Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Soccer Futbol Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
2010 World Cup Qualifying
Topic Started: Sep 9 2008, 05:12 AM (3,169 Views)
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I think most people would agree with what Jacquet says, but I don't really like the way he's stuck the knife in. Shouldn't he keep his thoughts to himself? He should know what it's like to be an unpopular manager of France, with everyone calling for your head!

This is getting a bit cringeworthy now, I see today that Ireland have asked FIFA if they can go to the World Cup anyway, as a 33rd team!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/i...als/8386207.stm

Blatter has said FIFA will discuss it, but that if Ireland go then perhaps Costa Rica would also have a case as Uruguay scored an offside goal against them. This is plain silly now, 32 teams is IMO already too many to have at a WC, it means the quality of the football is diluted, there are many forgettable matches and to be honest, forgettable teams as well. How would 33 teams work, would there be one group of five? Would the scheduling of the whole tournament have to be changed to account for extra matchdays? The group stage draw is on Friday, this would need some real late night sessions for the FIFA executive over these next four nights! Perhaps they can be in Group I, on their own (or perhaps with Costa Rica).

Short answer is that it couldn't work, and I can't imagine the point of the Irish requesting it. It would be like England asking to be a fifth semi-finalist in 1986! Sadly, Ireland were screwed over and the real news from Blatter's interview is that FIFA will meet on Wednesday to discuss extra officials behind the goal lines. Good, so something positive has come out of this fiasco.

Anyway, it's not like the Irish to hold a grudge ;)

Have the FAI blamed Oliver Cromwell yet for them not being at the WC, or is that next week? *Ducks for cover* :o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Johnbuildr
Member Avatar
Advanced member
[ *  *  * ]
<<......Anyway, it's not like the Irish to hold a grudge

Have the FAI blamed Oliver Cromwell yet for them not being at the WC, or is that next week? *Ducks for cover* ....>>>

You better duck for cover!

"The sieges of Drogheda and Wexford have been prominently mentioned in histories and literature up to the present day. James Joyce, for example, mentioned Drogheda in his novel Ulysses: "What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text God is love pasted round the mouth of his cannon?" Similarly, Winston Churchill described the impact of Cromwell on Anglo-Irish relations:

...upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. 'Hell or Connaught' were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred 'The Curse of Cromwell on you.' ... Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'."[58]

Cromwell is still a figure of hatred in Ireland, his name being associated with massacre, religious persecution, and mass dispossession of the Catholic community there. As Churchill notes, a traditional Irish curse was malacht Cromail ort or "the curse of Cromwell upon you".

Just sayin'......

Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raconteur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
This is getting a bit cringeworthy now, I see today that Ireland have asked FIFA if they can go to the World Cup anyway, as a 33rd team!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/i...als/8386207.stm


I'll say this, Ireland's FA has balls. But what they are asking for will never happen so I don't think we need to worry about how a 33rd team would be accomodated.

Simon does make a good point about Jacquet, a coach who in his day suffered as much if not more criticism than Domenech is now, probably being wise to not increase the pressure on Domenech with his comments. He claims to be close to the coach and a past supporter, but if nothing else Jacquet's comments do show the eroding support Domenech has publicly. But what counts is what the bosses at the French federation think and so far they are behind Domenech, who surely will be the most belegauered coach going into World Cup 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Johnbuildr
Member Avatar
Advanced member
[ *  *  * ]
Yep, we can file the Irish' request in the 'pointless and hopeless, but it never hurts to ask' category.

Adding more refs to the melee is interesting and would be no doubt helpful though. I know soccer old timers cringe at the thought, but the American college soccer system runs two refs on the field, each one generally police-ing each half of the field. It is far easier for them to control the match and see everything than with the traditional one man running his ass off. Most anyone who has seen many a college match knows that the two do a better job than one.

Of course, FIFA is about as likely to install somehting like that as instant replay. :lol:
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shelsoccer
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
John, I believe the dual-referee system in US collegiate soccer is still legal but is never used anymore. I don't even see it used on the high school level anymore, except for the occasional freshman or jayvee game.

