News

What Has Technology Done To Soccer? – Slashdot

Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed




The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
its about the use of new and advanced technologies in sports
therefore, it should be something relevant to the usual slashdot user
FP should change his handle to “twisted panties”.
No, I didn’t watch the game, but a summary said that two early goals were disallowed because of offside calls. By the computer, I presume.
I’m sure I’ll watch highlights, but I also saw a statistical summary, and my current theory is Germany started thinking about their next game AND the Japan team was seriously lucky.
Now you seem to be talking about American football, but that game has far more variations of offside rules than soccer. Next you’ll be trying to explain to me how rugby works?

explain to me how rugby works?

explain to me how rugby works?
See, there’s a bit of a scrum, right? An’ yer mates aim to put a beatin on the buggers from the other team to distract ’em while you run away with the ball.
It’s about tech in sports. Perfectly good for a slashdot article. Of course, unless it’s good at determining real fouls from flopping it hasn’t solved the reason why pro soccer sucks donkey balls.
ditto
So soccer will save the panda from extinction? Actually, I agree WWE sounds stupid. I grew up with WWF, it will always be WWF. Haven’t seen it in decades, but the daft refs made it amazing fun.
There is a difference between exacting enforcement of every rule and knowing when the rules apply. An insignificant, unintentional grazing of the hand, one which does not alter the play, should not be called. Let the players play.
The hand of “god”? Absolutely. Get the whistle out and show the yellow card.
If you actually care about sport, you care if the call is made correctly.
If all you care about is beer, who gives a shit? Just keep drinking and shouting.

If all you care about is beer, who gives a shit? Just keep drinking and shouting.

If all you care about is beer, who gives a shit? Just keep drinking and shouting.
Qatar banned all beer, and that was in breech of the contract they gave Budweiser to serve beer at the venues. So there was no beer to care about.

Qatar banned all beer, and that was in breech of the contract they gave Budweiser to serve beer at the venues. So there was no beer to care about.

Qatar banned all beer, and that was in breech of the contract they gave Budweiser to serve beer at the venues. So there was no beer to care about.
So only shouting to care about then.

If you actually care about sport, you care if the call is made correctly.

If all you care about is beer, who gives a shit? Just keep drinking and shouting.

If you actually care about sport, you care if the call is made correctly.
If all you care about is beer, who gives a shit? Just keep drinking and shouting.
That’s a forced, false binary. It’s not “perfectly 100% correct-in-all-reference-frames minutiae” VS “let’s-just-get-drunk-and-screw”.
Your personal definition of what it means to “care about sport”, and indeed, your personal concept of what “sport” even means, is just that – yours.
There are numerous ways to define that.
One counter to your statement would be:
If you actually care about calls, then you care if the call is made correctly. If you care about actual sport, then you care whether your sport is desig
Change your rules if you don’t like that they are being enforced.
It’s not the problem with the AI or computer calling. It shouldn’t be a problem with the fans that the rules are now being *fairly* enforced. They should be all for it.
I like soccer because it is humans playing humans. The officiates try to create a balance where each team has an even chance. The players play to the clock and one is out of the are no temper tantrums. There may be some e

What is correct?

What is correct?
They should put a kinder, gentler offsides rule into the rules. I propose, anyone offsides cannot interact with the ball or other players until they get onsides, or then there is a foul.

How much time do you want to waste adjudicating?

How much time do you want to waste adjudicating?
None, that’s why you should set a rule that can be enforced by computer without ruining the sport. Offsides has always been a problem.
Is this American Football where the goal is to run the clock for an hour, play for half and hour, and have 2 hours of commercials.
You’re off by a factor of 3. Considering the average play in (American) football lasts (generously) around 5 seconds and each team conducts an average of 60 plays per game, there exists only _ten minutes_ of actual gameplay during any (American) football game.
I was dragged to see a live (American) football game once. I’ll never voluntarily go back to see another one. It was
I am happy to find someone who actually agrees with me in large part. (I disagree that the games can be interesting even with TV commenting. The entire exercise is thoroughly uninteresting and I’d rather take a nap.)
It’s actually in many ways the opposite. Football (as opposed to handegg) is in large part about drama. Being able to skillfully fool the ref and his two assistance was a skill unto its own, leading to cases like Maradona’s famous hand play which are remembered to this day. Because of the skill it takes to do it in a way where ref and his assistants can’t see it.
It’s dramatic, which makes it fun. And it’s a skill that people can be good at or bad at, just like everything else about the sport.
Interestingly e
You can try to dress it up all you like, it’s still cheating. Maradona was serial cheat, from the hand of god to ankle tapping to amateur acting.
You can try to dress it up all you like, but “those that don’t cheat” by your definition are forgotten in irrelevance. While those that do are still remembered as a legend.
There’s this thing with people who really think that reality is wrong and they’re right. That they are impossible to convince that they themselves might be wrong, because they already learned not to care about reality itself. And no one is as convincing as reality.
The game where people manouver and kick the ball with their feet rather than picking it up and running with it. Hence foot -> ball.

