Is football corrupt?

[The Future's Blue]

We have goal line technology about to be introduced.
VR in football will eventually arrive but football then I imagine will be nothing like it is these days, it will be totally controlled by TV companies.

And that's the equation. Who controls football, FIFA/UEFA/FA or the television companies?

 

[cyprustavern]

Yes , yes it is.

 

[BlueBas]

Cblue , I asked for evidence to support your statement that VR will increase the level of cheating.

All you have provided once again I must add is your take on bent games/ officials which has nothing to do with VR whatsoever.

VR doesn't give the reviewer a chance to call one and turn a blind eye to the other , thats up to the reviewer.

Officials /players etc that are corrupt or not up to scratch when it comes to the speed of the modern game may in fact be exposed by VR if anything.

The replay is the replay and how its ruled upon is up to the reviewer.

It either confirms the decision as correct or its reversed simple as Cblue.

As with the VR on the review against Smith in the first test this morning if the vr cannot confirm he nicked it which he couldn't and the replay showed he couldn't the original decision of not out stands.

If as you infer the reviewer is on the take or the ref is on the take then VR will in fact increase the possibility of exposing the reviewer as either incompetent or corrupt or a combination of both.

If you think for one minute that the reviewer of Spurs "non goal" against Manure a couple of seasons ago wouldn't have lost his job if he decided that the ball did not cross the line BASED ON VR of the incident then you live in a different world to most Cblue.

If anything VR will decrease the number of opportunities that a ref can in fact turn a blind eye to the example which you use , which by the way again has nought to do with VR by itself increasing the level of cheating.

It's a completely absurd statement on its own to make Cblue and if you think those examples you use have anything to do with VR increasing the level of corruption in football you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for evidence.

You have replied with supposition , possible outcomes under the premise that a game is fixed and either the ref or the reviewer are party to that fix.

Do you honestly think that the level of corruption in games where VR has been introduced has increased as a direct result of the introduction of VR?

If you have evidence to support this Cblue the authorities of all these games earning megabucks to ensure VR is being used to assist officialdom and ensure that more decisions that in the heat of battle that are incorrect get corrected for the good of the game would love to hear from you.

Naturally if you provided the same response to them as you did to me they would politely reply you to explain your understanding of the meaning of the word evidence Cblue.

The reason why it wouldn't Cblue which of course is an absurd way to introduce evidence as to why it would is because Cblue , the VR doesn't lie Cblue , its like forensic evidence Cblue in a criminal investigation and why its used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

Yes refs can lie , refs can turn a blind eye Cblue but the VR cannot.

Again if its plainly obvious to all stakeholders that Lampards " non goal " in the world cup was a goal a reviewer will have to be someone after 15 minutes of fame before he never sets foot in a similar position again for him not to give that strike a goal.

Supposition and your take on what you think may or may not happen is not evidence Cblue.

The introduction of VR would mean more decisions or non decisions as the case may be such as the two examples I have given are corrected as they should be but VR itself will never increase the level of corruption in the game of football , only more bent officials / players etc will do that.

So what's all this crap I read in the papers about corruption in cricket? Don't they have VR?

I'll try & respond to this nonsense the best that I can - it's pretty much an incoherent mess - it's all over the place. Why don't you put your points down on a piece of paper before you start & then you can cross out the ones that keep repeating themselves?

You haven't given me any proof that VR won't increase corruption - it's impossible to do so when it isn't in place. I've given you plenty of scenarios where the chance of corruption can occur without the integrity of the reviewers being questioned - I know you're not aware of this as we have discussed it in the past but the decisions being given will be based upon OPINION not FACT. That's why they are called laws of the game.
You keep hanging your hat on goals going over the line & VR helping out - VR will never, never, never, never, never be used for goal line incidents - goal line technology will be. I've told you this a number of times yet it still has to sink in. I suggest you get mummy or daddy to explain it to you.
You also haven't explained HOW VR could be introduced which itself can be open to corruption & gamesmanship.
So to reiterate - corruption can occur in an additional 2 ways with VR that isn't possible at the moment - 1) it will give the reviewer the chance to overturn a perfectly good goal (Kompany v Man United is probably the best example) & 2) depending on the logistics of how a review system is to be implemented (which isn't possible without fundamental changes to the game) there is a possibility of managers/referees/players using a review system to prevent disadvantageous situations from developing during the game.