The dual system as used in the US does not utilize linesmen. The two refs have to determine balls out of play, offsides plus the normal duties of a referee. Not a good system.

Now for a system that would use two refs plus two linesmen? I could argue for such experimentation. Refereeing traditionalists always argue that the division of duties between the two refs would be too difficult. To which, I'd respond: see basketball, which even added a third referee years ago without problems.

The speed of today's game played in an area as big as a football pitch begs for additional sets of eyes, imo. Whether that's a second ref or, as is more likely in FIFA's current discussion, goal-line judges is something I'd favor.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Johnbuildr
Member Avatar
Advanced member
[ *  *  * ]
shelsoccer,Dec 1 2009
09:30 AM
John, I believe the dual-referee system in US collegiate soccer is still legal but is never used anymore. I don't even see it used on the high school level anymore, except for the occasional freshman or jayvee game.

The dual system as used in the US does not utilize linesmen. The two refs have to determine balls out of play, offsides plus the normal duties of a referee. Not a good system.

Now for a system that would use two refs plus two linesmen? I could argue for such experimentation. Refereeing traditionalists always argue that the division of duties between the two refs would be too difficult. To which, I'd respond: see basketball, which even added a third referee years ago without problems.

The speed of today's game played in an area as big as a football pitch begs for additional sets of eyes, imo. Whether that's a second ref or, as is more likely in FIFA's current discussion, goal-line judges is something I'd favor.

My college soccer fan days have been over for a while, so I am not surprised things have chancged there. Thanks for letting me know, Shel.

But, Shel's final paragraph is really my bottom line. I have always felt that the size of the field and speed of the game (at all levels) require more help than the linesmen provide for the center ref.

Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yogi
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
We will find out in the next few days if FIFA will adopt the extra line judges. I have not really seen any Europa League matches, how has the experiment of using these extra officials worked so far? Sounds as if it has at least been moderately successful or else they would not be considering it for the crown jewel of the sport, the World Cup.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Johnbuildr,Nov 30 2009
11:00 AM
Cromwell is still a figure of hatred in Ireland, his name being associated with massacre, religious persecution, and mass dispossession of the Catholic community there. As Churchill notes, a traditional Irish curse was malacht Cromail ort or "the curse of Cromwell upon you".

To be updated to the 'curse of Henry?'

Cromwell was reasonable enough to people, unless they were catholic or Irish (he was still pissed off about a massacre of protestants in Ireland in 1641, plus Irish support for Charles I in the Civil War). Well, that's the Puritans for you! Fortunately those nutters soon sailed over the Atlantic and they're your problem now! ;)

Back in the 21st century, I've seen a few Europa League matches and the extra officials have worked well. Usually their interventions are little things such as who got the last touch, was it a corner or a goal kick etc. But they've worked smoothly enough and I definitely think it's worth widening the experiment, including using it at the WC.

Oh, and although FIFA are only officially answering the Irish tomorrow, the answer has already been revealed as 'no'. Liam Brady's stinging attack on Blatter as 'an embarrassment to FIFA' is pretty close to the mark though. Normally Blatter talks incessantly to anyone who'll listen about all manner of things that don't concern him, and yet he was utterly silent on this controversy. Whatever we may think about Ireland's request, and I did say the other day that it was cringeworthy, it's probably not very professional for the FIFA President to finally break his silence on this matter by making this request public and having a laugh at Ireland. Was that really necessary?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Johnbuildr
Member Avatar
Advanced member
[ *  *  * ]
<<To be updated to the 'curse of Henry?'

Cromwell was reasonable enough to people, unless they were catholic or Irish (he was still pissed off about a massacre of protestants in Ireland in 1641, plus Irish support for Charles I in the Civil War). .......! >>

....Not sure if the above is a weak stab at humor or history or both Simon, but both sides had a lot to be pissed off about, going back well furhter than the mid 1600's. Of course it's a no win dicusssion, but suffice it to be said that Cromwell is as infamous in Irish history as Hitler is to the Jews. So, if there was any implication in your first refence to OC that he is unjustly maligned by anyone, then that would be considered silly nonsense by the entire Irish people.