The game where people manouver and kick the ball with their feet rather than picking it up

The game where people manouver and kick the ball with their feet rather than picking it up
unless they’re the goalie

Hence foot -> ball.

Hence foot -> ball.
Yeah except the american football gets kicked, too.
I propose we call them roundball and longball
OK, as long as the rules change so the goalie can’t use hands.
Fun part is that rules were in fact changed in the 1990s to where goalie can only use hands to stop shots from the opponent. When participating in passing with his teammates, he can only use feet, and using hands is counted as a penalty.

When participating in passing with his teammates, he can only use feet, and using hands is counted as a penalty.

When participating in passing with his teammates, he can only use feet, and using hands is counted as a penalty.
Unless the teammate passes with something other than his/her foot (e.g., a header). The exception to that exception is if the ball is thrown-in.
That has always been forbidden. Circumventing the rule is unsportsmanlike behavior that is punished with a yellow card.
It applies to other similar attempts to circumvent certain rules.
Boring and MoreBoring seem like the perfect names to me.
Yeah, right. Go ahead and insist to yourself that 7.6 billion people really enjoy watching football (your definition). I give you permission for this self-delusion.
But it is something like 3-3.5 billion viewers for football World Cup. 2.2 billion for the cricket World Cup. 850 million for the rugby World Cup. The Super Bowl? 100 million? UEFA champions league final, Tour de France, Wimbledon, and more get vastly more viewers.

I give you permission for this self-delusion.

I give you permission for this self-delusion.
Dismissive & then this. I have absolutely no doubt that you’re from the good ol’ US of A. God bless ‘Murica! Freedom!

The game where people manouver and kick the ball with their feet rather than picking it up

Hence foot -> ball.

Yeah except the american football gets kicked, too.

The game where people manouver and kick the ball with their feet rather than picking it up

The game where people manouver and kick the ball with their feet rather than picking it up

Hence foot -> ball.

Hence foot -> ball.
Yeah except the american football gets kicked, too.
How many times per game?
Compared to football, as it is named by ~90% of the inhabitants of the planet?
Or by the “250 million players in over 200 nations, as opposed to 1.1million in the US”? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Popularity).
Anyone is free to name things what they fancy, but the figures are what they are.
LOL 🙂 yeah ok, whatever you say. Get back to us when you’ve sobered up.
And yet,its funny that people seem to ignore the fact (as the post mentioned above yours) that England was the one that coined the word “soccer”, in reference to “Association Football” – > “Assoc” -> “Soccer”.
Something else I just learned, and maybe some Aussie folk can confirm.. Australians also refer to “football” as “soccer” down there as well – because of rugby. So, its not just Americans?
Impossible unless you want the game to be stopped nearly constantly and basically unwatchable. Hopefully you mean only on important calls, goals, red cards etc.

Players will adjust to not being able to get away with things.

Most importantly, it helps to get rid of paid refs fixing games. The more we can automate the better.

Players will adjust to not being able to get away with things.
Most importantly, it helps to get rid of paid refs fixing games. The more we can automate the better.
I see it as partially a matter of perspective.
Randomness can affect the outcome, that’s part of the game.
Players make mistakes, that’s part of the game.
Officials are also capable of mistakes, can’t that be part of the game as well?
One of the ridiculous things in hockey review is missed offsides. A player can end the zone marginally offside, then after a minute of sustained pressure the team scores… and the play gets called back. Goal scoring in hockey is a rare event, and even more so in soccer. That make

Why should “randomness” be part of a game of skill? If you want “randomness” go watch people playing roulette (oh yeah, that is pretty boring since there is no real skill involved).

Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. If you want to give more advantage to the offensive play, change the rules as such. Even in hockey goals get reviewed (hit with a high stick, interference with the goalie, and, to a much lesser extent now, a player entering the goalie exclusionary zone before the puck) but people still celebrate initially. Then find out it is under review and wait a couple minutes either screaming that it was a bad goal or a good goal depending on which side you are cheering for while the ref’s wait for the phone call from New York where the official reviews occur.

