Slashdot Mirror


Has Video Refereeing Ruined The World Cup? (npr.org)

An anonymous reader shares a report: This is the first time FIFA, soccer's governing body, has allowed video replay to be used to make penalty calls in a World Cup. And while fans of basketball and American football are used to the referees stopping the game to consult video footage, soccer purists say it's ruining everything. The major complaint is that it's making the matches much longer than the typical 90-minute games. Martin Rogers, a sports columnist for USA Today, says Video Assistant Referee (or VAR) is "slow, clunky and unpredictable." Over the phone from Russia, where he's reporting on the World Cup, he jokes, "I remember back in the day, when if a game kicked off at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, you'd be all wrapped up by 4:45."

Rogers says this type of technology works well for American football and basketball. "When you look at the calls that are used for replay, in basketball for example, it's normally factual. It's based on, 'Did a player get a shot off before the clock expired?' It's easy. You know. It's black and white." But soccer, Rogers says, is different. He's referring to one of the most hated and beloved qualities of the game: the endless drama. It's a thespian sport.

286 comments

  1. Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.

    Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ^^^^ That one rule change would eliminate the great majority of the drama. I might even start watching games again.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.

      Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.

      Ryan Fenton

      Treat it the same way that American football treats concussions. The player should be removed from play and undergo and pass a series of tests and evaluations from an independent physician before they are allowed to return to the field.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed - i want to watch football, not diving.

    4. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped

    5. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by gnick · · Score: 1

      Soccer games routinely end without a single point on either side. In cricket matches, sometimes more than a hundred runs are scored in a single at-bat.

      Foreign sportsball is broken. I'll start watching when they get their shit together.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped

      Exactly this. A dive should be treated as a red card offense- and it should be allowed to be awarded after the game too- so the player is banned from the next fixture. 3 dives in a season and you are banned for one calendar year.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      It is already true that if a player requires medical treatment, the player will be taken off the field. And there are rules for when they can get back on, which is not usually a long time.

    8. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed in full. They should have to leave the pitch and be subbed back in at a later break.

      Would stop the flopping cold.

    9. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wouldn't necessarily be good. There are a good number of ways where you might be getting knocked down and lying around a bit but be fine a few moments later.

      Generally speaking though, VAR should be used a whole lot more, especially when someone lies down writhing in "pain", to find and suitably punish the culprit, whether it's foul play by acting or someone actually doing something reckless or deliberately injuring someone. There's a fair amount of that going on too, and it doesn't get caught and punished nearly as often as it should.

    10. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all

      Especially if the writing utensil is sharp, like a quill.

    11. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Come on, that blatantly fake injury stuff is entertaining to watch. I feel it adds to the sport.

    12. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 1

      I highly agree. After players know games will be reviewed after completion and obvious dives are punished, it will be stopped.

    13. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      What soccer needs are post game flop analysis and actual punishments if it's deemed you flopped

      Exactly this. A dive should be treated as a red card offense- and it should be allowed to be awarded after the game too- so the player is banned from the next fixture. 3 dives in a season and you are banned for one calendar year.

      They should institute caning. After 3 dives, a player could elect to receive 12 strokes to regain eligibility. Alternatively, they could find a new job.

    14. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Most of the time they are having their feet stepped on by cleats or banging fast moving legs together. There have also been quite a few hard body collisions in the tourney.

      Most anyone would writhe around in pain for 20-30 seconds until the initial wave of pain recedes. And the team can play down for a bit, happens all the time.

      These are the highest level players, they can determine if their injury is significant enough to leave play, except for:

      I would agree with you with regards to hard head contact, a recent game had a player that was obviously concussed; he chose to keep playing and collapsed about a minute later looking confused.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    15. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by RickyShade · · Score: 1

      FENNNNNTONNNNN!!!!!

    16. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Players faking injuries is why I can't take the sport seriously.

    17. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for fuck sake

    18. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on, that blatantly fake injury stuff is entertaining to watch. I feel it adds to the sport.

      If you like that, might I suggest WWE?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    19. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legitimate injuries are not what this is about. It's the players faking it, writhing as if they're dying, and then hopping right back up as if nothing happened when they realize there isn't going to be a call against the other team for it.

    20. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by hypertex · · Score: 2

      VAR is an attempt to put a halt to the drama. Goal-line technology not so much, but still needed. IMHO, if a match goes to extra time, the teams should be limited in some way to make a goal more likely; my pet idea is to have the keeper lose the ability to use 'his' hands. Perhaps one day there will be an honest discussion on this topic.

    21. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlike American football, soccer has only a limited number of allowed replacements. Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team or allowing for free replacements of injured players in which case they will start taking dives just for that

    22. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Yeah, I've tried watching soccer games these last couple of world matches....and while it is somewhat entertaining, the ability to finish a game tied or no score seems a bit of a let down.

      I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.

      I've seen more than a couple of time, the clock run out...and they add more time...that ran out and they added more.

      It just seemed arbitrary. First time I saw this, was a few years back when the US was in it, and I think they were leading in a game...and with all the time add ons...they ended up losing in the end.

      Shouldn't time mean TIME..and when it runs out, it is over?

      IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?

      I will admit I'm finding it more and more entertaining, but those two issues puzzle me.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Key & Peele Soccer Diving Clip.

    24. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by sabri · · Score: 0

      Soccer games

      Football. When you touch a round ball only with your foot, it's football. When you hold an egg shaped object in your hands, it's hand-egg.

      It's Football vs Hand-egg. Not "sucker" vs "football".

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    25. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike American football, soccer has only a limited number of allowed replacements. Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team or allowing for free replacements of injured players

      Ok, and that's a bad thing why?

      in which case they will start taking dives just for that

      Your logic escapes me.

    26. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only true for people who give a shit about the sport. In the US we don't, because it's shit.

    27. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Setting a max on the number of substitutions in a game, at the professional level, is completely arbitrary.

    28. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing football to wrestling, I love it.

      Note I don't have a problem with enjoying fake things. I myself like to go to the local cinema occasionally for a 2 hour fake thing. But if it's fake then it ain't a sport so please stop calling it one. You're not an athlete, you're an actor.

    29. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soccer games

      Football.

      Speak American.

    30. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by sfcat · · Score: 0

      Soccer games

      Football. When you touch a round ball only with your foot, it's football. When you hold an egg shaped object in your hands, it's hand-egg. It's Football vs Hand-egg. Not "sucker" vs "football".

      Football is called football because its played on foot, not because its played with your feet. See all the various other types of football (Gaelic Football, American Football, Australian Rules Football, etc) for evidence.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    31. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      That's not hand-egg. That's rugby football.

      And if you're a country of weirdos, you change all the rules to make it stupid and play American/Canadian rugby football.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    32. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Found the Neymar fan....

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    33. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Spacelord · · Score: 1

      If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.

      Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.

      Spoken like someone who has never played football in his life. Football is a very physical sport, and tackles, even legal ones, can fucking hurt and will have you writhing on the ground in pain for a while, even if there is no serious injury. You can compare it to stubbing your toe, it's not a serious injury but you are going to need a few moments to catch your breath.

      To give you an idea, here is a picture of Mandzukic' ankle after Pickford (legally) challenged him for the ball in Wednesday's semi-final. He scored the winning goal after this. According to your rule he should have gotten off the pitch and his team should play on with 1 man down. How's that for ruining the game ...

      And yes, some players dive when there's no foul, or embellish it in order to get the foul, but trying to game the rules happens in any sport.

    34. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bollocks, if a team wants to play drama than football, then as soon as a player falls to the ground, he should have 5 seconds to get up to continue, if he can not get to his feet then he should be removed from the pitch for a full medical checkup. Some of these player in the World Cup have hardly been touched yet are writhinh around in angony just to try and get the other player sent off or booked. In other games, players should be shown the yellow card for trying to influence the referere buy ticking their hands up even though they know they kicked the ball out of play etc. Football has become a dirty and sickphantic sport and nothing like the great days. Also the refs should book and send off time waster they rarely do.

    35. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Wow, this thread got weird in a hurry.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    36. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.

      You just eliminated all sport. And pretty much all life, except for the fact that we don't usually refer to "players" in life.

      If you've never been hurt in a game then you might not realize that pain can be temporary, and that playing through the pain is part of sport. For example, if you step on my foot it will hurt like hell. For a bit. If there is no permanent damage it will stop hurting, or it may reduce to an ache.

      Should I be thrown out of the game because YOU stepped on my foot? Wow. Imagine how quickly a soccer match would become three on three or less if that were the rule. One person who steps on the feet of ten opposing players would result in the other team playing with three people. (Three subs, and then seven unsub-able players.) That would be wonderful, wouldn't it?

      Saying that nobody can continue to play if they ever suffer a temporary pain while competing is just silly. Saying they can't compete if there is any possibility of injury is just ridiculous.

    37. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by satcat · · Score: 2

      Here is analysis by the 538 statistics site, which explains roughly how the timing is supposed to work... and how they are always shortchanging the added time, regularly in excess of 10 minutes.

      https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

    38. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, some players dive when there's no foul, or embellish it in order to get the foul, but trying to game the rules happens in any sport.

      And then those sports change the rules to fix that. This is why baseball has the infield fly rule as well as several other obscure rules that appear arbitrary on the surface. And then there are the unwritten rules, which are employed, rightly or wrongly, when the written rules don't correct the unwanted behavior. Something on the order of flopping in baseball would inevitably result in a fastball "getting away from" the pitcher and "accidentally" hitting the batter. And then the batter is expected to just take his base without writhing on the ground like an idiot. Unfortunately, there is too little actual bad behavior in baseball, so this sort of treatment has been extended to players who look at someone the wrong way, enjoy themselves too much, are too good, or are young. I guess what I'm saying is please send your floppers to MLB to get the matter properly sorted.

    39. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't fucking roll around in agony, screaming bloody murder, if you step on my foot.

      Sure, I'll limp for a sec, but come on man. You are defending obvious foul play.

    40. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.

      The referee times the match. The displayed clock is not the official timing.

      The referee has the ability, and the responsibility, to add time when players are using up time just to use up time, or when there is a significant stoppage of play. E.g., during a substitution the departing player dawdles getting off the field. If the goalie dawdles in executing a goal kick. If a fight breaks out that stops play. If a player has an injury that requires transport off the pitch. One instance during a recent cup match was when one team was awarded a free kick and a member of the opposing team carried the ball away from the free kick location. (Many of these time-wasting tactics merit and get yellow cards.)

      It's called "stoppage time" because it is intended to make up for deliberate stoppage of play.

      Those delays can, and often do, occur during the stoppage time already added. If a team is ahead by a goal, they are going to try slowing things down as much as they can.

      It just seemed arbitrary.

      Many calls by a referee can seem arbitrary. What exactly merits an red card? How about a yellow? Penalty kick? It's all judgement calls, unless it is a truly egregious violation. Even "hand ball" is sometimes arbitrary. Referee judgement, was the arm or hand in a normal position and not a deliberate action?

      Shouldn't time mean TIME..and when it runs out, it is over?

      It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.

      IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?

      Because it's a different game. It doesn't operate under the same assumption that there must always be a winner of every match. In fact, the overall "winners" are determined by the overall performance during the season. The exception is the last rounds of the world cup where it is a head-to-head competition and the winner is based on the result of one match.

      Note that even US football has issues with time, but they are hidden because there is an official clock displayed on the scoreboard. The refs can and do add time to the clock, and the clock STOPS. What really really annoys me about US football is that the last "two minutes" of a game can run for 45 minutes. If that's not an issue with "time means TIME", then I don't know what is.

