Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 10:08:41 GMT
Women's World Cup 2015: Players sue over synthetic pitches Good for them, nearly 50 players involved in the action from 12 countries. "The gifted athletes we represent are determined not to have the sport they love belittled". FIFA seems to want, or is being leveraged, to push the game in "the american way" wrt increased technological "advancements". Maybe their thinking is that the money wasted on goalline technology can be recovered by using plastic pitches. Artificial pitches: Pros & cons Pros: Cost-effective. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29453614 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 12:33:06 GMT
This story of course has nothing to do with goal line technology...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 16:46:59 GMT
I perhaps should have been clearer in the event someone has trouble interpreting my post. The linked article is about plastic pitches, my post is about "technological advancements". Hope that helps.
The ladies are right IMO to fight against this latest intrusion and attempt to belittle the game we all love. Here are some examples of "technological advancements" that have been in practice in various sports (not all are in every sport) in the USA for years/decades.
1. Goal line technology - stop play to determine if a goal/touchdown was scored, ball over the line or baseball hit into the stands was fair/foul/homerun. In high scoring games like USA football, ice hockey, baseball where goals or scores could be missed at a higher percentage rate this sort of makes sense. In soccer (where play doesn't need to be stopped necessarily, although when it was used in the WC this summer the restart was delayed so the referee could speak to the 4th and have him explain things to the managers) it happens so rare that it is a topic of a much debate as to its benefits, and some countries have refused to use it.
2. The line in the sand - this has been part of USA football forever by use of the 10 yard sticks. The Gillette has now found its way into soccer and IMO is a nonsense and creates more problems than it solves.
3. Plastic Pitches - have been in use in USA football and multi-purpose stadiums for decades. FIFA is now trying to force this into soccer. Pros-cost effective, Cons-player injuries, mostly ankle and knees.
4. The red flag - where managers are given opportunities during games to throw a flag to challenge officials decisions. In USA football play generally stops for around 5 minutes or so each time for the officials to check and discuss video replays with the managers, (and for fans to buy more food and drink). In soccer FIFA's idea to to allow managers to stop play to challenge officials decisions either once, or twice per half, potentially meaning 4 or 8 times during every game (and I think it's use would be maximized). Using the USA football model as a benchmark this would add up to 20 to 40 minutes to the overall length of the game. So 3pm KO games where it is used could be ending at 5:30pm or later, and 7:45pm KO could end at 10:15pm or later. But the crazy part of this is that "in the opinion of the referee" will always win any discussion. eg: flag thrown, check video to see if there was a handball, manager says yes thats handball, referee says no it isn't it's ball to hand, and the ref wins. More controversy, but hey more TV revenue from longer games and associated TV commercials/adverts, that will be the next step.
The first two have recently, within the past year, crept into the beautiful game and the 3rd and 4th are actively being pursued by FIFA, they want both to start in 2015.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 17:54:03 GMT
I certainly agree with you about number 4, I don't think it would be quite as bad as you say but it would be used tactically (as the DRS in cricket is, despite it being probably the best uses of technology going [not American btw]). For example what would happen if the referee does not give a penalty to the chagrin of the attacking team. The ball stays in play, the defending team clear downfield and score. That is the first stoppage in play, the aggrieved team would challenge the preceding decision straight away. Would the referee overturn the decision, disallow the goal and award the penalty, imagine if he/she did that in match between Man Utd and Liverpool...? I also agree that technology does not help on opinion. Even after consulting TV pictures of the Sharps handball in the play off semi v Southend, you still did not believe they conclusively showed it was not handball. I think you were wrong, but my point is not to re-open that debate, but to demonstrate that if you had been the referee that day, viewed the TV replay, you would have upheld your original decision, arguably causing even more of a furore.
As for point 3. I am not in favour of artificial pitches at top level football, but they are vital for training, for communities and in lower leagues. The development of 3G pitches means that they are now even used in the top European competition, generally without hampering the quality of the game nor causing the kind of injuries which were a feature of the first astroturf pitches.
As you know, I'm not with you on points 1 or 2 and you still misrepresent what happened at the world cup where GLT was used on a number of occasions, often to prove the negative, i.e. it did not go off because the ball did not go in (and consequently there was no interruption to the game or incorrect decision) and on two occasions it worked seamlessly to alert the officials goal had been scored. The delay to the game in the first occasion was minimal and because the managers (and commentators and yourself) were clearly clueless as to how the system worked. GLT helps the game by ensuring the correct decision.
