[WC] World Cup 2010 - General Talk Thread (73 Viewers)
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
I should be. But good on ya. 
Yes and no. People act like immigration never happens in real life, so it must be the exception in football. It's the "pure Italian blood" ridiculous argument, which is outright racism.
You have 214 million migrants in the world, according to the UN:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html
That's more than one quarter of the entire population of Europe that's moving around.
So I don't buy the argument that people are changing countries just to pad national football teams. Sure, there are a few cases. But people are moving for economic and political reasons regardless -- by the millions. So the whole idea that a country, let alone their national team, has some pure-bred, master race is not only a myth ... it's an outright xenophobic delusion about the nature of humanity.
And by some accounts, there were more Frenchmen on the Algerian team than there were Frenchmen on the French NT.
Nah. Just that the Netherlands plays entitled football like the rich kid who thinks he doesn't have to study to earn his grades. That's outright annoying.
Yes and no. People act like immigration never happens in real life, so it must be the exception in football. It's the "pure Italian blood" ridiculous argument, which is outright racism.
You have 214 million migrants in the world, according to the UN:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html
That's more than one quarter of the entire population of Europe that's moving around.
So I don't buy the argument that people are changing countries just to pad national football teams. Sure, there are a few cases. But people are moving for economic and political reasons regardless -- by the millions. So the whole idea that a country, let alone their national team, has some pure-bred, master race is not only a myth ... it's an outright xenophobic delusion about the nature of humanity.
And by some accounts, there were more Frenchmen on the Algerian team than there were Frenchmen on the French NT.
I've been looking over some pages of this thread, and I have to say, it's hilarious how many people hate / dislike our national team. 
Can I just ask.. why? Bitter over being eliminated, or not qualifying at all, are we?
Can I just ask.. why? Bitter over being eliminated, or not qualifying at all, are we?
Unfortunately it's different now. Football is the world's game, even if this douchebag doesn't think so. Since you can't be at several different cities at one time, you're going to have to watch the game on TV. But this doesn't have anything to do with getting the calls right on the pitch.
As the game becomes quicker, the referees will have a harder time making the right calls. There is no way you can sit there and say that all these horrendous, game-changing calls are better for the game than video replay or other methods of fixing these officiating problems. Something needs to be done. You're going to lose more fans of football through not solving these issues because the refereeing is deciding the games instead of the sides on the pitch.
It's like you're one of those conspiracy theorists who deny science and take the advice of witch doctors instead.
As the game becomes quicker, the referees will have a harder time making the right calls. There is no way you can sit there and say that all these horrendous, game-changing calls are better for the game than video replay or other methods of fixing these officiating problems. Something needs to be done. You're going to lose more fans of football through not solving these issues because the refereeing is deciding the games instead of the sides on the pitch.
It's like you're one of those conspiracy theorists who deny science and take the advice of witch doctors instead.
Unfortunately it's different now. Football is the world's game, even if this douchebag doesn't think so. Since you can't be at several different cities at one time, you're going to have to watch the game on TV. But this doesn't have anything to do with getting the calls right on the pitch.
As the game becomes quicker, the referees will have a harder time making the right calls. There is no way you can sit there and say that all these horrendous, game-changing calls are better for the game than video replay or other methods of fixing these officiating problems. Something needs to be done. You're going to lose more fans of football through not solving these issues because the refereeing is deciding the games instead of the sides on the pitch.
It's like you're one of those conspiracy theorists who deny science and take the advice of witch doctors instead.
As the game becomes quicker, the referees will have a harder time making the right calls. There is no way you can sit there and say that all these horrendous, game-changing calls are better for the game than video replay or other methods of fixing these officiating problems. Something needs to be done. You're going to lose more fans of football through not solving these issues because the refereeing is deciding the games instead of the sides on the pitch.
It's like you're one of those conspiracy theorists who deny science and take the advice of witch doctors instead.
The whole argument here is one that says the camera is never wrong but human judgment without one always will be. And that's a lie. That's a false belief system.