      And the guy in the summary who is unhappy that a match that starts at 3PM doesn't end at 4:45PM on the dot -- he's just an idiot. Stoppage time has been a thing for a very long time.

    41. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I don't fucking roll around in agony, screaming bloody murder, if you step on my foot.

      Let me step on your foot with my cleats, when you're wearing soccer shoes that are designed to be as light (and thus thin) as possible, and we'll see if you roll around in agony or not. You won't be limping "for a sec", you'll be on the ground. Or let me scrape your shin with my cleats ... or knock heads with you.

    42. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Football is called football because its played on foot, not because its played with your feet.

      I especially love the US football where there are nine men out in a field with a pitcher, catcher, outfielders, etc. And the football where a bowler hurls a chunk at a batsman protecting his wicket. And the football where a guy rolls a heavy ball at 10 pins...

      Lots of sports are played on foot, but they aren't called football.

    43. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, that blatantly fake injury stuff is entertaining to watch. I feel it adds to the sport.

      As an American I can't understand this. I mean, I personally think watching professional sport is silly, but still, we want our sport heroes to be strong and proud, not whiny little cheaters. This reminds me of a child faking a tummy ache to avoid school. That's not something a real man does.

    44. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by nnet · · Score: 1

      3 on 3 OT. And have 5 minute penalty box penalties for diving. imagine trying to play soccer shorthanded.

    45. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Interesting....

      I would posit, that one change they could make that would be VERY helpful for viewers, and I'd guess the folks in the stadiums too, would be to do something to MAKE the displayed time clock on tv and the stadium BE the official time. Maybe hook the officials watch to the time displayed, etc?

      Seems something that would be straightforward and helpful to game viewers, and wouldn't significantly change the game in any way.

      I have to figure out what the "card" thing is...I know its a penalty of some sort, but not sure what card means what infraction.

      As for the comment on the last 2 min of Football in the US...well, some of those have to do with taking final "time outs"....if they had this in soccer, to me it would make more sense, and this combined with having the field clock tied to the officials clock would be more informative and seem to have the game end in a less arbitrary fashion.

      I know its a learning thing, but I think it has a lot to do with the official time not being displayed for all the viewers of the game...and rather only known to one person on the field, you know?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    46. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who wants to watch a bunch of grown ass men act like giant wobbly weeping vaginas.
      It brings a bad name to the vagana.
      These are the true alpha cucks.

      https://youtu.be/f3HebsWpZ1Q?t=8s

      How about if its an injury worth a penalty, that player is out.
      This is my only issue with futbol.
      It turns my stomach and my ass

    47. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Many calls by a referee can seem arbitrary.

      It is very important that the team who loses can say "we woz robbed!" - it keeps up the spirits of the downhearted. it keeps supporters loyal to hopeless teams.

      Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill - also important given the chronic lack of skills possessed by some teams, and lack of team spirit in others. It is also great for the bookies.

      Soccer is not about playing the game, its about belonging to a group.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    48. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Seems something that would be straightforward and helpful to game viewers, and wouldn't significantly change the game in any way.

      Part of the game is the unsure ending. This is especially true if a team is ahead and wants to run out the clock. Telling them you need to stay in control for 47 more seconds is different than "you have the ball, the game will end 'soon' ..." The leading team stays in control for 46 seconds, does the other team have a chance to score or are they 1 second from losing?

      I have to figure out what the "card" thing is...I know its a penalty of some sort, but not sure what card means what infraction.

      There are two cards. Yellow is for "minor" infractions, compared to "red". It doesn't matter what the minor infraction is, it's a yellow. Time wasting, tripping, grabbing a jersey, arguing with the ref, etc. Red cards are for either major infractions (deliberate attempts to injure, for example), or as a result of getting two yellow cards. You can see the difference -- if the ref immediately shows a red it's a major infraction. If he first shows yellow, then red, it's from getting two yellows.

    49. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "extra" time is supposed to be all the time lost to lining up corner kicks, refs conversing with players, injury time etc. In the US they stop the clock and go to commercial. In soccer they keep it running and just add this on to the end. I VASTLY prefer this method as commercials have ruined US sports for me. Is the extra time a bit arbitrary...yes that's pretty obvious, but I can live with that.

    50. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      There are two cards. Yellow is for "minor" infractions, compared to "red". It doesn't matter what the minor infraction is, it's a yellow. Time wasting, tripping, grabbing a jersey, arguing with the ref, etc. Red cards are for either major infractions (deliberate attempts to injure, for example), or as a result of getting two yellow cards. You can see the difference -- if the ref immediately shows a red it's a major infraction. If he first shows yellow, then red, it's from getting two yellows.

      Ok thank you!!

      Question....if a person gets 2 red cards are they tossed out of the game at that point?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    51. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see this as a problem, whereas I see it as an incentive for soccer players to stop behaving like pussies because you wouldn't want to let your team down.

    52. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read what he wrote and explain how it's possible to get a second red.

    53. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Except, the sport has minimal contact, minimal injuries, and they're almost always faking.

      Faked injuries are an order of magnitude more prevalent than real injuries.

      How is it even a "sport" when the most important tactic is, "I can't do it, I can't do it!"

    54. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      After 3 dives, you're banned for 1 calendar year, and all players from the same team have to receive 5 strokes on the field before the next game that they play in, and at the end each game they receive 1 stroke for each cumulative team yellow card.

      And if they flop during caning, they forfeit half their pay for the season.

    55. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Football is called football because its played on foot, [...] See all the various other types of football (Gaelic Football, American Football, Australian Rules Football, etc) for evidence.

      Ah yes. It's to distinguish them from Gaelic Horseball, Australian Pogostickball etc. How come I never spotted that - it's so obvious when you point it out.

      Do you have to be a gymnast to play handball, then?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Weird? More like fucking stupid.

      There's no such thing as $nationality Rugby Football.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    57. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by jwdb · · Score: 1

      It's already punishable by a yellow card according to FIFA rules. The problem is that it's hard to tell whether or not they were acting.

      Even Neymar's famous roll-around-and-yell this last cup vs Mexico is not clear-cut: the Mexican player clearly stepped on his ankle, so while the response may have been disproportionate, that's a subjective judgement.

    58. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is hilarious that there would be people willing to argue such a stupid lie.

      The only explanation is that you didn't hear about this new website called youtube where you can find clips that step through frame-by-frame and show if there even was contact, or not!

      Sadly, it tells us that you're a soccer fan, and that the team you rut for doesn't often win, so they try this shit all the time.

    59. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      My pet idea is each coach gives a numbered list to the ref. Play overtime and at two minute intervals a horn honks and the man at the top of the list must immediately go off until it's just the goalies left.

      I like the sin bin idea too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    60. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Spoken like someone who has never played football in his life. Football is a very physical sport,

      If football is very physical then Rugby should be governed by the Geneva Convention.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    61. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by xvan · · Score: 1

      It isn't, formations are defined by player skills, and defensive formations need to adapt to the offensive strategy. Football is not as fast as Basketball, unlimited changes would result on "American Football" swapping between offensive and defensive teams, turning it into a completely different sport.
      Also stamina management is an important part of the strategy.

    62. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Question....if a person gets 2 red cards are they tossed out of the game at that point?

      No. The first red card is ejection from the game, and they cannot be replaced with a sub. The team plays with 10 instead of 11. I believe that a red also keeps the player from the next game.

      This is why you will see a normally aggressive player calm down A LOT when he gets the first yellow. The second yellow is fatal. Who has a yellow is also a consideration when the manager determines who will be replaced with one of his three substitutions.

    63. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct except time is only added for âinjuriesâ(TM) (thatâ(TM)s why itâ(TM)s also known as âinjury timeâ(TM)). Time spent lining up for corners etc. are consider normal playing time.

    64. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah...you neeed to add excitement rather than subtract it: for every 10 minutes of extra time add another ball to the play. MULTIBALL!

    65. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Damn, my moderator points expired before I read this comment!

      +1 funny/insightful

    66. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neymar will be banned for 20 years just after one match. This can only be good for the sport.

    67. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Pain is not necessarily an injury.
      It hurts if I twist your nipples ... but it stops hurting shortly after I stop twisting ... and why would you not be able to run around and kick a ball afterwards?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    68. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.
      2x 45 minutes.
      Wow that was easy.

      IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?
      Because we had that once, and the audience decided: it sucks.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    69. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Two yellows in a tournament, in different games, also block the player from the next game.
      But obviously it is different than a red as he can continue in the game he is playing at the moment.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    70. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill -
      Rofl, obviously it is the opposite around.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    71. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      There are two cards. Yellow is for "minor" infractions, compared to "red". It doesn't matter what the minor infraction is, it's a yellow. Time wasting, tripping, grabbing a jersey, arguing with the ref, etc. Red cards are for either major infractions (deliberate attempts to injure, for example), or as a result of getting two yellow cards. You can see the difference -- if the ref immediately shows a red it's a major infraction. If he first shows yellow, then red, it's from getting two yellows.

      Ok thank you!!

      Question....if a person gets 2 red cards are they tossed out of the game at that point?

      Only a single red card = tossed out of the game. Two yellows = one red = tossed. No way to get two reds, unless the player charges back in from the sidelines after getting tossed. ;)

    72. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people say things like that, it just makes them sound like fucking morons. The term soccer is a British abbreviation for Association football that somehow became soccer and was then taken up by Americans.

      As far as hand-egg goes, you're developmentally delayed if you think a football looks like an egg. There is no variant of football that I know of where the ball looks like an egg. Though, the Australian Football does look somewhat close, but both ends are the same side. And BTW, compared with the snoozefest that is soccer, Australian Football is a lot more entertaining being somewhere in between American and Association Football.

    73. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the better, the only sport I know of with a bigger problem with fake injuries is Basketball where the last winds up being twice the length of the other periods from all the players faking fouls and being rewarded with penalty shots.

    74. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're that injured, you'd go off the pitch or at least still be limping around for a bit after realizing that you're not going to get the call.

    75. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose a tranquilizer gun with a strong narcotic that puts the players out for 2 hours to solve this particular problem.
      If the player is really injured, the shot will put them out of pain. If it's fake, then it's equivalent to going a man down.
      A 6 on 5 game sounds good to me.

    76. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      So you’re saying if team A really harms a player of team B, not only he’s injured, but the guys is also punished by being removed from the set for X minutes...
      Not an easy call, as, sometimes, the down player is not acting, and it’s hard to assess the difference between real and acting.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    77. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      In football it’s so easy to waste time while winning, the referee has to be given the right to lenghen the game à discretion.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    78. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak English

    79. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Also, the fact that few goals are scored means that luck is more important than skill

      People who fundamentally don't understand the game often come to that conclusion. There is very little luck involved. A typically goal keeper may directly defend upwards of 20 shots at the goal. It may seem like like luck of the draw if it gets passed him, but ultimately he doesn't have a big area to defend. He can get to pretty much any part of goal to defend providing he's not outnumbered.

      And that's where the skill comes in. If you're relying on "luck" of a goalkeeper you've already displayed a lack of skills needed to win the game, which is done by defending your side of the field.

      Saw a rugby match this week that was 6 to 12. Does the fact that they count faster mean it is less lucky by your definition?

