When I asked my journalist friend, why in football (soccer) games the ref don't use high-tech, he thought about it for 5 minutes and then told me: "If they use technology it will be really hard to set up games. If you take from a league the ability to set-up games and promote specific teams/individuals, then I don't know how the game will be shaped".
Of course it's universal, it's not like everything is a set-up but happens more often than most would likely imagine, especially since betting came into play.
The reasoning for not using hi-tech refereeing equipment in football is apparently a desire to keep the game played at the top level the same as that played in streets and fields the world over.
The friction of imperfect decisions is also considered part of the drama of the game, rather than a flaw.
The reasoning for not using hi-tech refereeing equipment in football is apparently a desire to keep the game played at the top level the same as that played in streets and fields the world over.
That's already gone with goal line technology. In fact, it was never the case - how many street games/underage kids games even have assistant refs?
The friction of imperfect decisions is also considered part of the drama of the game, rather than a flaw.
That very much depends on who you ask. Personally, I'd like to see some technology come in (in high profile games played in stadiums already equipped with tv cameras) to help get rid of the more ridiculous refereeing errors.
The most comical example I can think of contrived, convoluted FIFA rules is the Zidane red card in the World Cup final 2006[1]. Allegedly an assistant ref saw Zidane headbutt another player on a tv monitor, then alerted the ref, who red-carded Zidane. Technically the ref didn't follow the rules, as to send someone off the ref or assistants have to have seen the incident in real time. This means the average football fan with only basic knowledge of the rules has a better view of controversial, game changing decisions in high profile games than the ref (fans can watch instant replays in slo mo whereas the ref has to watch at full speed, sometimes with an obstructed view of an incident.)
Why would a high-tech system not be able to make biased calls (if that is desired by whoever is running it)? Machines may not be susceptible to bribes, but the people running/programming/calibrating them certainly are.
Presumably the machine flags WHY it's an error, and as long as that reasoning is included in the rebuttal, humans, or other machines, are free to disagree with it. Science.
Actually they are experimenting with goal line technology at the world cup eg did that ball go over the line or not.
There is a lot of doggy stuff going on with football betting in the far east - which makes your comment " If you take from a league the ability to set-up games " is a little worrying.
Comments
When I asked my journalist friend, why in football (soccer) games the ref don't use high-tech, he thought about it for 5 minutes and then told me: "If they use technology it will be really hard to set up games. If you take from a league the ability to set-up games and promote specific teams/individuals, then I don't know how the game will be shaped".
Of course it's universal, it's not like everything is a set-up but happens more often than most would likely imagine, especially since betting came into play.
So there you got it.
The reasoning for not using hi-tech refereeing equipment in football is apparently a desire to keep the game played at the top level the same as that played in streets and fields the world over.
The friction of imperfect decisions is also considered part of the drama of the game, rather than a flaw.
That's already gone with goal line technology. In fact, it was never the case - how many street games/underage kids games even have assistant refs?
That very much depends on who you ask. Personally, I'd like to see some technology come in (in high profile games played in stadiums already equipped with tv cameras) to help get rid of the more ridiculous refereeing errors.
The most comical example I can think of contrived, convoluted FIFA rules is the Zidane red card in the World Cup final 2006[1]. Allegedly an assistant ref saw Zidane headbutt another player on a tv monitor, then alerted the ref, who red-carded Zidane. Technically the ref didn't follow the rules, as to send someone off the ref or assistants have to have seen the incident in real time. This means the average football fan with only basic knowledge of the rules has a better view of controversial, game changing decisions in high profile games than the ref (fans can watch instant replays in slo mo whereas the ref has to watch at full speed, sometimes with an obstructed view of an incident.)
[1] http://www.football-italia.net/42269/ref-who-saw-zidane-hit-...
Why would a high-tech system not be able to make biased calls (if that is desired by whoever is running it)? Machines may not be susceptible to bribes, but the people running/programming/calibrating them certainly are.
Presumably the machine flags WHY it's an error, and as long as that reasoning is included in the rebuttal, humans, or other machines, are free to disagree with it. Science.
Are you implying that authors and journals are conspiring to push through to publication papers with obvious flaws for some sort of monetary gain?
...or did you not read the article?
Actually they are experimenting with goal line technology at the world cup eg did that ball go over the line or not.
There is a lot of doggy stuff going on with football betting in the far east - which makes your comment " If you take from a league the ability to set-up games " is a little worrying.