^^^ those are all reasons why they should consider instant replays. They can set it up in a way where it wouldn't take too much time to make the calls. But to do nothing is simply a slap to the face of every player and fan who loves the sport.
Ireland robbed of their chance at the South Africa world cup
- Thread starter Cheech
- Start date
Not true (replay everything). The technology is used in Rugby, which is refereed by one ref with two assistant refs on the sidelines insofar as the field of play is concerned (unlike say Gridiron which has a whole heap of zebras around). In Rugby only issues concerning the validity of scores are replayed, where the referee can not confirm it himself.
In high level Gridiron a given team can challenge a play by expending a timeout (refunded if successful challenge) dealing with the situation where a ref refuses to review - not a bad idea.
So you don't need tons of refs to use it, you don't refer everything and the experience in Rugby (an action packed and fast moving contact sport) shows that it enhances the sport.
I understand that Coler, but even with the example you gave for gridiron, you only get a certain number of challenges. Eventually if you take the human element out of everything, we may as well put remote control robots on the field. This is what happens when sport is no longer a sport, but a business instead.
With all the rediculous scandals that have surfaced throughout the years when it comes to soccer, I think it's already been established that the guys on top are more concerned with the business part of it than they are the sport itself.
A balance somewhere in the middle of both extremes would hopefully do the trick
I take your point, but the question is fairly put as whether human error in sports officiating is a) unavoidable b) desirable. I speak as a Rugby Referee.
I would say the answer is no to a) and no to b).
So why not just minimise the human error where it does not interfere with the sport ? Even having an extra official at each goal mouth would be perfectly fine and would prevent incidents like the one we're discussing.
Ultimately, incidents like this do no credit to anyone, and there is no doubt they are avoidable. The players and supporters are completely let down by the failure to spot a foul like this and if it arises from an avoidable human error, the question is really why not do something about it especially when the something involved would not in anyway damage the sport.
There really is a fine line as to how far you can take it I guess. If this were truly just a sport, we'd be moving on. But because someone stands to lose substantial amounts of money, it is now scandalous. This is how stupid wars start. Look at college football for an example. Why is it that ESPN shows what seems like a million CFB scores on the ticker during telecasts? Do I really need to know the score of Ball State vs. Appalachian State(no offence to any alum)? It is because Vegas has a line on it and people wagered on it. A co-worker once said to me that college football was the only pure sport left. It took a few minutes for me to get back up from nearly choking.
Or is it because ESPN claims to be the "worldwide leader in sports"? Why should they exclude certain scores and only show the popular ones? I doubt it's only because people are betting on them...
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=701150&sec=worldcup2010&cc=5901
