World Cup refereeing is so bad. Did money exchange hands?

Discussion in 'Sports, Adventure Training and Events' started by Placebo, Jul 3, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Me thinks it did. No other way you can explain the blatant stupidity the refs are carrying on.

    It's happened in other sports. Are we to be so blind as to think the biggest sporting event in the known universe would be immune?

    Attached Files:

  2. That will explain the blatantly illigitimate 4 goals scored against us. 8O
  3. In England's case me thinks the players were paid to lose.
  4. Were that the case I reckon we'd have accidentally thrashed them.
  5. skintboymike:

    I guess the English team is more bone than I thought.

    There is also the possibility that England paid to lose.

    Just a thought.
  6. Bit fanciful really. Quite possible one or a few may have been leaned on, but I can’t see it across the board, which is what it would take for guaranteed effectiveness.

    All decisions aren’t correct and never will be while it’s left to a few people on the pitch. It’s fine for the mongs who reject technology to say the game shouldn’t be ‘perfect’, but in the first place the majority of followers (who fund the funding of the game) want perfection, and secondly there is now far too much at stake to have four years (or more) of National preparation, hopes and costs, just thrown away because one or two people say so.

    It appears most objections these days, comes from refs, ex-refs and the ref body.
    1. People like to discuss ref controversy after a match
    2. It would break-up the flow of the game
    3. It would undermine the authority of the ref
    4. Smaller clubs (and strapped big ones) couldn’t afford it

    #1. You’ve got to be some kind of special mong to remotely consider people like wasting their time and money seeing their team beaten by some feckless official instead of the opposition.

    #2. Of course it feckin wouldn’t. The game wouldn’t stop every time there’s a call to wait for a remote verdict. The game is played as normal and is only interrupted if and when the video refs are satisfied there has been a clear pitch ref’s error.

    #3. Balls. Who the feck do they think they are? It’s about time they were liable to some instant discipline. How? Simple, just like in the player card system there are ‘yellows’ and ‘reds’ and, in a few circumstances, instant sending offs. Similar for the refs, though I am not advocating cards are waved at them during the game. On occasions none may be placed to have actually seen what occurred. They can ask (because they all wear 2-ways now) for a video opinion, or, if they call it themselves and get it wrong the video refs step in. The video refs may decide it’s 50/50, i.e. impossible to call? However, if the ref is making a pig’s ear of a match, they’re replaced. By whom? Again simple. The sub is the 4th official, another match ref, and the two swap places.

    #4. No one is saying this must be an all level standard? That said, clubs had to comply with the seating v standing H&S regs which were introduced and cost a damn sight more than a few cameras? ;) However, to start with it becomes obligatory for all major Championships and Internationals – arbitrary for friendlies. Premier leagues should be included, but, reasonable some countries where the game doesn’t have much money in it may be allowed to defer. Re lower leagues, up to them if they want to afford it.

    The set-up I see is straight forward. With the scoreboard are large red and green light panels, and a musical chime (something that can’t be duplicated by the crowd – as the ref’s whistle can/is ;) . The video refs comprise a panel of three who themselves can be observed ;) . The game plays as usual and the video refs flash red and chime if an incorrect decision has been made, or red or green if the pitch ref has asked for a ruling.

    A few fixed goal-line cameras, a few around the pitch, and say 3 rostrum cameras following the game, monitors, cables, and a modest production suite with slo-mo. Kit probably leased though could be bought – and then hired out for other jobs. A pro sports cameraman costs about £300 a day, plus some technos. Expect there’d be any number of production companies who’d tender for a contract, and deals done with TV who are covering the match anyway and would probably use around 20 cameras. :omg:

    It’s 2010, can we grow up please? :roll: