Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'World Cup 2010: Refereeing' started by MrRC, Jul 10, 2010.
I guess being a ref is the same as being a keeper: the fans will remember your mistakes foremost.
FIFA's head of officials announces that his own effort is a great success by citing a reassuring number made up by FIFA ... the guy should work for BP.
Just going with my gut reaction, I have to agree. I don't even know what they quantified. Was it fouls? Was it fouls and misconduct? Was it all those categories and offside?
Try again. Saying 80% of the calls were correct would be closer to correct.
This is just propaganda setting up FIFA be able to not make changes that need to be made.
If only 80% of calls were correct, the matches would have been chaos. Messing up one of every 5 calls, that would be VERY noticable. Think about the hundreds of decisions made in a match, then think about how many of them you noticed. Then of those you noticed, how many were incorrect. That's why the number is 96%.
(Although that being said, not sure how the really come up witht he number)
What a load of nonsense! Almost every game at a high level would have
a similar correct decision %. It's the nature of the wrong decisions that makes
I'd like to see an extensive report on this...any chance it'll be published?
The majority of calls in football are relatively straightforward, so 96% doesn't mean much. The question is how many of the more difficult calls did they get right?
Btw, i would also like to know what type of calls did they quantify and who decided that whether these calls were correct or not and what process was followed to pick up each call? Why exactly 96 % ?
The Human referees can only get a certain amount of decisions correct.Afterall they are human ,but Even Fifa coming with any made up statistic by themselves won't hide their inadequacies or the inadequacies of certain officials in this tournament.
They can engage in propoganda all they like.
The thing is that the officials have overall done well in this tournament. However, some of the blown (non)calls have been massive. The other thing that has to factor in is that there are so many camera angles now and they are all in high definition.
The refs are in a tough spot.
And you missed the point. 80% is just as much fantasy as FIFA's 96%
If they had just gotten those two MASSIVE calls right too people would be saying "Wow these refs are awesome" and forget the other bad calls like Mullers yellow and USAs goal that was called back.
This was the best refereeing in a World Cup that I've ever seen (1998, 2002, 2006, 2010). I guess people have terrible memories.
I just want to see actual SCIENCE and hard Data used to prove stuff like this. And make it available for everyone to read. That's not hard I want someone to do it because I'm tired of listening to hyperbole and subjective arguments.
maybe they did get 96% right... there were still a number of perfectly good goals that were disallowed and offsides goals that were allowed...
Why can't FIFA implement some kind of replay system?
That's pretty sad considering the substantial number of obviously terrible calls.
Ever since the World Cup became a politically correct circus (around World Cup 1998), refereeing has become worse and worse. Two-bit third world nobodies who have never refereed a competitive game in their lives are assigned to World Cup games and find themselves dealing with hotshots of the big leagues who know all the tricks in the book to fool referees.
The result: total failure. Illegitimate goals are given by the dozen while legitimate ones are disallowed. Plenty of acting and kung-fu, should-be-a-direct-red-card fouls become the rule. Unfortunately, the media helps promote an environment like that. Instead of directly blaming FIFA for the bad referees, the hacks at ESPN and other networks ask for use of technology in games, as if that's gonna put an end to bad refereeing. The Wolrd Cup does not need slow-mo replays (the big leagues in Europe do perfectly fine without it). What it needs is GOOD REFEREES. Reward good referees by sending them to the World Cup, don't appoint unexperienced referees just to fill racial or national quotas.
The era of good referees like Pierluigi Collina is long gone. Now we have to settle for affirmative action appointees.
I'll remind you that some of the worst officiating disasters have come during games refereed by English refs.
Not saying it was their fault, just saying they were on the field, not some "affirmative action ref" as you put it. they were completely unable in both cases to control the game.
the 1962 Battle of Santiago between Italy and Chile was adjudicated by an affirmative Action choice named Ken Aston from England. (wasn't he the fellow who invented red and yellow cards after the game?)
The 1954 Battle of the Berne between Hungary and Brasil was adjudicated by some third world guy named Arthur Ellis from England.
My personal favorite, though, wasn't really English but it was from one of the four "special" FA's and could hardly be considered affirmative action choice.
It was, after all, from a Welsh ref in 1978 named Clive Thomas during a match between Brasil and Sweden who whistled time while the ball was in the air on a Brazilian corner kick. Zico headed the ball in but it was disallowed and the game ended 1-1. Time management at its best.
You don't need affirmative action refs for games to get screwed up. The inventors of the game can manage just fine by themselves. your memories of the great refs of old are perhaps a bit lacking.
Besides, I thought Pierluigi WAS an affirmative action choice ....
Someone help me do the math. If referees are human and they got 96% of the calls right, but other humans made the determination of that 96%, what percentage of the calls did those people get right? If they got 96% right, how do you adjust the referee's number to account for errors made by the other people...
Anyone else confused?
The answer would most likely be paradoxical.
You have to consider too, that these are probably just the calls that were actually whistled (or where advantage is applied). What about all those other little decisions that all referees have to make constantly during a game that no one other than the players see, but can affect the outcome of the game. If you're a ref, you know what I'm talking about.
If they put their shoes on the right feet, is that worth 1% or 2%?
This is just saying the ref's opinion and ref evaluator's opinion were the same 96% of the time. It's a worthless number, in my opinion.
Because experts have worthless opinions. Better not ask doctors to evaluate whether or not other doctors are making call based on medical evidence than, we should ask...a plumber? A Baker? A Candlestick Maker?
It's not refs being evaluated by other refs thats rediculous - it's the assignment of a percentage correct number as if it were an algebra test.
We can't have an objective standard of measurement without using numbers though.