the penalty try in Rugby really where the ref will give a try if one would have been scored had there not been a foul.

But while there will be cases (as with Uraguay this time) when it is blatantly obvious that the ball would have entered the goal, there will be many others where it is debatable - endless scope for protest, unless they introduce a "second referee" off the pitch, studying the video re-runs from all angles.

[chaggle]

But while there will be cases (as with Uraguay this time) when it is blatantly obvious that the ball would have entered the goal, there will be many others where it is debatable - endless scope for protest, unless they introduce a "second referee" off the pitch, studying the video re-runs from all angles.

Yes - to Rugby players the ref's decision is final - I can't imagine a Rugby player ever disputing a penalty try. Also, of course, they have try time video ref's. Rugby and football are different games, what works in one won't necessarily in the other.

[Tony Williams]

Of course, if you had a "second ref" off the pitch, it could be the thin end of a wedge. There would be very little justification in not involving him in other difficult and controversial decisions, such as whether a player was offside, or really was fouled or was merely diving, and so on...

[chaggle]

Of course, if you had a "second ref" off the pitch, it could be the thin end of a wedge. There would be very little justification in not involving him in other difficult and controversial decisions, such as whether a player was offside, or really was fouled or was merely diving, and so on...

Again, comparing to Rugby, the "live" video ref. is only used for try-time decisions and there appears to be no tendency for this to creep to other parts of the play.

There are citing tribunals after the match which use video to determine dangerous play and so on but that is a different matter and I believe that the same is used in football.

[Admin]

Do you think that a rule should be added to football (soccer for people from uneducated cultures) that such a blatant handball should give not a penalty, but be like LBW in cricket, say a HBN (Hand before net).

Absolutely!

Ghana were actually denied their rightful place in the semi final because of the Uruguay player's blatant cheating. Uruguay positively benefited because they cheated. That can't be right.

Yes there's an argument that other similar instances won't be so clear cut but use technology!!!

There have been so many referees' howlers at this world cup that it has been embarrassing for football. Not just England's goal that never was (even though the ball was at least a yard over the line) and Ghana's loss because of cheating, but there have been instances of players diving and feigning injuries (going down clutching their heads etc.) that have resulted in players being sent off too.

The problem is, that even with normal TV camera coverage we can see what's going on and it's quite clear that the referees and other officials are making a lot of bad decisions and are even being conned by players.

If technology were introduced, I think it would help in cutting out gaining advantage through cheating and this might just make the game of football more watchable.

[chaggle]

There are two issues:

Live video ref - I'm not a football fan particularly but my mate who is, is dead against it - says it would disrupt the flow of the game. I would not presume to say how it could be done but surely it must be possible without spoiling what is (for some reason unknown to me) an extremely popular game.

Post match sanctions - there is so much gamesmanship in football, that this must be considered. If the chap who got the Brazilian (Kaka?) sent off by diving to the floor clutching his face knew that the incident would be studied after - he would be much less likely to do it.

[Tony Williams]

I am not a football fan and only watch a few matches during the World Cup, to savour the occasion I suppose. What I've noticed is that scarcely a minute goes by without a player deliberately fouling - hanging on to another player's shirt, or blocking, elbowing or kicking him, or pretending to be injured when he hasn't been touched, and so on. Much of the time they get away with it. This really does turn me off the game. What can be done about it I'm not sure, but post-match bans applied after viewing video evidence might be worth trying.