    80. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Taking the player out for tests means either effectively punishing the injured players team

      In order for that to be relevant someone needs to actually be injured. Punishing the teams in question sounds like a great idea. How many times have we see Neymar with an "injury" so severe that they brought a stretcher on the field, only for the ref to not award a card and him to jump up and sprint back into play.

      Punish the player, and punish the team. Bonus points if you also punish the coach somehow.

      The number of injured players who actually come off the game are incredibly small.

    81. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Two yellows in a tournament, in different games, also block the player from the next game.

      In this WC there was an amnesty after the quarter final stage. Previously it was done at the end of the pool stage.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    82. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Unlike American football, soccer has only a limited number of allowed replacements.

      Then allow temporary replacements, like games for people that can count to more than 11 do. They use it for serious bleeding too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    83. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It was originally public school[1] slang. Like Rugby -> Rugger.

      Not bugger though. That was already well established.

      [1] Which actually means a private school.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    84. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Basketball games score like 101 to 97. Clearly that's the most skilful game there is, and if they made the hoops twice as big it'd be even more so.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    85. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      We did that at school once - last day of term. Two parallel pitches, four balls (two of them oval). Rules sort of improvised ...

      it wouldn't be allowed now with all the human rights stuff.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    86. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The thing that would solve everything is carding players for dissent.

      A ref was punched to death in a kids' game a bit back. The fish rots from the head.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    87. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      The thing that would solve everything is carding players for dissent.

      A ref was punched to death in a kids' game a bit back. The fish rots from the head.

      Interesting about that. I don't watch American football, although my wife is a fanatic. (Or maybe, because my wife is a fanatic. I haven't isolated those feelings yet.) And I long ago lost interest in -- whatever you call it... the game where you kick the round ball around a field -- due to the drama and fake injuries. But I note that I have yet to see or hear of a ref in American football beaten to death, or injured or attacked at all.

      Different culture, I guess.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    88. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by cmarkn · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, the team brags about how their excellent defense held the opponent to only 101 points.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
    89. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by cmarkn · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, just like any rule in any game is completely arbitrary. That's kind of the definition of the word “game”.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
    90. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red means they are sent off

    91. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.

      I watch a bit of sport, but gave up on soccer years ago because of the girly behaviour. In every football code I know they use independent time keepers which the match broadcast displays so there is no confusion. When the referee wants the official time stopped he has a signal and the time keeper stops the clock. Same again to switch it back on.
      Allowing a ref to have some unknown ability to control the time is just opening up the door to corruption.

    92. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind pussy are you? How do you think people are capable of playing sports like Rugby or American Football? Soccer is a fucking joke. I know cleats on my feet and no, I don't roll around in agony. Sorry man.

    93. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It is hilarious that there would be people willing to argue such a stupid lie.

      I'm sorry you missed the day they covered pain in "being a human" class. Getting a large dose of pain can disable someone temporarily. It's a fact, not a lie.

      The only explanation is that you didn't hear about this new website called youtube where you can find clips that step through frame-by-frame and show if there even was contact, or not!

      Yeah, some players dive or embellish. Who would have thought it possible? Some of them don't.

      Sadly, it tells us that you're a soccer fan, and that the team you rut for doesn't often win,

      No, it tells you that I understand that there are, indeed, people who get hurt during a game who need a bit of time to recover, and once recovered, they can continue to play. What your attitude tells us is that you are good at projecting. You would fake it if you could, so everyone must be faking.

      If you look carefully, it's not the losing team that does this all the time. Messi, Renaldo, Kane, etc, play on winning teams. If you can't find at least three examples of it happening on the French team Sunday, you aren't watching. As I recall, one point went to someone who was actually falling down before there was any contact for the French. But you can also find examples of people who go down for legitimate reasons. Putting them all in the same basket is just ridiculous.

    94. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Allowing a ref to have some unknown ability to control the time is just opening up the door to corruption.

      You do realize that it is pretty easy to have corruption if the ref can call for the clock to be stopped any time he wants, and much less opportunity if he cannot, don't you? It's not some "unknown ability to control the time", it's "we're 45:00 from the time the game started, the ref can justify two minutes of stoppage after consultation with the other three officials. Several million people are watching, including the league ref management ..."

      Even with your magical system of signals to call for the start and stop of the clock, you see refs calling for time to be put back on the clock because it was started by mistake, or because a call he just made cancelled a play that consumed time. It always seems to be at the most critical times in the game when the clock gets "fixed" this way. It's not this perfect system you seem to think it is.

    95. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      You do realize that it is pretty easy to have corruption if the ref can call for the clock to be stopped any time he wants, and much less opportunity if he cannot, don't you?

      No. Because right now (and I don't watch soccer much so feel free to correct this if it's wrong) no-one seems to know how much extra time there is or for why. The ref just decides on his own with no oversight or accountability. With other sports I watch with independent time keepers, there is absolutely no confusion.

      Several million people are watching, including the league ref management ..."

      Yet none of them seem to know. I watched a game at the pub and asked some soccer fans how much extra time would be added and none of them could explain it. Doesn't sound like a great system

      Even with your magical system of signals to call for the start and stop of the clock, you see refs calling for time to be put back on the clock because it was started by mistake, or because a call he just made cancelled a play that consumed time. It always seems to be at the most critical times in the game when the clock gets "fixed" this way. It's not this perfect system you seem to think it is.

      I'm not guessing at this. Every other sport has this magic and it works better.

    96. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      This is my favorite part of watching the comedy called soccer. If they remove the flopping, it goes back to a sport.

    97. Re: Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, some players dive or embellish. Who would have thought it possible? Some of them don't.

      Your words don't make very much sense. Is that some sort of "Continental English?" Does your dialect even contain the concept of "identity?"

      If you can't find at least three examples of it happening on the French team Sunday, you aren't watching.

      Stop agreeing with the main thrust of my argument, it makes it harder for you to argue with me. You should be in agreement if you're in agreement.

    98. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      It just seemed arbitrary.

      Yes. And that's how it's supposed to be. With the referee as sole arbiter of all aspects of the game, including time or adding extra time so that the game ends up what he thinks is 90 minutes net play time.

      While this is not perfect and probably main reason for the "drama" - it is accepted. Including false calls from the referee when he hasn't been able to properly see a situation. And discussion of what he saw, what he COULD HAVE SEEN and how he interpreted it is part of football culture. it's a reminder that everyone is human. (yes.. thespian sport.... mean, but nice way to put that)

      And it's a clear line: If the referee hasn't seen it it didn't happen and if he saw it differently - suck it up. Life lesson learned.

      Video referee is completely diametral to that. Games are no longer controlled by the referee, but by some faceless figures in Cologne (Bundesliga) or Moscow (World Cup) not even close to the field! game results can be changed even after the ref has ended the game. Trying to bring in some objectiveness, ok, it's well meant, but if you really want that, the rules should be made clearer and less subject to personal interpretation. ("unnatural movement of the upper body" if you need to make a call on hand play) Especially if around 30% of the VaR calls were wrong, too, if put to the same amount of scrutiny that they are supposed to put the actual referee under.

      First time I saw this, was a few years back when the US was in it, and I think they were leading in a game...and with all the time add ons...they ended up losing in the end.

      Ask Bayern München about that Champions league final vs. Manchester...

      Shouldn't time mean TIME..and when it runs out, it is over?

      IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?

      Why?

      In elimination rounds there IS a tie breaker and in league matches, where results are tallied over a season, why would you need one?

      If two teams are equally good, a tie is the correct result.

      --
      bickerdyke
    99. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Interesting....

      I would posit, that one change they could make that would be VERY helpful for viewers, and I'd guess the folks in the stadiums too, would be to do something to MAKE the displayed time clock on tv and the stadium BE the official time. Maybe hook the officials watch to the time displayed, etc?

      Yes, but that has a reason, too. It would be require some rather expensive technical equipment (read: scoreboard) for an official match. Part of the popularity comes from the fact that you don't need much more than a mostly even meadow, 22 players, a ball and a guy with a whistle and wristwatch to run an official match. (even requirements for playing field size and ball still allow for a wide range)

      --
      bickerdyke
    100. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I agree with that.

      I guess they don't do it out of respect for the American Football players feelings....

      --
      bickerdyke
    101. Re:Nah, 'diving' did that a long time ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, the sport has minimal contact, minimal injuries, and they're almost always faking.

      Faked injuries are an order of magnitude more prevalent than real injuries.

      How is it even a "sport" when the most important tactic is, "I can't do it, I can't do it!"

      3.4 Billion viewers can't be wrong. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/soccer-world-cup-2018-global-audience-hit-34-billion-fifa-revenue-reach-6-billion-1120071

  2. prvi post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    za dom spremni! we are going to take this shit home now that this game is based on actual skill and team work.

  3. Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the problem with being able to review a decision so you make the right call?

    1. Re:Are you mad? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      What is the problem with being able to review a decision so you make the right call?

      Nothing, so long as the game clock continues to tick while all that mess goes on. I guess for people who bothered to attend the game it would still suck since it's that much less game they get to watch.

    2. Re:Are you mad? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      This is retarded.
      The game result must be based on correct decisions rather than finish on time. What does "on time" mean, anyway? Most sports out there don't even have limited play time; for example, all games where the winner is the one who reaches X points (field- and table-tennis, chess, volleyball, etc). Time-based games often have a bracket phase where a winner must be chosen out of the two opponents, which means that if the score is equal, the match goes into overtime, and there's your duration expectation flying right out the window.

      I guess the topic boils down to "American sports columnist rants about less popular game having new rules he doesn't like". Maybe the added game time made him be late for lunch and his wife chided him.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:Are you mad? by psmoot · · Score: 1

      Ice hockey recently introduced video review. There's no right and wrong, you're trading off flow of the game versus correctness.

      Personally, I'd prefer having a time limit on the review. The refs get 60 seconds to review then must make a call, right or wrong. It's sort of like American elections: if there's a dispute (like the 2000 Presidential election), part of the legal logic behind the process is to quickly reach a conclusion and not let it drag on.

    4. Re:Are you mad? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      That is what extra/injury/delay time is for. If you've ever played futbol(soccer) getting kicked in the shins or knee, or taking an elbow to the head hurts like a mofo for a few minutes then subsides to a dull ache. Twisting a knee can result in a sharp pain that goes away quickly or a torn ligament/tendon and it often takes a moment or two to determine which.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    5. Re:Are you mad? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Chess traditionally has fixed time, and even in modern time controls it is only a few seconds at most are added per move. But you still know exactly how many seconds are added, and when, and managing that time is a critically important part of competitive chess at all levels, from local amateur to the world championship.

      Time can be paused to talk to the arbiter (referee) but pausing the time when you don't have a legit claim is a foul that can be penalized by a loss of time.

  4. Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm an American, so I couldn't possibly give two figs about soccer. But it's already ruining baseball, so yes, why not ruin your culotte tournament? May they have a video replay for every pathetic flop.

  5. not by a long shot. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whats ruined the world cup? A few things about FIFA soccer in general should have been coffin nails for the agency..
    1. fixed matches and corruption. FIFA has a long, long history of total corruption as it pertains to the sport. Despots have chaired it with impunity and most of the executives could easily mistake a trombone for a four star hotel.
    2. Racism. turning the live coverage black and white is a novel idea to give viewers at home a sense of when racism is taking place in stadiums, but its a hollow gesture designed to punish the many for the actions of the few. Something I might add which is illegal under the Geneva conventions. Instead of cleaning up racist actors and venues, FIFA has decided the saturation knob is good enough.
    3. Cowards.: plain and simple. Mediocre "superstar" players paid millions that feign injury and agony at the slightest encounter with even a slightly more qualified opponent. Youre representing an entire country. Act like it.
    4. Riots.: Riots and rioters are something FIFA has decided must remain a cost socialized to the general public. Instead of stripping teams of wins or removing them from future play, FIFA stares at its collective shoes and does nothing. Disclosure: My Citroen burned like a fucking candle during the Glasgow riots, so i might not be impartial to this point.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:not by a long shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. trombone for a 4 star hotel, - i assume this is just humouros imagery, or is there some trombone related story i don't know about ?

      2. what on earth are you talking about ? when was the live coverage turned black and white ?

      3. ok

      4. What glasgow riots and why did your car burn down ?

    2. Re:not by a long shot. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I thought the one thing FIFA has done well is reduce the amount of rioting.

      Football is nothing like it was in the 80's anymore.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:not by a long shot. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And after France a few years back where state-supported (or at least tolerated) Russian hooligans brutalized hundreds of fans, Russia even clamped down. We'll see what happens after the world cup is done, however. It's clear that they didn't want blood in their streets. It's unclear whether or not they will lift the ban and oppression on their home-grown hooligans once the danger to their reputation has passed.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:not by a long shot. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Whats ruined the world cup?

      According to the article a 2minute wait on a 90minute game which may run into 120 minutes or longer like many of the world cup games have. Think about the 2 minutes. OMG SLOW!

    5. Re:not by a long shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Something I might add which is illegal under the Geneva conventions. Instead of cleaning up racist actors and venues, FIFA has decided the saturation knob is good enough.

      So get back to me when you've found the cite in international agreements strictly limited in subject matter to the conduct of armed conflict that govern the actions of a private sporting organization in broadcasting a football tournament.

      And no, the hooligans in the stands don't count.

    6. Re:not by a long shot. by ruddk · · Score: 1

      “coverage black and white” can’t find anything on google about that.

    7. Re:not by a long shot. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Words, they're what's for dinner!

    8. Re:not by a long shot. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's because it was words, expressing an idea. There isn't something you'd look up, instead you'd have to think about his words and keep thinking until they make sense. That will be the hint that you might have understood them.

      If it doesn't make sense yet, you didn't understand it yet, keep trying.

    9. Re:not by a long shot. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Disclosure: My Citroen burned like a fucking candle during the Glasgow riots, so i might not be impartial to this point.

      I don't remember that. Sure you aren't getting confused with the blitz?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. No by campuscodi · · Score: 2

    No. It made it tons better.

  7. It was already long AF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Soccer is already a long and laborious sport to watch.
    Overtime?

    Yea, have fun with that, I'll see ya next week.

    1. Re:It was already long AF... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Don't ever watch field tennis, then. Ever.
      (FYI there was a Wimbledon match the other day: 4h 48m, take THAT you dirty american sports columnist!)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:It was already long AF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anderson-Isner is at 5h 20m right now...

    3. Re:It was already long AF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you always this easy?
      Where else do you like to be touched?

    4. Re:It was already long AF... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Oh noez, they should do something about it, this is preposterous, tip a sports columnist or something.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:It was already long AF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you didn't have your sport absolutely ruined in the name of placating miserable, hypothetical TV-viewers of a sport which basically never features on TV either way, and who aren't interested anyway.

      If you can't keep your concentration up, that's your problem. Don't presume to demand others change their rules in their game. Just fuck off.

  8. Dinosaurs by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    The soccer dinosaurs doing everything they can to prevent progress. Max Planck claimed that science progresses one funeral at a time. That's probably true of sports as well. Well, at least the repulsive, corrupt Blatter is largely out of the picture.

    1. Re:Dinosaurs by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the new FIFA seems to behave better.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  9. Video Refereeing Certainly Changes the Game by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    A big part of soccer is that there should be minimal interruptions so that the team that is well coordinated with the most fit players are going to have an advantage. The extra time needed to review calls gives the players a chance for a breather as well as consult/plan going forwards. This means that you will get a different game than if there wasn't video refereeing.

    Other games (baseball, football, hockey) that use video refereeing tend to have longer and more natural breaks so the flow of the game isn't as affected as soccer.

    I don't know if video refereeing "ruins" the game (I'm not enough of a fan to have a strong opinion) but I'm sure purists would.

    1. Re:Video Refereeing Certainly Changes the Game by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Informative

      While there are increased delays, there were already delays. An extra 30ish seconds after the goal already went into the net, to see if it should be cancelled is not appreciably different than the arguing that is normal when a controversial call or non-call happens. At least now a ref can say shut up and I am going to look at the video with my own eyes.

      As for real game stopping delays for reviewing general non-calls, they do not stop play for that. Rather the video is reviewed an the ref on the field is consulted once the next throw in or whatever break happens.

    2. Re:Video Refereeing Certainly Changes the Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, what most people have missed in this, but is amply supported by evidence from the leagues where this has been tested before the World Cup is that VAR speeds up the game and results in 'more minutes of ball in play'. Why? Because it has also brought in a bunch of new rules and guidelines about how referees manage uncertain cases, most noticeably in this tournament leaving the ball in play where there are uncertainties about 'off-side' because if there is a goal, the off-side uncertainty can be referred to VAR (ie. the lines-men are now told NOT to call off-side if they are uncertain where they would otherwise have done so before VAR).

  10. Is this an "Ask Slashdot" question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you asking us this? We are nerds, not sport nerds.

    1. Re:Is this an "Ask Slashdot" question? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Video === nerds

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  11. Injuries are Fake News! by Dust038 · · Score: 1

    So they are focusing on Video Play Recording instead of Players Faking Injuries for the sake of what? What's even the point? Why do people let it happen? How Soft are these players? If anything Video Play Recording should be used to Shame those Faking Injuries.

    1. Re:Injuries are Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple solution force any "injured" player to be evaluated by a Doctor sit out a certain minimum amount of time before returning to play. Right now they will be pretending they are in extreme pain, then hop up and continue playing. forcing them to sit out will make that fake injury much more costly to them if they are forced to stay on the sidelines.

    2. Re:Injuries are Fake News! by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      It is already happening.

    3. Re: Injuries are Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, so just injure the opposition keeper, and you get a window when you can easily score for the cost of one player.

    4. Re: Injuries are Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, do it at the end of the game, and you won't even be outnumbered at any point, puts a whole new meaning on 'injury time'. You could even bring on a substitute specially to do the deed, so as to protect your regular players from disciplinary action!

  12. So it was a citroenella candle? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Disclosure: My Citroen burned like a fucking candle

    Maybe someone was trying to keep the bugs away and got.confused.

    https://www.homedepot.com/b/Ou...

    1. Re:So it was a citroenella candle? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Surely you jest, it's a car company when you add a proper ë Citroën Cars. As for the riots, that is more a reflection of fellow countrymen than it is on FIFA.

    2. Re:So it was a citroenella candle? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      We speak English, it doesn't have whatever that symbol is. So get used it when you're talking to people from an English-speaking country.

  13. Not sure this is /. material by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not sure this is /. material, but I'll bite, as I occasionally watch football (sic), mostly national games like in the world cup or big CL games etc.
    In any case, I thought that VAR should have come much sooner, as the unavailability of a replay is the excuse referees always had for bad result-altering decisions. In fact, on this world cup I saw that the problem was the opposite: currently the referree has to ASK for VAR. In one match for example, Sweden's attacker Berg should have won a penalty, but the referree was adamant it was not end did not ask for VAR. Well, he was wrong, and the procedure should have been such that the VAR room people should have told him themselves "eh, you know, don't be so sure about that". I am not a Sweeden fan, just one occasion I remember, there were a few more but not many. I'd also want video review to punish players who flop. Because maybe then they would stop flopping, which would lead to a much better game (they often stop trying to score a goal just to fake a foul/penalty).
    Overall VAR helped deliver some tough calls and lead to a much more fair sport and it added a couple of minutes to the duration of each match, which is a completely idiotic reason to complain about. And there are many black/white calls in football (ball passing lines, offsides etc) and hopefully those will be the first to be handed off to some good AI/Machine Vision system to call, but harder things like penalty calls will take more time for that and VAR is not a perfect, but the best solution so far.

    Why am I debating VAR on /. again? :)

    PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball), and they weren't even in the world cup. Yeah, OK, you might say it is not fair since he is an American reporter so what can he do, but then think about that he reports on the world cup and is bothered by the fact that the games don't finish in 1h 45m - Newsflash: THEY NEVER DID, we always had an unpredictable number of extra minutes which was never less than about 3-4 per game and sometimes went to over 10, way beyond the time VAR took (for most games it was like a minute).

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Not sure this is /. material by jetkust · · Score: 1

      PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)

      Na, we here in the US know other countries call it football. We call it soccer here. It's not that complicated. Football is a word we use for another sport (a sport where every drive ends with a kick by design).

    2. Re:Not sure this is /. material by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Russia.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re: Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the arrogance. The article was written by an American, for a US audience, on a US website. NPR is National Public Radio, in the United States. Like it or not, football generally refers to a different sport in the US, so the article uses the term that the audience is most likely to understand. If you're complaining about calling the sport soccer instead of football, grow up.

      In American sports, use of instant replay generally requires that there be indisputable video evidence to overturn the original call. For that reason, video replay isn't used for judgment calls, only for decisions where there can be unambiguous evidence. This means the outcome of the video review can be one of three things:

      1) Call confirmed: Video evidence unambiguously shows that the officials made the correct call originally. The call remains unchanged.

      2) Play stands as called: There is insufficient video evidence to unambiguously show that the original call was either correct or incorrect. This is often due to insufficient camera angles to clearly show the aspect of the play that's being challenged. As a result, the original call remains unchanged.

      3) Call reversed/overturned: There is unambiguous video evidence to show that the original call was incorrect. As a result, the call is changed based on the video evidence.

      In some cases, there is unfortunately still some judgment in the decision, such as the NFL's catch rule. However, you can't challenge a holding call because it's subjective whether or not to call a penalty. Despite what should be unambiguous and simple, replays in American sports often take several minutes, are tedious for fans, and disrupt the flow of the game. This is particularly disruptive for a sport that generally has continuous action, so it's worse than for baseball or even hockey, where there are frequent stoppages in play.

      Soccer lends itself more to flopping than, say, basketball. In some respects, driving the ball into the lane in basketball is similar to a forward in soccer attacking in the box. There's often contact and it's somewhat of a judgment call whether to call a foul. In basketball, it's not always clear whether to call a block or a charge. The difference is that an attacking player in basketball won't flop because there's a benefit to making the shot and drawing the foul. It offers the opportunity for a three point play, while flopping and missing the shot would only result in two free throws (I'm referring to driving, not shooting fouls beyond the arc). On the other hand, in soccer, flopping often creates an easier scoring opportunity than staying upright and continuing to play on. Block/charge calls aren't reviewed in basketball, and that's analogous to some situations in soccer that may actually get reviewed. Also, instant replay may reduce the effort of the officials to get the call right initially, if they know it will be reviewed anyway. Replay is good, but probably not for judgment calls.

    4. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Typical American exceptionalism. The correct name for the sport you're calling "football" to is "handegg". Referring to the sport the entire rest of the world is calling "Football" as "soccer" is just arrogant.

    5. Re: Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you always this arrogant and stupid?

      Before you whine about the US some more, keep in mind that the 1994 World Cup still holds the record for the highest total attendance for any World Cup. In 1994, only 24 teams qualified, so there were fewer matches.