Got to laugh at your first statement.

I asked you for evidence that VR will increase corruption in football.

I don't need to give you any proof that it will reduce corruption in football.

As you say it hasn't been introduced yet in football.

You made the sweeping statement that VR will increase corruption in football.

I asked you to provide actual evidence to support this statement.

Your examples as you put them are not evidence in any way shape or form that support your assertion.

You are confusing VR itself with the opinions and interpretations of those that have access to it.

In fact you answered your own assertions yourself when you said vr has't been introduced yet so what evidence could you even produce to confirm your assertion when none exists.

Corruption in sport was around long before you and I were around Cblue and it will be around long after we are gone.

The introduction of VR has neither increased or decreased this activity other than the fact it is used to support the evidence that corruption is ongoing ala the Paki cricketers deliberate no balling in recent times that was used in part albeit somewhat superficially to convict them.

I have never changed my stance on vr for goal line decisions CBLUE.

Again if you have any evidence of this (a word which clearly you do not understand the meaning of) please feel free to supply to all and sundry on this forum.

The fact that you will not be able to doesn't absolve you from being correctly accused of being a person who makes sweeping statements but when asked to provide evidence to support the statement consistently come up short.

You would have been better of saying in my opinion vr may be open to some conjecture as to whether it can be used to by officialdom to increase speculation that those officials using it or relying on it to confirm a decision or otherwise are corrupt but of course I will never be able to proof one way or the other.

VR itself will not lead to more corruption in football than already exists but as I said before it will highlight on occassion how poor or perhaps corrupt some officials are which is a good thing.

Ban?

 

[foetus]

Everyone stop quoting such large passages of text lol

 

[mancity1]

I made a post to this effect earlier, but let me repeat the gist of it, which is this:

This debate about VR has got bogged down in far too much detail and CBlue for one, cannot see the wood for the trees. It is not up to us in Bluemoon to worry about the detail of the ins and outs of some particular aspect of VR and how it will affect this or that. (a). We haven't the experience of working with the technology and (b) we don't make the rules.

If we ask the questions at a much more fundamental level, then the answer becomes obvious.

Are there some truly shocking decisions in football - bent or incompetent - which are grossly unfair, totally change the outcomes of games and which we wish did not happen? YES.

Are there potential technologies which if given proper consideration and careful introduction could help reduce these dreadful decisions? YES.

Should the governing bodies take a look a technologies like these - such as VR - and consider how they might be implemented in such a way to derive benefit, whilst not destroying the fundamentals of the game or it's natural flow? YES.

I don't see how any sane person could rage otherwise. Getting into this, yes but it won't reduce corruption, or no but the managers would stop play all the time, or whatever, is just horseshit that detracts from the fundamental point that it could help if implemented sensibly.

Eloquently put chippy boy.

Cblue and a few others but cblue in particular in this forum have not had the experience that people like I have of seeing vr used in sports like AFL on a regular basis to see why its benefits if administered sensibly on a weekly basis far out weigh the negatives.

There are teething problems and the officials have made errors in using the technology in circumstances when there was no need for it to be used to clarify a decision but in time they are getting better as to when to use it an no doubt it has ensured the correct decision has been made more often than not which even diehards like Cblue would agree is a good thing for the game.

I asked Cblue a while ago whether he would prefer Lampard's goal against Germany which was not given as a goal be overturned.

I don't think to this day he has ever answered the question with a simple yes or no chippy boy.

Its says more about cblue himself than it does about vr in football that he refuses to do so or in not capable of doing so.

Team bias aside I would suggest if you surveyed 500 random people and asked them the same question outside the ones who answer it with the ref didn't see it well enough or the ref must be bent or the ref is an idiot for not seeing it crossed the line , the vast majority would answer with a simple yes , it was a goal and should have been given a goal.

As I have tried to point out albeit with little success to the likes of cblue , vr would have ensured the goal was awarded and the game would continue as per usual after a goal is scored.

Cblue tends to unnecessarily complicate things.

AFL is a far more complex game to umpire as we call it than football is to referee and the number of different instances where vr can be called into action far more in number and variety than football will ever require.

In short if it can be used and used well in AFL there would be little issue with vr in football and its supposed complexities as cblue refers to.

