No more mucking around...
EVERY SPORT NEEDS VIDEO REFEREES.
I have officially had it with the governing bodies of sports. Mainly, FINA (swimming's governing body) and FIFA (soccer's governing body).
Enough is enough guys - you must bring in video refs. It has gone past the ridiculous point now.
The 2006 Soccer World Cup is just another example of the Little-Aussie-Battler getting unfairly slammed by bad referees not doing their job properly, and stupid governing bodies who wont use those lumps that sit a metre above their butts.
First, we have Otylia Jedrzejczak and Jess Schipper in the 200 butterfly at the 2005 World Championships. Schipper and Jedrzejczak are head to head, in front of world record pace, coming into the final few strokes. On the final stroke swum, Jess goes in, head down, arms out, hands touch the wall at the same time. Legit. Jedrzejczak comes in, head down, arms out... but what's this?? Right hand pulls down for a half stroke, she touches the wall with only her left hand, while her right hand is a whole arms-length behind it. (Which conveniently means she touches 0.04 seconds infront of Jess). Illegal. You have to touch with both hands. Ref "doesn't see it", Jedrzejczak gets the gold and the world record, Jess gets silver.
Then - a video from directly above is shown on the screen, showing how blatantly obvious it was that Jedrzejczak only touched with one hand. Only way you could misinterpret it is by not watching. Referee's call... "Sorry, we don't allow video evidence. Referee's call stands. Jedrzejczak gets the world record". Absolutely robbed. Check out this article for a run down.
Now... 2006 Soccer World Cup. Noted, Australia wasn't actually winning when the stupid call was made, but we were dominating the game. Grosso brings the ball into the box, Neil goes in for a tackle, slides, stops, and Grosso trips over him. Ref's decision... PENALTY!
Result? Italy gets a penalty kick from inside the box. Wins the game in the final minute.
I mean, it's not rocket science. Think about it:
1) Humans are fallible - they don't always get it right.
2) If a wrong decision is made by a referee, it could mean the difference between winning and loosing.
3) We actually have the technology to avoid, even completely eradicate, incorrect calls made by refs.
If you ask me - it's a no-brainer. That's right, governing bodies don't even need to use those lumps that sit a metre above their butts to understand this.
Sports like Rugby, Cricket, even some (if not all) Tennis tournaments have brought in video refs. And the result? Just calls.
I'm sick to death of it.
No more mucking around. It's time to pull your heads out of the sand.
Video refs are the only way forward.
Go on, you know you want rant about with me...
posted by James @ 8:05 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
rant away beasley, rant away.
no i am in no means are sport nut, but that doesn't mean i don't get your point.
the soccer the other night was appalling. and i've heard so many other stories where it's exactly the same deal, the ref's word is LAW.
grrr.
what about video refs in dog fighting, I lost 10 bucks because the dog I backed to win faced of with a bear, but this was not realised until after the 'ref' declared the bear the winner....
CRAZY
James Says: Considerably less? Yeah... like when Viduka was hugged by the Croation dude and not given a penalty...
Yeah, video refs are such a bad idea... who would want a fair, just game to be conducted and controlled by the rules that everyone has trained to and expects the game to adhere to? As someone who's career is sport, i'd have to whole-heartedly say "NOT ME!"
Now, as for this 'fluency' you're babbling about... the only time a video ref is called is when there has been a penalty, try etc and play has already stopped. And i don't know what games you're watching, but video refs never take 3 minutes - that's a blatent lie. They might take, max, 1 minute. Max.
Now, as far as the game goes, lets not forget that we're talking about Australia vs. Italy.
Italy, ranked 13, former premiers.
Australia, ranked 42, been to the world cup once before. And don't forget also that Italy failed to put one away in the first half too, playing a team more than triple their world ranking. The boys did an exceptional job, were dominating the game and playing better than the Italians.
I haven't heard anyone except some Italian dude (whose article is Moffatt's blog) say that it was definately fair. Oh, and you of course Tommy... Who is, lest we forget, the alpha and omega of soccer - and sport.
Thanks for stopping by.
ad hominem: (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy.
not good enough james
James Says: Ok, hold up. This has turned into a personal sledging match - and i dont want that on my blog. Looking at my comment it comes across that i'm personally attacking tom, which was unintentional. Just disagreeing with him, and continuing the argument in the same passion it started. Sorry tom.
Another thing i don't want on my blog... anonymous comments. Now, this is a personal attack mr anonymous - you're a coward.
So take the anonymous comment option off James.
Also, for an example of how much James disliked personal attacks on blogs i refer you to Rob's blog
www.therasher.blogspot.com
Please view James' comments Thursday June 27th.
or Tuesday.
James Says: I don't want personal attacks fuelled by something as fickle as video refs in sport on my blog.
The 'personal attack' being referred to was a rebuke. As Rob's brother in Christ I felt it necessary to rebuke him regarding his comments. I am currently trying to arrange to meet up with him so we can chat.
If anyone has his email address i would love to have it passed on so i can contact him.
Thanks!
I think video refs in soccer would be a bad idea. The first reason is that the kind of decision that would be referred to a video ref is not the kind of decision that would lend itself to the use of video.
For example: in league, most video ref decisions go to blearly observable questions: was the ball touched down? Was the alleged knock on off the hands or the knee? Who got the ball first?
Soccer decisions are far vaguer though. Did the player go down because of the light touch he got on his ankle, or cause he took a dive? When the ball hit the player's hand, was it intentional or not? When the players collided in the air, was the player jumping for the ball, or playing the man? These are not the kind of decisions that a video will be able to help with. The video ref will look at the replay and go with his gut; which is exactly what the ref on the field, who is usually far closer and often better positioned, will be doing anyway.
Also, I agree that the more fluid nature of the game does not lend itself to video. If the ball is already in the goal/out for a corner etc, sure... but what about when the player is allegedly tugged down, and the goalie picks the ball up. What if we go to the video and a penalty is not given? The laws suggest that we should then start with a drop ball in the box, which would be a dodgy result.
Refs make bad calls. Video ref will not help.
[/two cents]
Post a Comment
<< Home