    6. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd get a point if American football was invented before football. But football was pretty much established with official rules and everything by the time american football started.

    7. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soccer is now officially renamed as boreball.

    8. Re: Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that an attacking player in basketball won't flop because there's a benefit to making the shot and drawing the foul.

      The entirety of the 2017 and 2018 NBA playoffs (especially James Harden) would beg to differ with you. Attacking players for the past two years have flopped *all the time*.

      I wouldn't mind seeing FIFA implement a rule suggested by comments above: if you're on the ground for more than ten seconds you are taken off the field for a minimum of 5 minutes. Your team can either choose to play down a man for that time period or use one of your team's available substitutions or you can choose to take a yellow card.

    9. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)

      Na, we here in the US know other countries call it football. We call it soccer here. It's not that complicated. Football is a word we use for another sport (a sport where every drive ends with a kick by design).

      The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself. It would be like calling all American football "NFL" even if it was played in Cuba... by kids in the street. Or saying high school kids in Italy are playing in the NBA if they play rounders at lunch.

      My problem is not that you have a different name for football- my problem is that the name is... well, wrong and inaccurate.

      MLS in the US is not part of the English "Football asSOCiation" (what the name originally came from) any more than kids playing rounders in school are part of MLB. It's not that the name is different- it's that it is technically WRONG.

      I live with it, I mean, I understand that's what Americans call it now- but I feel like there should really be a better name for it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    10. Re: Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? It's been called soccer in the US long before MLS existed. MLS was founded in 1993. There are at least a couple of varieties of soccer played in the US, both of which predate MLS. One is what much of the rest of the world calls football, and uses the same rules. Another is played indoors, typically in a hockey arena. There are boards, just like in hockey, and the game tends to be fast-paced and higher-scoring. There's a similar distinction in (American) football, with the normal (American) football and arena football. Indoor soccer is actually pretty common in North America and is quite entertaining.

    11. Re:Not sure this is /. material by jetkust · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With a quick google search the term soccer is from the original name of the sport itself, "association football" and not from "Football Association", the governing body. So I don't see how either term is "wrong".

    12. Re:Not sure this is /. material by zieroh · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.

      Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse.

      I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    13. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with Soccer is that the name comes from an abbreviation of one governing body and not the sport itself.

      Not only is this a false statement, it obfuscates the fact that the term "soccer" was a British-ism (from the late 1800s, no less) that eventually fell into disuse.

      I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame on the USA here. England switched to a different usage after the term had gained traction in the US, and foolishly chose a name that conflicted with other sports called "football" that had taken root in form British colonies (namely the US and Australia).

      I never said Americans invented the term- it is common knowledge that it began in Britain to refer to football that was administered by the football association. What I said is it is incorrect to refer to football as being administered by the British Football Association when it isn't. I

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    14. Re: Not sure this is /. material by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Huh? It's been called soccer in the US long before MLS existed. MLS was founded in 1993. There are at least a couple of varieties of soccer played in the US, both of which predate MLS.

      Yes, and none of those leagues were run by the Football Association so shouldn't have been called "soccer".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Not sure this is /. material by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      The "association" of "association football" comes from "Football Association", and is to distinguish it from the football games which were idiosyncratic to a single public (i.e. non-state) school such as, most famously, Rugby football.

    16. Re: Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. You've clearly played too much handegg. I've heard it's bad for the brain, and you seem to be all the evidence needed. Or is it possibly this damaging to just be a spectator?

    17. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way

      That's not true, we call it soccer in the US too.

      Oh, wait, you didn't know that one of the biggest soccer countries calls it soccer?

      LMAO

    18. Re: Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are so fucking obtuse. It is called association soccer because it uses the association's code. Just as Rugby League and Union are called so because they use those respective codes, even though there are many leagues in which those shirts are played.

      The general "American" football code framework is called "gridiron football," a reference to the now obsolete use of a gridded field in early play, but there are several sub-codes with significant differences in play such as NFL, NCAA,CFL, and arena, similar to how futsal is a different code from association football but is recognized as a variant of the same sport and is often referred to merely as "indoor soccer" or "indoor football."

      If we are going by antiquity of the code, than Italian Calcio Storico ("historic football")has the best claim to the name, considering it has used the same code since the middle ages. And oh, that code includes plenty of handling of the ball, not to mention full body tackling, fistfights, etc.

    19. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you ever get a chance to learn English, you'll find it is a much more forgiving language than that. All the known meanings used for a word are considered correct. So the type of insufferable pedanticism that you display, while available in some languages that have an official Authoritay on correctness, are guaranteed to be falsehoods and idiocies in English.

      TLDR; Get a fucking dictionary, will you?!

    20. Re:Not sure this is /. material by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way
      Erm ...
      Every country calls it soccer. Football is the thing americans play. On the other hand we call it in german "Fussball" which is the literal translation of Football.
      I never heard an english or a french to call "Fussball" football, they all say soccer, or simply "foot" :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous, the US adopted the term soccer as an abbreviation for association, Since we used that term for that sport and really weren't into it, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to use the term football for American Football. Especially considering that early on there were no forward passes and players had to move the ball forward on foot.

      It's mostly foreign people that are too arrogant for their own good that seem to have cognitive issues understanding that things can have different names in different countries without there being an issue. Or are you also going to take us to task for referring to lorries as trucks or lifts as elevators? Not to mention referring to prams as strollers.

    22. Re:Not sure this is /. material by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      currently the referree has to ASK for VAR

      The referee has an earpiece (and a mic), and gets suggestions from the VAR team.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    23. Re:Not sure this is /. material by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Na, we here in the US know other countries call it football. We call it American football here. It's not that complicated.
      ftfy

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    24. Re:Not sure this is /. material by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not sure this is /. material

      Why? A discussion of how a technology can fundamentally change the style of play in a game is not news for nerds?

      currently the referree has to ASK for VAR

      This is by design. If you didn't need to ask for VAR then the ultimate authority of the referee is diminished. This would certainly have and affect on the ability to control a game. In games where players request for VAR (e.g. Tennis) even then the ref has the ability to overrule the decision.

      PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way

      Really? I have *lived* in 3 countries that call it soccer. I'm sure there are others too. Calling it soccer is nothing more than ensuring you don't confuse the term football which already covers several different sports.

    25. Re:Not sure this is /. material by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      PS calling it "soccer" means you are not in touch with the football world, as there is only one country that calls it that way (retaining the name "football" for a game played mostly by holding and throwing the ball)

      1. I've lived in four separate countries, none of which are the USA, and all of which call the game Soccer.
      2. Football is a historic term used to describe ball games played on foot, not played with the foot.

    26. Re:Not sure this is /. material by zieroh · · Score: 1

      it is common knowledge that it began in Britain to refer to football that was administered by the football association. What I said is it is incorrect to refer to football as being administered by the British Football Association when it isn't.

      As has been repeatedly pointed out to you in this thread, the name doesn't come from the British Football Association. The name comes from a set of rules known as "association football" that go back more than 100 years. The fact that you continue to conflate these two terms suggests -- strongly -- that you don't know the first thing about soccer or football, let alone the history thereof.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  14. what about an real clock not this stoppage time by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    what about an real clock not this stoppage time

    1. Re:what about an real clock not this stoppage time by alteran · · Score: 1

      I seriously do not get this at all. It's s no longer the 1800s, we can put up a clock that everyone can see that stops and starts when the ref hits the button. I mean, come on.

      --
      Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
    2. Re:what about an real clock not this stoppage time by war4peace · · Score: 1

      1. Tradition.
      2. Football (soccer for you) was never about "down-to-the-second" time precision like it is for basketball or hockey, where exact timing adds to the drama and one lucky throw/shot could traverse the field in seconds and score a goal. In football (soccer for you) that is damn near impossible and certainly never a viable strategy.
      3. The referee does have power indeed. Maybe more than needed but still plenty. He gets to decide extra time based on a variety of factors that can't really be automated.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:what about an real clock not this stoppage time by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Ok, smartypants, quick: Define the word "clock" in the phrase, "real clock" such that it includes your desired type of clock, but rejects all stopwatches and timers. LOL

    4. Re:what about an real clock not this stoppage time by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Defineing "clock" as how it works is many other sports

    5. Re:what about an real clock not this stoppage time by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Explained above.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:what about an real clock not this stoppage time by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There is a real clock. Just because its not shown on the screen doesn't mean there isn't a real clock. Speaking of that clock, between HD TV and the ever increasing size of the official timepiece you can almost read the official time from the ref's wrist at this point.

    7. Re:what about an real clock not this stoppage time by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      To you the word "clock" means, "as how it works in many other sports."

      That is not even grammatically complete. Are you really sure you even know how it works in any other sports?

  15. Uh, no.... It was ruined by flopping. by chaboud · · Score: 1

    VAR should be used for handing out asynchronous yellow and red cards for horrific flopping.

    1. Re:Uh, no.... It was ruined by flopping. by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      Agreed! Another way to address flopping would be to have the first 5 minutes of the game be a highlight reel of recent flops by anybody playing in today's match.

      Bonus point if you add zany clown music, comical sound effects, and a laugh track.

  16. USA Today ?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF a reporter from USA Today has to say about soccer ?

  17. referees are players too by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    The sport is an exercise in humanity, fallibility in anyone on the field is a part of it.

    It is not the point to eradicate judgement failures and create the "perfect" game. The Referees can have good or bad games, it's part of the sport because they are participants too, we should not relegate them to being robots or defer to an off-pitch panel of judges. It's the officials' job to be engaged on the field and not simply wait for an outcry and rush to a monitor to see what happened.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:referees are players too by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      What you describe works very well for 95% of the regular season games, so that is probably good enough.

      But it very clearly often fails for "big games" where players are strongly incentivized to game the referee. Then it is 1 vs 22 on the field, and the ARs offer very little help.

      In big games, clearly there are players who do not care who gets injured and do not care about anything the referee has to say about that purposeful foul, other than a yellow card. The normal tools for persuading players do not work. In fact, the higher profile means the referees feel greater pressure to err on the side of not enforcing the rules, because they will always be criticized for an ejection in an important match even when it is 100% justified.

    2. Re:referees are players too by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > where players are strongly incentivized to game the referee

      Curious. Care to share more details on how this happens? TIA.

    3. Re:referees are players too by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      If the ARs offer little help then that's a problem that the Referee should address, they are there for a purpose. I also doubt that "million dollar a leg" players (or their insurance companies) will put up with being deliberately injured on or off the field - I can see it resulting in litigation (and the courts are free to pick any camera angle they like in evidence)

      --
      Nullius in verba
    4. Re:referees are players too by war4peace · · Score: 1

      #1: flopping.
      #2: covertly injuring an opponent when the referee isn't looking
      #3: provoking an opponent (through swearing, racist calls, spitting, offensive gestures) when the referee isn't looking

      etc.

      The problem with this game is that it is so much about the money now that fair play has completely disappeared. Virtually ALL players are cheaters now, andd they receive intensive training on how to cheat better, especially when the match stakes are high.

      It's no longer about winning a tournament or a cup, it's about the money that comes with that achievement.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:referees are players too by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The Referees can have good or bad games, it's part of the sport because they are participants too, we should not relegate them to being robots or defer to an off-pitch panel of judges.

      NO. They most definitely should be relegated to being robots. The only reason it wasn't always like that is because we didn't have video when we invented spherical things soft enough to kick. Refs are not part of the game, they were only there due to the limitations of technology at the time and a game definitely should not be decided on if the ref is having a bad day.

