If you’re mannerly, scared or a high-ranking FIFA official, you need to keep telling yourself that England and Mexico weren’t going anywhere, anyway, that even if Mr. Lampard’s goal had been allowed or Mr. Tévez’s had been denied, the complexion of the game wouldn’t have dramatically changed, and the outcome would have been identical.
Probably true—but totally lame. We’ve officially reached our limit with a balky game that continues to deny basic modernity.
6 thoughts on “World Cup line of the day”
Comments are closed.
Probably true? For Mexico, I think yes, but for England, I don’t think you can say that. The game should have been tied at that point, so who knows what would have happened?
But the critical point is that instant reply most likely would have corrected the mistake whether it bore on the final outcome or not.
And I happen to think that instant replay makes officials on the field better — a deterrent to carelessness (or worse) if you will.
And perhaps association football needs more referees on the pitch. Basketball has 10 competitors and a playing surface of 4,700 square feet and three officials. Soccer has 22 competitors and a playing surface of 74,000 square feet (more or less, it is not fixed) and one full official. College and NFL football have seven on-field officials.
I agree. At a minimum, they could follow the lead of the NHL and have a goal judge who makes a call when a goal goes in. Even better, have NHL-style review of goals to determine things like blatant offsides and whether the ball went in. They could do that much without disrupting the flow of the game.
I’d find the flow of the game argument a lot more meaningful if it didn’t take teams 45 seconds to line up a free kick from 35 yards out. Or the whole stretcher thing.
Sure, but what they really don’t need is everybody standing around for three minutes while the ref goes under the hood like in the NFL.
I agree completely, Luis, and I think the NFL takes far too long.