Personally I welcome these various review systems and hope more and more of it is automated as video and image processing become better. I would also welcome changes to equipment and the playfield to make it even easier for the computer based systems to work but understand that the ultimate solution would be to have this be a system that can easily be used on any playfield, so image and video is still probably the best overall solution.

Why should “randomness” be part of a game of skill? If you want “randomness” go watch people playing roulette (oh yeah, that is pretty boring since there is no real skill involved).
Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. If you want to give more advantage to the offensive play, change the rules as such. Even in hockey goals get reviewed (hit with a high stick, interference with the goalie, and, to a much lesser extent now, a player entering the goalie exclusionary zone before the puck) but people still celebrate initially. Then find out it is under review and wait a couple minutes either screaming that it was a bad goal or a good goal depending on which side you are cheering for while the ref’s wait for the phone call from New York where the official reviews occur.
Personally I welcome these various review systems and hope more and more of it is automated as video and image processing become better. I would also welcome changes to equipment and the playfield to make it even easier for the computer based systems to work but understand that the ultimate solution would be to have this be a system that can easily be used on any playfield, so image and video is still probably the best overall solution.
Because life is random, the better team doesn’t always win.
Ideally bad calls go away entirely, but there is a definite cost to the delay in review.
More critically, video reviews aren’t perfect, many infractions are ambiguous, adding a video review won’t fix that for the team on the wrong end of the call. Even worse a call can be blatantly wrong, it’s one thing for a ref to screw up in the moment, but a bad call getting a supposedly expert review sucks sooo much more [youtube.com].
That’s not to say video review is altoget
The problem is that football’s popularity is largely based in the fact that it’s the same sport if you play it in grassroots league and people playing it at the top. Football organisations at all levels did a lot of work to keep it that way.
Video referees and goal technologies are things you can’t have at grassroots level. They’re far too expensive. And that means that football at the top is genuinely starting to become a different sport that one people would play in their regional sixth division match.
And
The problem with ‘the right call always’ is that often (usually even) there is no ‘right’ call. It’s up to the referee’s discretion. Far too often the VAR gets embroiled in decisions it shouldn’t be worrying about. Unless there’s a blatant mistake, or the referee informs them that they didn’t get a good view of the incident, they should be keeping out.
As for offside, I’d rather there was a margin of error, similar to cricket. If the decision for/against an offside violation is within that margin of error, t
Yes, we get it, you are a new breed. Now if people would stop giving you swirlies and stuffing you into lockers, the world would be perfect.
        If it makes you feel any better, this story is about soccer, played primarily by little kids until they grow up to play a real sport.
   