<<Back in the 21st century, I've seen a few Europa League matches and the extra officials have worked well. Usually their interventions are little things such as who got the last touch, was it a corner or a goal kick etc. But they've worked smoothly enough and I definitely think it's worth widening the experiment, including using it at the WC.>>

'Usually' their calls will be minor in nature, but if they can make the occasional critical call on whether a ball has crossed the goal line or has been handled for a pk or correct an injustice when the center is slightly out of position to make the correct call, then the effort will have been worth it.

<<Oh, and although FIFA are only officially answering the Irish tomorrow, the answer has already been revealed as 'no'. Liam Brady's stinging attack on Blatter as 'an embarrassment to FIFA' is pretty close to the mark though. Normally Blatter talks incessantly to anyone who'll listen about all manner of things that don't concern him, and yet he was utterly silent on this controversy. Whatever we may think about Ireland's request, and I did say the other day that it was cringeworthy, it's probably not very professional for the FIFA President to finally break his silence on this matter by making this request public and having a laugh at Ireland. Was that really necessary? >>

No it was not. He made himself and FIFA look less than professional. Not what any board would want from their CEO.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Johnbuildr,Dec 2 2009
06:30 AM
Not sure if the above is a weak stab at humor or history or both Simon, but both sides had a lot to be pissed off about, going back well furhter than the mid 1600's. Of course it's a no win dicusssion, but suffice it to be said that Cromwell is as infamous in Irish history as Hitler is to the Jews. So, if there was any implication in your first refence to OC that he is unjustly maligned by anyone, then that would be considered silly nonsense by the entire Irish people.

Which 'both sides'?

My post is accurate enough as a one sentence summary of a complex person and an even more complex situation. I personally don't care much for Cromwell, although he is widely regarded in the UK as a hero of liberty and parliamentary democracy. There's still a big statue of him outside the Houses of Parliament for precisely that reason. Equally others, myself included, take a dim view of the type of puritan theocracy that England was during the interregnum. Cromwell supporters point out that events at Drogheda and Wexford were entirely in line with 17th century military practice, as seen across Europe, and in fact he took most of the 30 or so towns and cities he captured in Ireland with barely any loss of life. Okay, but there were no equivalents of Drogheda/Wexford during his campaigns in England or Scotland, and he was clearly IMO motivated there by hatred of Irish catholicism and a spirit of vengeance for 1641. He said his actions would 'tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future'. That was true, a kind of 17th century Hiroshima/Nagasaki. But clearly every bit as controversial and of course it's true that Cromwell is infamous in Irish history.

Re refereeing, I agree that the pace of the game and the size of the pitch mean it's increasingly difficult for the one man running his ass off, as you said the other day. Sir Alex Ferguson recently questioned referee Alan Wiley's ability to do so, saying that he wasn't fit enough to keep right up with play during a match between Manchester United and Sunderland. Ferguson is currently serving a touchline ban as a result, but it is something that IMO needs to be looked into. I've heard some proposals about having two referees on the pitch, one in each half of the field, as shelsoccer mentions. I'm interested in the basketball comparison. Does basketball actually have three referees on the court itself? How do they coordinate themselves, is there a senior ref who has the final say?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raconteur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I'm interested in the basketball comparison. Does basketball actually have three referees on the court itself? How do they coordinate themselves, is there a senior ref who has the final say?

Basketball does have 3 refs and when the sport made the switch there was some concern how they'd be able to divide responsibilities but they seem to have done it quite well. In basketball, referees usually cover a certain area of the court with all switching from one half to the other as the ball moves from one half of the court to the other (from the defensive end for one team to it's offensive end.) Usually whichever ref sees a violation, whether a foul, a rules violation (i.e. taking too many steps with the ball without dribbling aka traveling) or if the ball or a player goes out of bounds will blow his whistle and issue a call, if two or more refs both blow the whistle then all will confer and make sure they agree on the call. If they differ typically it is whichever ref asserts he had the best view will be the call which will be made. The senior ref I think only steps in if both refs are insistent on their contrary calls being the correct one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Winslow
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
raconteur,Dec 2 2009
10:50 AM
I'm interested in the basketball comparison. Does basketball actually have three referees on the court itself? How do they coordinate themselves, is there a senior ref who has the final say?