The foam spray also worked and works very well. Simple, quick, clear for the supporters and of course cheap. It actually speeds up the taking of free kicks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 21:04:20 GMT
Oh and I agree with the women who are taking the action, but it is an equality based claim. Would FIFA sanction a men's World Cup played entirely on synthetic pitches? I think not, I reckon they may win this one...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 21:55:27 GMT
I would have to side with the ladies who are taking action here. I reckon they have a good chance of winning this one too !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 10:45:40 GMT
Even after consulting TV pictures of the Sharps handball in the play off semi v Southend, you still did not believe they conclusively showed it was not handball. I think you were wrong, but my point is not to re-open that debate, you still misrepresent what happened at the world cup where GLT was used on a number of occasions,.... The delay to the game in the first occasion was minimal and because the managers (and commentators and yourself) were clearly clueless as to how the system worked. First, sorry to those who find themselves reading this. I blocked funky on FB months ago and I have ignored his posts on here since then as well. The reason I did so is because it got boring listening to the nonsense, insults and fictional accounts of an argumentative mind, and I really don't think you other members deserve to have to read that tripe. Here are 2 examples of what I am referring to. 1. Your comment above on Sharps handball is pure fiction, I posted this on May 12th, the day after the match. The caution for handball was clearly a mistake. The 2nd caution, they don't get much clearer than that! Read more on page 1 of: burtonbrewers.proboards.com/thread/1099/sharps-red-worth-appeal#ixzz3F4V4Coyd2. GLT was correctly "used" 171 times at the WC, every time the ball crossed the goalline during active play. 3. Your comment on the France goal vs Honduras and glt is equally as ludicrous. My first comment on that was that the AR made the call as he immediately ran towards center, and I stick with that even though the refs beeper went off. You said above "the managers (and commentators and yourself) were clearly clueless as to how the system worked. "? and you called me santimonious? Please, can we just agree to ignore each others posts on this site, if only for the sake of the other members on here? SERIOUSLY! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 11:41:44 GMT
Even after consulting TV pictures of the Sharps handball in the play off semi v Southend, you still did not believe they conclusively showed it was not handball. I think you were wrong, but my point is not to re-open that debate, you still misrepresent what happened at the world cup where GLT was used on a number of occasions,.... The delay to the game in the first occasion was minimal and because the managers (and commentators and yourself) were clearly clueless as to how the system worked. First, sorry to those who find themselves reading this. I blocked funky on FB months ago and I have ignored his posts on here since then as well. The reason I did so is because it got boring listening to the nonsense, insults and fictional accounts of an argumentative mind, and I really don't think you other members deserve to have to read that tripe. Here are 2 examples of what I am referring to. 1. Your comment above on Sharps handball is pure fiction, I posted this on May 12th, the day after the match. The caution for handball was clearly a mistake. The 2nd caution, they don't get much clearer than that! Read more on page 1 of: burtonbrewers.proboards.com/thread/1099/sharps-red-worth-appeal#ixzz3F4V4Coyd2. GLT was correctly "used" 171 times at the WC, every time the ball crossed the goalline during active play. 3. Your comment on the France goal vs Honduras and glt is equally as ludicrous. My first comment on that was that the AR made the call as he immediately ran towards center, and I stick with that even though the refs beeper went off. You said above "the managers (and commentators and yourself) were clearly clueless as to how the system worked. "? and you called me santimonious? Please, can we just agree to ignore each others posts on this site, if only for the sake of the other members on here? SERIOUSLY! On the day of the game you looked at pictures on Facebook, said it was not Sharps and suggested the photos had been photo shopped. We had a long argument on Facebook about the application of GLT. I explained how it worked to you on at least three occasions over about 39 posts but you continued to either ignored these facts or fail to comprehend what was being posted. Finally I posted an interview with the match referee who confirmed that they (the officials ) could not be sure whether the ball had gone in but his watch beeped and GLT had worked. Forget that? Even then you could bring yourself to acknowledge you were wrong or offer an apology. As a reminder, here it is, the referee is at 0.47 seconds. www.fifa.com/worldcup/videos/y=2014/m=6/video=france-v-honduras-goal-line-technology-exclusive-2380547.htmlYou post on a public forum then you can expect people to comment on your post. If you cannot handle that, I suggest you pack up and go and make notes to yourself in a jotter. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 12:16:49 GMT
The photo you refer to WAS altered, here it is, and we all know that it hit Sharps RIGHT shoulder, not his left!! Why is it wrong to question that?  Re: GLT comprehension Terraceman, I agree GLT was used several times (both when it is over the line 'Goal" and not over "No Goal" show inside the ball image) for the pundits to point out to the viewing public how/that it works. But I'm fairly sure it was only used once to decide a goal or no goal decision. And some believe even that was for FIFA to showcase the product, and to justify the cost. No question it would have resolved Frankies' goal in 2010, but my point is is the expense worth it when there are so many other more serious issues (racism for one) that need to be addressed. the referee for tomorrow is The Mexican guy who did the Uraguay-Italy match...I wonder if he'll let a Brasillian chomp on a German sausage?  