In science, there's the issue of accuracy and mathematically significant digits: you could say there's a 95.745% chance of something happening, but those digits are often a false belief. Because in reality, it's often typically more like 90% +/- 10%. My parallel to referees is that there's always a margin of slop in how reality can be interpreted, and at some level you have to be convincing enough to a referee to convince them of one way or the other. If the outcome is still a coin toss, it's as if we're giving that coin to a TV audience in Singapore for a match in Italy.
So what really irks me is that just because you have a television, a TV camera, and a slow motion replay, you have people that believe they can dissect truth or not to the nearest tenth of a second... to the nearest 1 centimeter. But the fact is that the only people who see that, experience that, and believe that -- the people who most feel "wronged" that an injustice has been performed -- are the people experiencing the game on TV. Not the people at the match.
That to me is completely backwards. The reality of the TV tube has superceded the reality of anything witnessed by real people in live motion at the physical place where the game took place. What matters isn't what happens on the pitch. What matters is what happens on television sets for people nowhere near the game who are deluded into believing that they have a superior experience of reality, whatever that means.
Portugal is trying their asses off. Just not on offense.
No. Any assistant referee worth his salt should be able to nail an offside call. The problem is many referees don't have the fitness to keep up with the play. Fitter referees = better officiating.
If we allow offside calls, then people will want fouls called, then in and out, etc. And soon enough it will be like American football. All start stop.
If we allow offside calls, then people will want fouls called, then in and out, etc. And soon enough it will be like American football. All start stop.
Speaking of science and reality, we have to use microscopes to decipher what goes on at the molecular level. We don't refuse to use them because some think an arrogant "God" exists in outer space, able to witness what happens at the molecular level with his own "eyes". No, we do use them, despite what some members of religion claim. So I would say that there is a religious side to refusing technology in football as well.
Yes. But isn't it overkill to have a sport where people build electron microscopes just to see whether a ball may have crossed a line by a micron or not?
Shaving hairs that close, so that no human can tell the difference in person but could tell in a forensics lab, kills the sport and changes its purpose and intents.
Things like the instant replay in the NFL is a joke: the game is played for cameras, not for the people on the field or the people in the stadium. We've built theater around the forensics lab of television cameras, not around the fans and refs and players at the match.
Shaving hairs that close, so that no human can tell the difference in person but could tell in a forensics lab, kills the sport and changes its purpose and intents.
Things like the instant replay in the NFL is a joke: the game is played for cameras, not for the people on the field or the people in the stadium. We've built theater around the forensics lab of television cameras, not around the fans and refs and players at the match.
The problem is that once you bring in technology to the game, sooner or later everything is going to be eaten up by it. Train the referees better, and put two refs behind the goal line if needed.
Once you have tech to see if the ball crossed the line or not, people will keep asking for offsides, red cards and what not. The referees job becomes useless and you might just consider the players play at the stadium without the referee and some dude blows the whistle through a loudspeaker for fouls he sees on the telly.
Some say it'll take only a minute or so to find out if the offside was right or the ball crossed the line. Lets say each team is given 3 chances per game to counter the ref. There's at least 6 minutes wasted just there. You might even find TV channels squeezing in an ad between that. I like the game as it is now. Its like an Alfa Romeo, the flaws add to the charm of the game. If it weren't for the flaws we wouldn't be discussing Grosso's weak penaltyP), Maradona's hand of god etc. etc.
Once you have tech to see if the ball crossed the line or not, people will keep asking for offsides, red cards and what not. The referees job becomes useless and you might just consider the players play at the stadium without the referee and some dude blows the whistle through a loudspeaker for fouls he sees on the telly.
Some say it'll take only a minute or so to find out if the offside was right or the ball crossed the line. Lets say each team is given 3 chances per game to counter the ref. There's at least 6 minutes wasted just there. You might even find TV channels squeezing in an ad between that. I like the game as it is now. Its like an Alfa Romeo, the flaws add to the charm of the game. If it weren't for the flaws we wouldn't be discussing Grosso's weak penalty
P), Maradona's hand of god etc. etc.