Basketball does have 3 refs and when the sport made the switch there was some concern how they'd be able to divide responsibilities but they seem to have done it quite well.

Ice hockey, or at least the NHL, now has four officials on the ice: two referees (who call penalties, decide if goals have been scored, and generally oversee the game) and two linesmen (who call other rule violations and break up fights). The two-ref system has been in place for ten years or so; IIRC, one referee always stays close to the puck/goal while the other trails the play. I'm not sure if each ref is mainly responsible for one half of the ice or not.

The idea is to see more of the play and catch more wrongdoing, but I'd much rather see one man in charge; also, four extra skaters on the ice is a lot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Johnbuildr
Member Avatar
Advanced member
[ *  *  * ]
<<Which 'both sides'?>>

Huh? Even the the follower of this topic wiht no horse in teh race knows their is the Irish side and the English version or side to Cronwell's history, whihc are quite different.

'Accuracy' always depending on the eye and background of the beholder when it comes to history. No matter how you wish to portray him, Cromwell was and remains an evil, murdering monster in the Irish view, no matter how much of a humanitarian and savior the English believe he may have been.

Feel free to email me on the subject Simon, this is the wrong place for us to carry it further. You made a casual reference to a heroic to some and notorious to others historical fiogure, which you knew might draw a response from your 'runs for cover' comment, and you got it. Why act surprised or even slightly indignant?
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Johnbuildr,Dec 2 2009
02:21 PM
<<Which 'both sides'?>>

Huh? Even the the follower of this topic wiht no horse in teh race knows their is the Irish side and the English version or side to Cronwell's history, whihc are quite different.

'Accuracy' always depending on the eye and background of the beholder when it comes to history. No matter how you wish to portray him, Cromwell was and remains an evil, murdering monster in the Irish view, no matter how much of a humanitarian and savior the English believe he may have been.

Feel free to email me on the subject Simon, this is the wrong place for us to carry it further. You made a casual reference to a heroic to some and notorious to others historical fiogure, which you knew might draw a response from your 'runs for cover' comment, and you got it. Why act surprised or even slightly indignant?

I'm neither surprised nor indignant. I genuinely wondered which two sides you meant from your phrase 'both sides had a lot to be pissed off about'. As it came straight after the bit of my post that you quoted which said 'unless you were catholic or Irish' I wondered if you meant catholic and Irish as the two groups who had a lot to be pissed off about, which would be equally true. But as you simply mean the Irish and the English, that's cleared up a misunderstanding on my part.

My original post said that Cromwell's conduct in England was reasonable but condemned his conduct in Ireland. That's fair enough isnt it? We've both said that Cromwell is hated in Ireland, whereas he's widely admired in England (although in fact he's a very divisive figure in England as well - as I say, I don't like him). I think we're actually in agreement.



The multi-refs thing as described by raconteur all sounds very civilised. I'm having a hard time picturing some of football's egomaniac referees getting along in quite that way! At least the field would be big enough. Multiple refs in basketball or ice hockey does sound like a bit of a tight squeeze! I suppose let's just stick with the extra officials behind the goal for now, before we go nuts! God knows it's taken the football authorities long enough to even go this far...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ursus arctos
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
The FIFA Executive Committee agreed today that extra officials will not be used in South Africa. Here's Blatter's quote.

"We spoke about what to do with refereeing in future. It's clear that the main match official and his assistants cannot see everything that happens on the field of play. So, is it better to have more match officials or open the door to technology? We will have to evaluate this, though we did take one decision: even if the experiment with two additional match officials in the [UEFA] Europa League continues through to the latter stages (of the competition), there won't be any changes for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. We will continue to use one main match official, two assistants and a fourth official. There's no discussion on this, (the finals) are too soon for us to evaluate other possibilities."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UEFA · Next Topic »
Add Reply