Funky, don't be so grumpy. I know how GLT works and that it works. If you pay attention you will know that I have repeatedly said that I feel it is not really necessary considering the expense behind it, and the number of times it is used, considering the other problems that need fixing. I will admit that you are out of order saying that I "pigheadedly refuse to acknowledge that it works." I have NEVER said that, I'll await the apology. I have said the German system being used has been well documented as being error prone during development and testing. But we do have to keep in mind that these gizmos, like speed cameras, are man made and as such are prone to imperfection. Just wondering, do you think that GLT is flawless and can never be wrong? I've told you before on FB that the ball was 8" over the line, see the photo above where it hits the ground. Like you said on FB the GLT image was taken as the ball was moving down towards the ground, at that point all that's needed is yes or no, not by how much. As for the referee not knowing that was a goal and being told by GLT that is was, I do not believe that you know what the referees thought process was. if you can prove that I'll move on. Until then just let it go. Read more on Page 3: burtonbrewers.proboards.com/thread/1156/observations-world-cup-far#ixzz3F5BXYXsY- surely you know that the gizmo alerts the ref even when the ball hits the back of the net at 61mph? Does he pay attention to it, no because he knows it's a goal. - you cannot identify that a goal was awarded by GLT unless you know that and you don't know that or what the ref was thinking. - why do you think the GLT image is shown on TV? it is only to inform the public, just like a ref showing a card. Neither are necessary it's a courtesy to inform others. - would it have been a goal without GLT? Well it was 8 inches over the line and everyone in the video knew it was so I'll vote Yes! The Italians had a little moan as you do in those situations so they showed it on the big screen so their fans could see it! It' really not rocket science. - flawless? Speed cameras are proven wrong all the time, because they are programmed and calibrated by humans. - that's an illegal pitch if it's 60+ yards from the corner flag to the near post.. Oh, and you forgot to apologise... Read more: burtonbrewers.proboards.com/thread/1156/observations-world-cup-far#ixzz3F5BpNh2AI think its you who doesn't understand how GLT works. You said it was used on several occasions, it was used 171 times!!! I'm still waiting for the apology on the above??? and on the pig-headed, clueless, sanctimonious .... the list goes on... comments, thats why I blocked you. you just need someone to argue with and insult and unfortunely for me, thats me! We could go on for days but lets not, its booorrrrriiiinnnnngggggg! So again, can we just ignore each other for the sake of all on here?. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:52:10 GMT
Sorry folks, I tried to my bit "So again, can we just ignore each other for the sake of all on here?."
But he's not having it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:59:23 GMT
Sorry folks, I tried to my bit "So again, can we just ignore each other for the sake of all on here?." But he's not having it... Not said a word on this thread for 16 days. But, for the avoidance of doubt, if you want me to ignore or not comment on posts you place on a public forum (do you need to look up what forum means?), the answer is no. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 23:09:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 8:25:25 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 9:21:49 GMT
Is it me ? When playing competitive football are we not competing against the elements(the list of variants is enormous) as well as the opposition ?
Although I understand the reasoning behind why Canada has these artificial surfaces it is being used as a screen or back door route for some corporation to hopefully make a fortune.
Don't like it, don't want it ! But i would like a tin of disappearing foam for referees in leagues 1 &2 which is cheap and effective !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 10:49:24 GMT
I think there is a place for these pitches in senior football. I would though prefer not so in the top 4 divisions. However, the report suggests the vote is likely to go in favour. It is a brutal economic reality is it not?
A 3G pitch can be used 70 - 80 hours a week according to the FA report, it makes it fairly compelling for lower league clubs looking to extend usage of the stadia
For some teams I think it will be too irresistible not to. I hope we keep our grass pitch, but I also hope we get funding to install a 3G pitch on the training area next to the ground and get this used by all the academy and community teams on a regular basis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 11:23:36 GMT
I fully agree with you about the training pitch next to the Pirelli funky. Can't really argue with your first paragraph either and would not like to see senior football in the top divisions on 3G pitches
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 14:59:10 GMT
Is it me ? When playing competitive football are we not competing against the elements(the list of variants is enormous) as well as the opposition ? Although I understand the reasoning behind why Canada has these artificial surfaces it is being used as a screen or back door route for some corporation to hopefully make a fortune. Don't like it, don't want it ! But i would like a tin of disappearing foam for referees in leagues 1 &2 which is cheap and effective ! Exactly, its all about money and backhanders. All teams in the Canadian Football League (the other kind) played on real grass pitches through to December forever. The move to turf in some stadiums is unnecessary and all about money. I suspect that years from now there will be many lawsuits regarding ex-players ankles/knees/hips like we have seen with leather ball and alzheimers now, not to mention diseases spread via gobs of phlem floating on the plastic pitches. The difference being I don't believe there were people protesting against leather balls back then (like there are protesting against turf now) so injury related conditions now are difficult to prove and lawsuits are difficult to win because of a "you didn't complain back then" defense. That won't be so down the road. A total disregard for players health. The NHS should start putting money aside now for treatment down the road. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 16:05:42 GMT
motion DEFEATED for now...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 16:35:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 17:20:05 GMT
Is that Neil Glasser as your avatar funky ?
|
|