    6. Re:referees are players too by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It isn't enough to punish the player, you have to punish their teammates, and also fine the team, and the punishments have to be stronger than the potential benefit of the actions. All the stakeholders that potentially benefit from the action have to be punished, when there is a history of narrower punishments being ineffective.

      In most American sports, if there is video evidence that a player was lying and deceived a referee and it affected the outcome of a game, that whole team risks being fined, losing credit for wins, the player is likely to be banned from some number of games, etc.

  18. It's all about the betting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget the drama, the bad calls, the blatant cheating and the myopic officials; the singular reason for VAR is the enormous money involved with the action (betting periods). US people aren't used to having bookies every 10 shops, in fact it's generally illegal; unlike the rest of the planet. Betting is no longer walking into a seedy shop unit with smelly old men watching horses - it's 99% online, instant and advertised on shirts, around the ground and in every single fscking TV break. And it's global with everything you can think of being set up as a bet.

    Global betting corps now control big-time Association Football, and have far more influence than FIFA, UEFA "official" sponsors.

  19. If you really want to Fix Soccer by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 1

    I have always said that they need to award yellow cards after the match for obvious dives and theatrics. If players know that they can't just carry on and try to convince the ref right then, but that their actions will be reviewed to see if they are false, it would stop a lot of the rolling around and hamming it up. There are too many no touch fouls where a player might get hit on the chin but grabs his forehead like his head is broken, or a player leaps into the air and rolls around like he has severed his leg when he wasn't even touched.

    1. Re:If you really want to Fix Soccer by war4peace · · Score: 1
      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  20. Video replay and unnatural sufaces and venues have by Tangential · · Score: 1

    The imperfection of officiating has always been a part of sports and the shift to video replay of almost every call has made the games barely watchable. Another factor is removing weather, sun, wind as game influencing factors by moving outdoor games inside. If the game was originally designed to be played outside it should still be played outside. Couple all of this with weird (ie non natural surfaces) and you end up with games that barely resemble what they looked like 50 years ago. Baseball has probably done the best job of not straying too far afield other than the few teams that play in domes (and shouldnâ(TM)t.) I would love to see baseball, football, soccer, tennis and hockey all stay outdoors where they belong.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  21. Soccer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is ruining the sport is calling it soccer instead of football. World Cup?? Of what??

    1. Re:Soccer? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right; that's how much value it has, the value of identifying a preferred word selection.

      I can get more value than that out of soccer ball just kicking it against a wall by myself, you might want to reconsider your hobby.

  22. Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Soccer (football) is a decent sport. However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed. This way an attacker can be waiting down towards the goal, receive a kick and score. Also, there wouldn't be these stupid calls where the person was offside by six inches and they take a free kick.

    Still - planning on going to France for the Women's World Cup next year. At least they don't fall to the ground as much as the men.

    1. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO offside is a good rule, allow for the game to be more technical and require more skill to get to the goal. Soccer is already very much a team sport, but it make it much more so (which i value as a good thing).

    2. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there might be aspects of football that are troublesome (e.g. parking the bus and hoping for the draw is how we get the terrible-to-watch Spain-Russia game) but the offside rule is not one of them. No offside rule would turn the game from a team-based passing game into a sprinter's game and would be pretty lame to watch.

    3. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No offside rule would turn the game from a team-based passing game into a sprinter's game and would be pretty lame to watch.

      The offside rule changes it from a kicker's game in which there is scoring to a runner's game in which there is not. I fail to see how that is a benefit. People like to see goals scored.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which just shows that you know nothing about football. In schoolyards all over Europe, children play informal football games without referees, where the offside rule is never enforced. The end result is all too often for the children to stay bunched up in front of their respective goals - i.e. a game in which nothing much happens. The offside rule is one the fundamental rules of football.

    5. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed./quote?

      No it would be a fundamentally different game if offside rules were removed. You should try playing at social clubs sometime. There's a wide variety out there with many rules across both indoor and outdoor. There is nothing "improved" by removing offside rules. You just end up playing a completely different game with different strategies, player positioning, and the result is very different to watch too often turning into a lobbing game.

    6. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      I keep arguing with my (English) father in law that one of the big problems with soccer is the lack of scoring. Getting rid of offside would improve that.

    7. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Straif · · Score: 2

      Being Canadian I've always preferred the hockey style offside rule which is zone based as opposed to defending player position based. Basically the field would just have to be split into 3 zones, a zone for each team and a neutral zone. An attacking player could not enter the defenders zone unless they are in possession of the ball or the ball has already entered first. After that point all play is considered onside unless the ball exits the zone.

      This prevents long range goal camping, as you can't enter the defending zone without the ball already being there, but doesn't require attackers to have to stay behind the defense once in the defending zone so they can be a little more aggressive in their play.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    8. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I keep arguing with my (English) father in law that one of the big problems with soccer is the lack of scoring. Getting rid of offside would improve that.

      If you want more goals - and I would like more goals - the best way would be to scale the size of the goal in proportion to how the players are taller than they were when the rules were set 200 years ago - when most players were probably 5' 2". However, that would mean that the best team wins - and the bookies would certainly cry foul at the prospect of that!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re: Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The offside rule might not be formally enforced, lacking referees, but just staying all time in front of the goalkeeper waiting for the ball, which is what the rule intends to avoid, is still frowned upon. In my place, you would be called "goalpost-licker" ("chupapostes").

    10. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we football fans like watching football. The sport you propose, goal scrounging and lots of scoring is a completely different sporting spectacle. Perhaps you would like to watch that, but I'm certain that football fans would not enjoy such a dull contest (there's a reason for the offside rule in the first place...)

    11. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      offside is a great rule for young kids, where there might be a huge difference in running speed between the players, but when they're old enough to be dividing the teams up based on skill then it seems to be a poor rule.

    12. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Many Europeans were that small 200 years ago, because they were from countries that had had hundreds of years of war and related reduced nutrition, but most of northern Europe including the UK was much taller, as their wars were being fought more often in other people's countries.

    13. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      This could easily be solved by inverting the rule to prevent excessive defense instead of preventing sufficient offense to attempt scoring.

    14. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      This way an attacker can be waiting down towards the goal, receive a kick and score.
      And exactly because of this we have the not so lame offside rule, moron.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      "Offside need to go" hmm games would become uninteresting. Otoh, offside needs some technical help, too often mistakes are made by side referees.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    16. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      concur - i prefer hockey for just that reason.

    17. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      I do know soccer. in fact, when the local soccer organization called me to be a coach for my then-six-year-old son, I asked if they carried the ball over the goal line or passed it. They said I was qualified.

      Several coaching and referee clinics later, I learned a ton and coached as well as refereed for several years.

      Still don't like offside.

    18. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Please write your rule down in a concise, clear, easy to understand, easy to implement and easy to adjudicate terms in order to achieve your desired outcome.

    19. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're still ignorant

    20. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by fropenn · · Score: 1

      But the blue line trap in hockey results in lots of dump and chase, which isn't very exciting to watch either.

    21. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Straif · · Score: 1

      Harder to use a dump and chase strat on a field with no boards.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    22. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No thanks, I already expressed myself clearly. You seem to feel like there is some idea you want expressed; perhaps you should express it.

    23. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Soccer (football) is a decent sport. However, it would be MUCH improved if the lame offside rule were removed. This way an attacker can be waiting down towards the goal, receive a kick and score. Also, there wouldn't be these stupid calls where the person was offside by six inches and they take a free kick.

      Get rid off-sides, and goalies. I'd pay to see that game.

    24. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      i.e. a game in which nothing much happens.

      So the same as regular soccer then?

    25. Re:Nope. Made it better. But offside needs to go. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      My idea is already expressed in the rulebook as written. What you have done is present an idea, a concept. You want to turn that into a sport you need to make it a rule and a rule needs to be easily understood and simple to understand unquestionably while your mind is focused on something else.

      So go for it:
      Define excessive
      Define defense
      and turn it into a sentence.

  23. Football's governing body by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    as in Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

    1. Re:Football's governing body by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      I thought everyone had access to wikipedia

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  24. How time flies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1998: Man, sports officiating sucks. If only we could review video to make sure they get the calls on the field right.

    2018: Man, these games are taking too long. If only we hadn't added video review...

  25. It is about credibility by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

    The refs have to have "good enough" credibility, even if this will always be imperfect. Like it or not, fans in the stands and assistant coaches are looking at these replays on their phones, 15 seconds after the event. Those referees are being judged in a context that includes those video replays. They need to gain the advantages of this technology in some fashion. Whether what they are doing with VAR is the best way is open to debate. Doing nothing only erodes the credibility of the ref on the field and the FIFA officials running the show.

  26. Slippery slope by rcharbon · · Score: 1

    VAR is the wedge to get all the other annoying bits of US TV sports into soccer - especially ad breaks during play. Sigh.

    1. Re:Slippery slope by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Instead why don't they just do a split screen with the ads in one half? It's soooooooooooooooooo much fun. Most US sports have so many built in breaks it's not necessary over here, they get the full screen every two to five minutes.

  27. Much longer? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    How "much longer" does VAR make games? Maybe zero more minutes? VAR is hardly ever used in a game. If it is, it only takes 5 minutes to review something. How much time does Neymar's fake rolling around in the ground waste? How much time is wasted over guys arguing with the on field referree? How much time is wasted waiting for players to walk slowly off the field in order to waste time because they are ahead?

    1. Re:Much longer? by satcat · · Score: 1

      According to 538... about 31 seconds

      https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

    2. Re:Much longer? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Even though it’d take 5 minutes, better that than an unfair game. If VAR is called, it’s because of its necessity.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  28. Completely off-base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While things were in their infancy in the group stages, sure, there were some minor delays. But both players and officials have adapted for the knockouts. The assessments are fed to the referee in live time through his ear piece, and there has been far less objectionable contact in the box because players know it will be ferreted out. VAR has been great in its first introduction and managed to help referees get the right decision more consistently.

  29. It's not a fitness competition by sjbe · · Score: 1

    A big part of soccer is that there should be minimal interruptions so that the team that is well coordinated with the most fit players are going to have an advantage.

    Soccer isn't a game of who can outrun the other guy. Sometimes conditioning plays a role but other factors generally determine the outcome - ball handling, teamwork, game tactics, etc. At the World Cup level there aren't going to be massive differences in conditioning. Everyone playing is a well conditioned professional.

    The extra time needed to review calls gives the players a chance for a breather as well as consult/plan going forwards.

    Fine but that's not adequate justification for permitting bad refereeing to occur and the conditions of the game remain the same for both teams. If you are the better team you should be able to win under a variety of circumstances. Sometimes games are going to be less fluid than at other times. Deal with it and find a way to win.

    I don't know if video refereeing "ruins" the game (I'm not enough of a fan to have a strong opinion) but I'm sure purists would.

    Generally anyone who could be described as a "purist" in regards to a game with arbitrary rules is going to hate anything that changes the game even when it demonstrably makes it better. I coach several teams and I run into this all the time. No video refereeing does not ruin the game as a general proposition in any sport.

  30. Re:Video replay and unnatural sufaces and venues h by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    The imperfection of officiating has always been a part of sports and the shift to video replay of almost every call has made the games barely watchable. Another factor is removing weather, sun, wind as game influencing factors by moving outdoor games inside. If the game was originally designed to be played outside it should still be played outside. Couple all of this with weird (ie non natural surfaces) and you end up with games that barely resemble what they looked like 50 years ago. Baseball has probably done the best job of not straying too far afield other than the few teams that play in domes (and shouldnâ(TM)t.) I would love to see baseball, football, soccer, tennis and hockey all stay outdoors where they belong.

