30 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes but you have Luddites who are opposed to the introduction of technology, flip sake it only took several decades for goal line technology. Critical decisions should be referred to a panel of officials with instant replay video footage. There is not a valid reason not to introduce it as it has been incorporatd in rugby and cricket successfully and actually adds to the suspence. The absolute disgraceful way that games are being decided on ludicrous officiating errors and blatant diving makes it imperative to introduce it.
It depends, they shouldn't do it over every tackle, but getting decisions within the penalty box right is critical.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI find it particularly odd that theatrics aren't punished after the fact even if they are missed by the referee. Why not suspend players for, say, a year or two?
Indeed and its quite absurd. Clearly Eladar is simply regurgitating some piece of propaganda. If he observed the recent spate of games he would have realised that a number of players were taken from the field of play by paramedics on a stretcher. A much more rational objection would be the propensity for diving and the horrendous decisions made by ...[text shortened]... decision to the spectators. The argument that video review would slow soccer down is nonsense.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by PonderableWere you enraged when George Carlin declared that soccer wasn't a sport?
I found this:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html
and the Lady managed to enrage me with her mindless babble so much that I create a thread in Debates.
Is it really true that football (the kind played with the foot and a ball actaully) is for sissies?
Is it true that for a sport to be real people have to be injured?
Is it true that no American whose great-grandfather was born in the US is watching football?