In almost every case the annoyance with VARD is because of really, really close offside decisions. Seems possible to fix. For example the entire body needs to be offside? Or, less extreme, ignore arms and legs that are offside i.e. only count the torso, or only the feet or the back foot only etc?
This is the angle that interested me, but I’m not sure if goal hanging is such a bad thing. It’s not like they’d get up to basketball numbers. And in spite of the aspect that I usually played defender… MANY years ago.
But even though I don’t like the offside rule, I do like the idea of it being applied in a consistent way.
Current rule is that hands aren’t counted, everything else is. Specifically mentioned counted parts are head, body and legs. Cue the jokes about genitalia being a part of the body or a separate part.
https://www.newyorker.com/maga… [newyorker.com]
Absolutely everyone should read this now-classic New Yorker piece from the 2008/2009 financial meltdown, that links the difference in officiating approaches between soccer and the NFL, to fundamental cultural differences in the approaches to legislation/regulation between the United States and Europe. It’s a quick one-page read. The validity of the analogy is immediately obvious, and once you’ve read it you’ll start to notice the analogy’s framework holds true for numerous cultural, economic, and legal aspects of the USA and Europe (plus much of the rest of the world).
It’s why NFL matches seem more exciting than soccer to Americans who are used to football’s OCD fixation on rules.
NFL matches are super “correct” because every single inch of every play is being watched by a large team of officials, plus each team’s dozens of personnel. Play is constantly stopped to make sure the exact correct specifics of every rule are perfectly followed. Plays are re-done, clocks are rewound; everything is obsessively centered around legal precision. This also means you don’t have to pay
Interesting comment. I remember an old war-related analogy, something to the effect of: Football is like a set-piece battle and soccer is like guerilla warfare.
I notice how you generally feel football is about as interesting as watching chess matches. It reminded me of a quote from Mia Hamm who said something about “soccer is like chess”. Alas I could find no evidence that she said that, so I did a more general “soccer is like chess” search, and was surprised as to the number of hits, often stated thusly:
Absolutely nobody needs to read this. I won’t read it. And I will advise others not to read it either.
Because it’s inaccurate or biased or anything else? No. Because you wrote “Absolutely everyone should read this.” Those five words at the beginning of any sentence make the rest of the sentence false.
Also these five: “Taking the world by storm!”
I don’t watch soccer often so I don’t know how long the reviews take; but other sports give the coach a fixed number of challenges. This prevents too many review delays. The drama of if and when to use a challenge is part of the entertainment.
It’s probably no coincidence that just after world wide TV distribution of soccer matches became feasible, the whole sport turned terribly commercial.
I don’t think a single player will agree with you. Wrestling is for entertainment. Sports are to win, and you as a spectator are completely fucking irrelevant to the players on the field and their desire to be treated fairly, especially in a game known for bullshit calls and fake dives.
If the players (as all humans) are not 100% perfect, and the referees, (as all humans) are not 100%, the errors do not “even out”. Instead, the errors compound.
Having better referees, in the form of tech assisted humans (like now) or completely automated referees using technology in general, and AI in particular, can only make the game better, not worse…
As an experiment, MLB tried automating ball/strike calls in a minor league game a couple of years ago. The game had an almost video game feel to it which wasn’t enjoyable. Give me imperfect human officials every time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m… [forbes.com]
And I thought Musk overpaid.
Unless the sport is about the tech (e.g., cars).
Or maybe turn it to the officiating to improve quality and consistency.
It’s fouled all the major sports up. I don’t mind the occasional in-game call challenge or when the referees want to look at a replay, but, when teams start building their squads/lineups based on numbers from Statcast-like services then it’s gone too far (MLB I’m talking about you).
Look, fans disagree with referees all the time. When your team is losing, half the fun is yelling at the ref! Refs make mistakes, it’s part of the game.
Yelling at a computer ref is just as much as fun as yelling at a person. Without the risk of the ref getting assaulted by angry fans.
This essay is stupid, the fact that the ref is now a computer that you disagree with rather than a person that you disagree with does not change the experience of playing or watching the game.
But I am sure the author of t
Replay / digital officiating is more conducive to other sports. Soccer is about motion and nearly continuous flow of play. It ebbs back and forth over a long period of time with less stoppages of play. Other sports, like American Football and baseball, are more conducive because they are play-based, with very discrete plays that each have some specific outcome.
In American football, it is already a common thing for an official to throw a flag during a play, then when that play is over the officials huddle and discuss the penalty (or in some cases wave the flag off and not call any penalty at all). That is because this all happens after the fact, and there are many, many opportunities during a game to officiate what just happened after the fact and without affecting gameplay. So having a digital play review connects into the flow of the game perfectly fine.
Same with baseball, with potentially calling pitches (strikes and balls) digitally, as well as overruling a call (like is a runner safe at a base). That is already in place (reviewing a call), and coaches actually have mechanisms to request such reviews and limits on how often they may do so.
With soccer the general process seems more disruptive, and must interrupt play or reverse calls that are much, much less obvious. Generally, in American football or baseball, for example, it is very clear to spectators that it was a close call, and typically everyone (rooting for either team) expects that the play will be reviewed and may be reversed. With soccer it seems a lot of these calls are so subtle and sometimes unrelated to the play that it comes a shock when an offside pops up out of the blue that was not at all obvious to the average spectator (or official).
I would agree with you if most professional soccer players weren’t gigantic pussies who would rather act than actually play. In fact, there are no respectable, professional, men’s soccer players. All the respectable players are women, because the women actually play the game.
For VAR they could use a rule like cricket has. Each team gets three reviews per match, each failed review costs you one. That way only things where the team really thinks the call was wrong get reviewed.
As far as offside goes soccer is a game of inches. No matter where you put the line there has to be a line.
This is the innovation FIFA needs to make in order to make the Group stages less boring.
No new technology required an they can implement it for free.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Mercedes Locks Faster Acceleration Behind a $1,200 Annual Paywall
Crypto and NFTs Aren’t Welcome in Grand Theft Auto Online
“Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!” — Buckaroo Banzai

source

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button