    Hockey was only played outdoors by kids. Since the early era of professional hockey, it was played in indoor arenas (the NHL is 50 years old). However, the goaltenders need to be forced to go back to skinnier pads. Between the goaltenders getting bigger and the large pads that they wear, the only spot left to score goals are the upper corners. Reducing the goalie pads would fix this.

  31. Can't ruin what's ruined to begin with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's soccer. It's a stupid sport.

  32. world cup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad, inconsistent officiating has ruined the world cup not VAR.

  33. Why is extra time a secret? by EnOne · · Score: 1

    Have a second clock for extra time that counts up and as the game goes on. So any Replay/Injury/Diving/Slow Substitution, all the ways that a team can currently use to run out a game once they have a crippling 1-0 lead, would automatically add up, negating any advantage gained.

    If the teams just switch from the above to playing keep away in the backfield institute a over-and-back rule at the half-way line.

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
    1. Re:Why is extra time a secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? We could use clock that's stoppable for a sports event, and it would stop running when the game is interrupted for injury or officiating? Maybe in the far future we will develop this technology. But for now, let's just stick to the match official opaquely guesstimating the time of stoppage, and then someone holding up his guesstimate to approximately inform our expectations of when the referee expects to end the match by blowing his whistle..

    2. Re:Why is extra time a secret? by jetkust · · Score: 1

      Yea, soccer is like a sport that never wanted to use a clock, but has no other sane way to end the game. Stoppage time is just a bizarre workaround to never wanting to stop the clock. With that said, it appears to work fine, and is pretty cool.

    3. Re:Why is extra time a secret? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Uh... that’s already the case. The referee might add as much time as he wants if he deems it relevant

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  34. types of football by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Other countries besides the US fefer to the game (where you kick the round ball) as soccer, to distinguish it from sports where you run with an oval ball.

    For example in Australia they play 3 different types of football, not including soccer
    Rugby Union, Rugby League, and Aussie Rules

    In fact I was going to complain about the headline:

    World Cup of what?

    Since there are many sports that have a World Cup

    1. Re:types of football by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World Cup of what?

      Since there are many sports that have a World Cup

      Without any qualifier you assume it is THE World Cup. The popularity of the specific world cup cannot be compared to the popularity of other World Cups, so it is pretty explanatory. For slashdot standards I'd even call it unusually clear.

    2. Re:types of football by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term 'World Cup' without any additional qualifiers always refers to football, because it is by far the most popular world cup of any kind.

    3. Re:types of football by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we were talking about horse racing. They really should specify. http://www.dubaiworldcup.com/

    4. Re:types of football by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. If it was the middle of the something_else World Cup I for one would assume it meant that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  35. Team games are just RNGs by devslash0 · · Score: 2

    Team sports have too much entropy for me to enjoy them. If I need a pseudorandom value I simply go and get it instantly from /dev/random. If your algorithm needs 90-odd minutes to generate a sample of two positive integers then perhaps you should consider choosing a different career path.

  36. Complaining about the refs is part of the game by wafflemonger · · Score: 1

    The purists complain about it because complaining about the refereeing is part of the post game rituals. If the refs were infallible and omniscient, it would remove this social aspect of the game. You can't go into work the next day and say something like, "did you see that ludicrous display last night?" and then spend the next couple of hours discussing the art of flopping and the fine subtleties of the rules if the refs don't mess up all the time.

  37. VAR has reversed some bad calls by Kwelstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My overall feeling in this cup is that VAR has been a well overdue positive innovation. I've seen some bad calls, included penalties, reversed because of VAR. There is nothing worst than losing a game on a bad penalty call by the ref. I am glad this is finally happening.

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    1. Re:VAR has reversed some bad calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it needs a limiter like the red flags in football (you get two that you can use to challenge a play call, if your challenge isn't upheld, you loose a timeout as well, etc.).

    2. Re:VAR has reversed some bad calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I like the VAR too. It has fixed some bad calls, and made sure that the ball went over the line. It isn't used excessively by the on-field refs either.

    3. Re:VAR has reversed some bad calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it was still a *LONG* way from good. Harry Kane was literally wrestled to the ground every corner during the Tunisia game, no call. Sterling should have had a clear penalty in the semi-final, no call. Same game, goal kick instead of a corner, clear contact.

      None of that is leveled at VAR itself, just observing that the rules of engagement of VAR still leaves way too much room for errors.

      Croatia have 2 clear sources of malcontent during the final - both of France's first two goals were bogus based upon bad decisions. But what goes around, comes around. I don't think they'd even been there if Sterling had had that penalty given - as well as Croatia played the semi-final, I don't think they'd have come back from 2-0 down at 65 minutes. Their first goal was clearly a high boot in an area dangerous to the defender's head, and in saner circumstances would be disallowed. It's a 50-50 ball, and Perisic made contact with the defender's head. The same ref has given red cards to players for that before.

      VAR also hasn't solved the real problem - no post-match actions for unseen but blatent cheating, or under-punished cheating. Deliberate head-buts are red card offences, not yellow. Diving is rarely carded. Neymar shouldn't have been allowed to start the second match after the dives of the first. Half the Panama team should be serving international bans for deliberate cheating - headbuts, scuffing up the penalty spot etc. Until FIFA grows a pair, that shit will keep happening.

  38. Re:Video replay and unnatural sufaces and venues h by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Outdoor playing only fucks up matches for certain sports.
    Also, 50 years ago a football player had up to 5 seconds between receiving the ball and being attacked by an opponent, giving him plenty of time to figure out what the fuck should he do with it (keep, pass, advance, dribble, shoot, etc). today, that timeframe has reduced to an average of 0.5 seconds. That's what changed the game, not wherever the hell it's being played.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  39. WYAAAH says the baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then stop the fucking crying about every little thing and faking it most if it you pancy ass little dwerps.
    In soccer cheating is some how accepted, what the hell does it teach our kids? If you can get a way with it, it's ok?
    Automatic red cards for 10 games for faking!

  40. Will take time to get right. by John+Allsup · · Score: 2

    This is the first time out with VAR. We should not expect them to have it perfect yet.

    --
    John_Chalisque
    1. Re:Will take time to get right. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Before you make that claim, list the downsides or failures. As far as I can see it has been nothing but an improvement.

    2. Re:Will take time to get right. by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      The main failure I've seen has been not using it. E.g. in the England-Croatia game England missed out on two corners because the referee and assistants on the pitch didn't see them and didn't consult VAR.

    3. Re:Will take time to get right. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's a tricky one on authority. Most VAR implementations still leave authority with the ref and allow referees to request something to be checked. I can imagine the overruling aspect may be a bit of a problem on the game.

    4. Re:Will take time to get right. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The VAR "rules" are opposite around than people think here.
      The referee is not supposed to consult the video assistant on his own.

      The videos are watched and evaluated by "full referees" and they call the referee on the field if they think he made a questionable decision.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Will take time to get right. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      This is the first time out with VAR. We should not expect them to have it perfect yet.

      Other sports have had video adjudication for years, and it's still fucked. You need to accept that referees are human and will make mistakes too, and just watch for the love of the game not the accuracy of the decisions.
      This is why I prefer watching amateur sports. Pure enjoyment of the game, less precious fuckwits.

  41. No fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video refereeing is making it worth watching.
    What's the point of a sport where some random referee not calling a foul, or misscalling something leads to a game changing goal?
    Then you get the constant replay on tv showing what really happened, so everyone knows who should have won, but the official title still goes to the losing team.
    Yeah, fuck that.

  42. FIFA ruined the World Cup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A corrupt organization to the core. John Oliver even ran a segment on them. Soccer used to be a decent game. Now it's a tortured lost soul best left to children's playgrounds. At least children don't dive and even know how to be good sports.

  43. No Free Hands flopping around grabbing/pushing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Force all players (except goalie) to wear a uniform where their arms and hands are essentially 'inside' their shirt to prevent all the grabbing, pushing, etc. Yes, they'll need free hands/arms for throw in.
    I used to play with my hands in my pockets to show the referee I wasn't grabbing or pushing and it eliminated most of the calls against me.
    This would really help for set pieces where players are interfering with jumping for heading.

  44. Wrong, only adds 30 seconds [source: 538] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    538 timed all stoppages, VAR hardly registers: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/world-cup-stoppage-time-is-wildly-inaccurate/

  45. NO! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Really? You go to a 90 minute game, 120 minute if you're drawn in a knockout round, potentially longer if you're in penalties, and you're worried about the less than 1 minuted the VAR adds to the sport?

    Want your minute back, penalise players who argue with the referrer, or worse, that despicable behavior of intimidating the ref in groups (Columbia looking at you!). Penalise players who roll around so much that the medical team can't even get to him, everyone knows who I'm talking about here.

    VAR finally brings some much needed finality to a decision on a sport by a referee who spends more time running on the field than many players do and by his nature can't see it all, even with the several other assistant referees.

  46. So how many interruptions did we have per game? by Kartu · · Score: 1

    So how many interruptions did we have per game? LESS THAN ONE on average? And that "ruined" something for someone? I'm impressed.

    Tone down the nonsense, please. WC was fun to watch and video referee's added a lot of fairness to the process.

  47. Add more referees. Learn from hockey. by satcat · · Score: 1

    Ice hockey has 4 officials on the ice at once, despite the playing surface being only 30% the size of a soccer field. They used to only have 3 (1 referee and 2 linesmen), but a 4th was added in the late 90s.

    I don't see why soccer can't just add an extra referee, so that there are 2 sets of eyes on each play, and the ref isn't always so far behind the play.

    Not that I mind VAR. Might as well get important calls right if you can.

    Other things I wish they would take from hockey:

    * More substitutions, more exciting.
    * Reduce the number of players in overtime, so games are less likely to go to penalties.
    * This thing called the stopwatch was invented. Maybe use it. You can even hook them up to these newfangled electronic scoreboard and clock things using the properties of electromagnetism.
    * Zero-tolerance on holding. This was a problem in the "clutch and grab" 90s and 00s era of NHL hockey, so they cracked down on it.
    * Short-term hockey-style penalties. You can trip a guy and all that happens is he gets the ball back?? Break a rule, go sit for 5 minutes by yourself and feel shame.
    * Not even sure what to do about the card system, but there's got to be something better.

    They should just play ice hockey instead, really :P

    1. Re:Add more referees. Learn from hockey. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I don't see why soccer can't just add an extra referee, so that there are 2 sets of eyes on each play, and the ref isn't always so far behind the play.

      Soccer already has four officials, three of which are always watching the play. They use radio to keep in contact.

      * More substitutions, more exciting.

      Nope. Knowing that you can replace just three people during a match makes it a better game. It's not just "throw a fresh set of legs into the game" every ten minutes.

      * Reduce the number of players in overtime, so games are less likely to go to penalties.

      Nope. Get rid of penalties and play until someone wins, IF it is important that someone actually wins. Normal season games -- no need.

      * This thing called the stopwatch was invented. Maybe use it.

      The ref has the watch.

      * Zero-tolerance on holding.

      Grabbing a jersey is a yellow-card offense.

      * Short-term hockey-style penalties. You can trip a guy and all that happens is he gets the ball back??

