On 12 Mar 2006 00:51:05 -0800, "FairFootball"
[The answer is going to be a bit long]
>OK, you may be right. As you see I'm still not 100% convinced, but
>since nobody else seems to think like me and you seem to know what
>you're saying, I guess I'll have to trust you're right.
Oh well, that's my point of view, as I was saying the problem with
this (as other) rules is that the uncertain is too wide and blurred.
What I mean is this: with any measure, there is the possibility of a
mistake, no matter how the rule is clear.
Eg: a goal is wehn the ball passes completely the line; the rule is
clear, the mistakes happen when it's not clear IF the ball has passed
the line or not; using techonology instead of referee's eyes could
reduce this error to almost zero.
Thus we have a rule wich is clear, with a probability of error whose
width can be reduces. the best we can hope for.
Unfortunately Fifa doens't just ignore this (claiming that it doesn't
want to introduce technology because it would slow down the game and
make it different than the one played in small clubs, two points that
are both stupid), but seems to make effort to reduce the number of
clear rules by introducing others that depend too much on the
A foul is uncertain for both reasons, but there isn't much we could do
about it. If I put a hand onto your shoulder and you fall down, apart
from me and you the others can't be sure whether I pushed you or not;
also technology wouldn't help much, you'd need close up videos and
sensors onto the body: impossible.
So we can't reduce the width of the probability of error, and actually
we can't do much about the rule.
But offside isa good example of rules that suffers from both problems
and actually shoudn't.
The probability of errors are wide, because a person cannot see at the
same time the ball and the players in the offside line, so it's pretty
evident that the linesman will make mistakes. The technology to reduce
this probability drastically exists and it's ignored by Fifa.
Plus, the rule suffers from being blurred too: something that was
pretty clear, almost as clear as a goal or a corner, is made
complicated: exceptions to consider non active players, exception to
the exception to consider some active players non active, and
viceversa, in the same action.
This introduces a further point to consider (active/non active), but
still it would be ok if we give a straight definition of active; no,
here Fifa makes another mistake, since it moves the judgement from
"activity" (which is still quite easily identified) to "action" that,
as you noted, is not so clear (in Emerson's case I said it falls into
the "clear" area, but there are many cases which stand in the middle).
And here again, let's blur things more: an action can be identified
somehow better taking advantage of the others straight rules of the
game that define when the game is active or not, and making few
complementary notes. But this isn't done, and they go for the blurred
and uncertain definition.
Recently many rules have been changed following this wrong attitude.
The intention was to avoid some limit situations (eg considering
offside somebody who's lying onto the ground) but the result is that
they created many more situations that lead to mistakes.
Take for example the rule about hand fouls, about tackles from behind,
about penalties, etc...
>Agree totally that the rule is not very reasonable. IMHO, common sense
>would say that in this instance at least it should have been an
>If I may ask, do you have any experience with refereeing ?
No, never refereed a single match. I used to play when I was younger,
but my experience is mostly the one of a tv spectator.
>At the end of this discussion, we can't help but inviting everybody
>again on our new web site that deals with things like these:
>And please, if you like it, let us know.
>The FairFootball team
I find it an interesting attempt, altough the bigger problem imo is
that it's impossible to count how the game or even the 2nd legs of a
cup could have changed.
I mean, even counting the clearest mistakes (eg a goal not allowed
that tv shows clearly inside), nobody can say how the match would have
gone on, since the teams would have changed their attitude.
For example, I see the corretion of Bayern-Milan form 1-1 to 2-0; even
if one agreed, for sure milan (and Bayern) would have played the same
game in San Siro.