For information and discussion about Oolite.
https://bb.oolite.space/
sarcasm.Micha wrote:I'd be interested to know what your source is for the "6' rule".
<Matrix mode> There is no goal </Matrix mode>JazHaz wrote:Just been reading the review of the England-Germany match on the FIFA website. Surprise, surprise, no mention of the disallowed England goal!
Ninja'd! Just editted my post because they did mention it. Reading through the tears!DaddyHoggy wrote:<Matrix mode> There is no goal </Matrix mode>JazHaz wrote:Just been reading the review of the England-Germany match on the FIFA website. Surprise, surprise, no mention of the disallowed England goal!
To be fair to the officials, they did only get to see it once, in real time, and had to make up their minds on the spot. If they weren't sure, they couldn't give a goal. The instant it happened, I wasn't sure, and my viewpoint on the TV was probably a hell of a lot better than the ones the ref and linesman had. I don't think they did it deliberately.JazHaz wrote:Just been reading the review of the England-Germany match on the FIFA website. Surprise, surprise, they glossed over the disallowed England goal, with no mention of why the referees could make such a big mistake.
I'd suggest Italy too but they'd start on the other team and they're likely to turn their shirts inside out every time the running looks bad! 
There is the point of morale, I suppose. It is a bit of a tenuous one still Eisenhower seemed to think it was fairly important.Killer Wolf wrote:does one disallowed goal matter, given they didn't get the required other two to win anyways?
They should take a lead from Cricket...have a 2nd referee off field (like the 3rd Umpire) who has instant access to the video and can be called upon to adjudicate in these situations. The on-field referee should be encouraged to use the services of the 2nd ref anytime something controversial happens, and perhaps the teams can be given a (very) limited number of 'rights to appeal' during a match.ClymAngus wrote:Humans are fallible as judges. We have the ability to enable them to instantly review 1001 different angles and positions at once. For linesmen to instantly inform them of bad sportsmanship and correct errors in play with god like access to truth.
Would it really be that tricky to buy them all an iphone with a bit of reviewing software on it? Or a Hud and a hands free? I'm afraid a generation of people are going to have to die before some young person drags football kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Ah, now, see, this is where I disagree. Football can be a really fast-moving game. Take Germany's first goal, for example: probably no more than five or six seconds from Neuer booting it out of the German penalty area to it ending up in England's goal. You can't have the ref stopping the game every few minutes to check all the things he might not be 100% sure of; it would ruin the flow. It works in cricket, and tennis, and American Football too, because there are lots of in-built breaks in play, but it would be an intrusion in football. I think you'd have to restrict it to pretty much "did the ball cross the line?" incidents only, and even then you'd have to be careful. Which means there will always be controversial incidents – penalties that aren't given, say, or goals scored that are flagged offside even though a replay might show that the player was onside. You couldn't use video refereeing there, because defenders and goalkeepers might have reacted to the linesman's flag.Smivs wrote:They should take a lead from Cricket...have a 2nd referee off field (like the 3rd Umpire) who has instant access to the video and can be called upon to adjudicate in these situations. The on-field referee should be encouraged to use the services of the 2nd ref anytime something controversial happens, and perhaps the teams can be given a (very) limited number of 'rights to appeal' during a match.
This is true, but I'm not suggesting this would be appropriate for every little incident. And quite often the game does break after these things anyway. Disputed goal are actually quite rare so the interruptions would be equally rare, and the referee can already stop the game for various reasons...how often have we seen a game paused due to an injury, only to see the injured player getting up as the ref stops the game. It already happens. Also a good ref will often let play continue following a foul, only to book the offending player at the next natural break in the game. Surely a similar approach could be adopted in these incidents. It is a controversial issue, but one that really does need addressing.Disembodied wrote:
Ah, now, see, this is where I disagree. Football can be a really fast-moving game. Take Germany's first goal, for example: probably no more than five or six seconds from Neuer booting it out of the German penalty area to it ending up in England's goal. You can't have the ref stopping the game every few minutes to check all the things he might not be 100% sure of; it would ruin the flow. It works in cricket, and tennis, and American Football too, because there are lots of in-built breaks in play, but it would be an intrusion in football. I think you'd have to restrict it to pretty much "did the ball cross the line?" incidents only, and even then you'd have to be careful. Which means there will always be controversial incidents – penalties that aren't given, say, or goals scored that are flagged offside even though a replay might show that the player was onside. You couldn't use video refereeing there, because defenders and goalkeepers might have reacted to the linesman's flag.