      No, he gets a free kick. It's called a "set play". In many cases, a free kick results in a goal that wouldn't have happened if play continued.

      * Not even sure what to do about the card system, but there's got to be something better.

      Really? Under your "five minute sit" rule, you wind up with enforcers -- just like in hockey. You want to retaliate against the other team for perceived injustices, you put an enforcer into your line and he takes a penalty. Then gets out of the box and can do it again. Or you put in an enforcer to physically attack the opponent's star players.

      With cards, you get two chances, unless it's egregious where you get one. And you don't get to sub for a red card ejection. You play with 10. For the rest of the game. Not just during the "five minute shaming", which would not be a sign of shame to begin with.

    2. Re:Add more referees. Learn from hockey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having watched soccer for many years, It is far from the "perfect game". Other people have tried to improve the game with somewhat interesting results: Rugby, for example.
      However here are some simple changes that would greatly improve the game, some of which are mentioned above:

      1. Problem: Players rolling around in pain.
      Causes:
      - soccer is a very physical game
      - it is the often the only way to draw attention to a foul

      Solutions:
      - Obviously players have inadequate protective equipment.
      - If play is stopped for an injured player, and no foul is called, the player should be obligated to leave the game and replace.
          - if you need to allow more subs, so be it, I don't see it changing the nature of the game.
      - Add at least another ref (not assistant) focused on player fouls (instead of game play) so that fouls are detected without having to draw attention to it by falling down
      - Zero tolerance on shit like diving and jersey pulling ... review video after games and discipline

      2. Problem: None-proportional penalties
      - Example: A handball in the defenders box gives a 80% change of a goal ... whereas the same foul elsewhere is usually inconsequential
      - Why bother with the rest of the game if most of your goals are scored on set plays? Just call the sport "Set Play Football" and have some combination of free kicks, corner kicks and penalty kicks .... Oh, we already have that ... yes I guess we call that "American Football"

      Solution
      - Only award penalty kicks if a direct scoring chance is taken away
      - Give 5 minute penalties to players for fouls instead of yellow cards

      3. Problem: Shoot outs!
      - Stupid way to decide the outcome of anything but target shooting and archery

      Solution:
      - Golden goal overtime with one player removed from the field from each team every five minutes. Absolutely certain to end within 50 minutes.

    3. Re:Add more referees. Learn from hockey. by satcat · · Score: 1

      > Soccer already has four officials, three of which are always watching the play. They use radio to keep in contact.

      Ah OK I thought those were the replay guys. They miss enough stuff that it seemed like it must be because there's only 1 guy making the calls, from a single angle and 20 yards away. You can step on a guy on purpose during a stoppage and get nothing. No wonder guys roll around.

      > Nope. Knowing that you can replace just three people during a match makes it a better game. It's not just "throw a fresh set of legs into the game" every ten minutes.

      It's slower, in a game with so few chances to begin with. It's less exciting. More tactical perhaps, but less exciting.

      > Nope. Get rid of penalties and play until someone wins, IF it is important that someone actually wins. Normal season games -- no need.

      I don't disagree - really I just want them to take it down to 9 players for the whole game ;). But if there are going to be penalties, reduce the number of players so they're less likely.

      > The ref has the watch.

      I mean I know they "have" one, but the system is a joke. Players on a trailing team rush the ball back into play (grabbing the ball out of the net and running back to centre) because they know that not doing so costs them actual play time. They wrestle over the ball as time winds down, the leading team stealing the ball and the trailing team trying to get it back and throw it in as fast as possible. The ref gets to decide the game by shortchanging the extra time (which is frequently up to 10 minutes too short).

      > Grabbing a jersey is a yellow-card offense.

      Yeah and hooking was theoretically a penalty in the 90s. I saw an awful lot of jersey grabbing and very few cards. Apparently you can grab a guy around the shoulder on a breakaway and haul him down for effectively no real punishment... Hockey kept having brief "crackdowns" on clutch-and-grab over the past 20 years, but the refs would go back to "well it wasn't that bad" after a while. They finally went full zero-tolerance, and it's way better.

      > No, he gets a free kick. It's called a "set play". In many cases, a free kick results in a goal that wouldn't have happened if play continued.

      If you haul a guy down at half, it's worthless. (I didn't say get rid of the free kick)

      > Really? Under your "five minute sit" rule, you wind up with enforcers -- just like in hockey. You want to retaliate against the other team for perceived injustices, you put an enforcer into your line and he takes a penalty. Then gets out of the box and can do it again. Or you put in an enforcer to physically attack the opponent's star players.

      Enforcers are pretty much out of the game of hockey. Trying to hurt someone should still be punished with an ejection. The card system isn't too harsh, it's too soft and inconsistent. "Don't do that again. Here, take a kick from a mile away." "Lucky you did that at 80 minutes, not 10 minutes, or this game could have been totally different!" "Bad! You're ejected from... *next* game"

    4. Re:Add more referees. Learn from hockey. by satcat · · Score: 1

      I like these

    5. Re:Add more referees. Learn from hockey. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Ah OK I thought those were the replay guys. They miss enough stuff

      Two of the other human beings are the side judges who can call not only offsides but fouls and possession on an out of bounds. The fourth official deals with subs, mainly. All three also have a direct link to the ref to point out anything they want to. They're human, so they make mistakes, just like humans do. They miss things. Even with four observers, some things are missed.

      The ref gets to decide the game by shortchanging the extra time (which is frequently up to 10 minutes too short).

      What? No, he can't shortchange. The stoppage time that is announced is the MINIMUM. The ref can't blow the whistle until at least that long has elapsed.

      As far as "too short", why should there be time added to the game for things that happen during normal play? It's normal for there to be time taken setting up a corner or free kick. PKs too. That's part of the game.

      It's not part of the game to have a five minute delay while security chases fans off the field. It's not normal for a delay while an injured player is removed by EMS. It's not normal for a goalie to hold the ball for a minute before making a goal kick. It's not normal for an opposing player to run off with the ball to prevent a throw in or free kick.

      Stoppage time is for abnormal delays. This nonsense of stopping the clock unless someone is actually moving the ball is just ... nonsense. Yes, I'm pointing at US football. There should never be a ten minute delay while one team figures out what they're going to do with the three seconds left on the clock. And TV timeouts? Yeah, let's give the defensive players a chance to catch their breath instead of allowing the offense to continue...

      If you haul a guy down at half, it's worthless.

      Uhhh, no, extending stoppage time at the half is a perfect response to a deliberate foul, and that means they get the free kick.

      Enforcers are pretty much out of the game of hockey.

      They aren't as blatant, but they are still there. The announcers still know it and mention it. And the fans know it.

      Trying to hurt someone should still be punished with an ejection.

      I soccer it's a red card and that's what happens.

      "Don't do that again. Here, take a kick from a mile away."

      If the foul happened a mile away from the goal, that's where it should be taken from. Where else?

      "Bad! You're ejected from... *next* game"

      AND the rest of this one, AND your team plays one man down for the rest of the game.

      Soccer has done well for a long time, and no, it isn't the same as other games. The fact it is different is a Good Thing, not a Reason to Change.

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Re:Video replay and unnatural sufaces and venues h by nnet · · Score: 1

    100 years old you meant.
    NHL Centennial

  50. But fake injuries are great sport! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck thd World Cup.
    Fuck Putin and everyone licking his asshole.
    Fuck SOCCER and fuck all you pussy euros or browns who's heros roll around and cry like babby with fake injury.
    Soccer is for pussies. Always has been. Always will.

  51. Very satisfied with this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The majority of comments here reveal that US ignorance of football continues to be deep and broad. Rest of world is happy for things to remain that way, the US can hold its "World Series" of its cute local games while the rest of us enjoy a true global passion. Kudos also to Fox Sports for doing their bit to keep US viewers clueless

  52. Clueless! Thats the reason FOR the rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the lame offside rule were removed. This way an attacker can be waiting down towards the goal, receive a kick and score

    In childrens' games, it's known as "goal hanging" or "goal scrounging" and at any level beyond the very lowest, it ruins the flow of the game. The US equivalent might be, say, baseball batters hitting the ball off a tee : it completely changes the nature of the sporting contest.

  53. Betteridge by jwdb · · Score: 1

    No.

    I've got a few beefs with the VAR regarding this last cup, but which fan doesn't at some point have issues with the ref? I still enjoyed watching.

  54. Maybe... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    ..but "news for jocks" has ruined Slashdot.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  55. merkin complaining about slowing the game down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has he never watched the gae you call football or the snoozefest that is baseball?

  56. This specific world cup? Yes it has by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

    Whoever had the bright idea of adding VAR in a World Cup hosted by Russia is to blame. I agree, like others here, bad calls where rightly fixed by VAR, but I think many of them were either bad on purpose just to showcase VAR, or could have been good calls in the first plkace if the referee consulted his on-field colleagues.

    The real problem though, is I have noted VAR has been used to reverse good calls. How you say? Because the angles provided by VAR were intentionally vague to induce the ref in cancelling his initial call. Of note is a match where the Iran team called out the ref 5 times, prompting the VAR Room team to force a review 3 times, and only one of those did NOT benefit them, while the other 2 calls were bad calls because of VAR. I could really see some gambling house power in that specific game, which ended in a tie and should have ended in a 2-goal advantage for Portugal due to VAR, clearly winning a lot of cash for the house with the weird result. And then there's news of chinese activity with crypto-gambling in the WC, which makes referee payouts much more anonymous and schemable.

  57. Most North Americans understand bullshit about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are used to your version of futball, where none who are not 3meter by 2meter in size cannot play and most of the time everything is about violence. So most of you dont understand how a simple step on the ankle can result in such a reaction, but watch this :

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/11/249A4BC400000578-2905723-image-a-2_1421009826579.jpg

    and compare to this

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/h4kSFg2ONso/maxresdefault.jpg

    I believe most of you never seen the second image. People are envious, we won the world cup five times out of 21. We are the leaders of all time soccer. What I find strange is that USA Today is commenting about soccer ? WTF ? Its like Estadão from brazil talking about baseball... Pure arrogance...

  58. Rogers is an idiot ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    I watched nearly every game since the 1/8th finals.
    There was not a single one where checking a video caused a delay. I even think it was not even asked for a video referee during that period of the games ...

    Rogers seems to have missed: since a few years we have "extension time", beyond the ordinary 45 minutes for a half, for time lost due to fouls and other breaks.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  59. Ultimate (frisbee) by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Ultimate a sport named in an attempt to create a competition with self refereeing. Ultimate Fun to play but not so popular to watch. The soccer replays help cut down on rampant cheating in soccer. It slows game / match down but the outcomes a little more bearable in terms of merit. I welcome the change and watched more as a result. The surveillance used to catch FIFA fraud also very welcome.

  60. Re:Video replay and unnatural sufaces and venues h by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    VAR calls happen seldomly, not enough IMO. Zero times during the last games...
    As for the weather don’t forget teams change side after half time has played

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  61. Less cheating by Philipxx · · Score: 1

    Video Refereeing is a great tool to make football a more fair game. The video system is the future of football. I am sure it will contribute to less cheating.

  62. Robbed of drama by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Matches have been robbed of the drama that causes them to be remembered for decades. Not sure whether that is a valid reason to get rid of VAR though... kind of like arguing against drug tests!

  63. Use replays and better refs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a thespian sport? NO. Get with the times and stop having shitty calls.
    Refs are already getting worse across all sports with no accountability.