I used to be dead against the use of vr in any sport and said it often in many different forums and believed the ref should have the final say rightly or wrongly as the case may be.

The speed of the game now , the fact that millions of people watch it on television live every week , the fact that vr has highlighted how often the refs get it wrong every week , the fact that basic game changing decisions are not corrected each week , the fact that managers continue to say in interviews that refs got game changing decisions wrong and get fined for it when vr would rectify to name but a few reasons has made me change my view on this subject.

If cblue could support his assertions with some factual evidence that the world fall in if Lampards goal was given upon vr I could begin to understand why he soapboxes the way he does.

The fact is that he cannot and that's why his opinions can best be summarised as not seeing the forest from the trees and lets be frank about it they are just his opinions and at least to date his sum total of contribution to this subject has been a series of misguided , ill informed or contrived opinion.

His recent effort to state that vr will increase corruption in football which I can only assume is a veiled attempt to further justify his stance on vr in football is not only irrelevant to the subject of the use of vr in football but absurd no matter which way you try to look at it.

His two examples he uses that quote highlight the "many instances" he says he has documented in this forum as to why vr MAY or can be used to increase corruption in the game is comical to say the least and neither addresses his premise nor does it provide any evidence or proof as he terms it as to how vr will increase corruption in football.<br /><br />-- Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:19 pm --<br /><br />

So what's all this crap I read in the papers about corruption in cricket? Don't they have VR?

I'll try & respond to this nonsense the best that I can - it's pretty much an incoherent mess - it's all over the place. Why don't you put your points down on a piece of paper before you start & then you can cross out the ones that keep repeating themselves?

You haven't given me any proof that VR won't increase corruption - it's impossible to do so when it isn't in place. I've given you plenty of scenarios where the chance of corruption can occur without the integrity of the reviewers being questioned - I know you're not aware of this as we have discussed it in the past but the decisions being given will be based upon OPINION not FACT. That's why they are called laws of the game.
You keep hanging your hat on goals going over the line & VR helping out - VR will never, never, never, never, never be used for goal line incidents - goal line technology will be. I've told you this a number of times yet it still has to sink in. I suggest you get mummy or daddy to explain it to you.
You also haven't explained HOW VR could be introduced which itself can be open to corruption & gamesmanship.
So to reiterate - corruption can occur in an additional 2 ways with VR that isn't possible at the moment - 1) it will give the reviewer the chance to overturn a perfectly good goal (Kompany v Man United is probably the best example) & 2) depending on the logistics of how a review system is to be implemented (which isn't possible without fundamental changes to the game) there is a possibility of managers/referees/players using a review system to prevent disadvantageous situations from developing during the game.

Got to laugh at your first statement.

I asked you for evidence that VR will increase corruption in football.

I don't need to give you any proof that it will reduce corruption in football.

As you say it hasn't been introduced yet in football.

You made the sweeping statement that VR will increase corruption in football.

I asked you to provide actual evidence to support this statement.

Your examples as you put them are not evidence in any way shape or form that support your assertion.

You are confusing VR itself with the opinions and interpretations of those that have access to it.

In fact you answered your own assertions yourself when you said vr has't been introduced yet so what evidence could you even produce to confirm your assertion when none exists.

Corruption in sport was around long before you and I were around Cblue and it will be around long after we are gone.

The introduction of VR has neither increased or decreased this activity other than the fact it is used to support the evidence that corruption is ongoing ala the Paki cricketers deliberate no balling in recent times that was used in part albeit somewhat superficially to convict them.

I have never changed my stance on vr for goal line decisions CBLUE.

Again if you have any evidence of this (a word which clearly you do not understand the meaning of) please feel free to supply to all and sundry on this forum.

The fact that you will not be able to doesn't absolve you from being correctly accused of being a person who makes sweeping statements but when asked to provide evidence to support the statement consistently come up short.

You would have been better of saying in my opinion vr may be open to some conjecture as to whether it can be used to by officialdom to increase speculation that those officials using it or relying on it to confirm a decision or otherwise are corrupt but of course I will never be able to proof one way or the other.

VR itself will not lead to more corruption in football than already exists but as I said before it will highlight on occassion how poor or perhaps corrupt some officials are which is a good thing.

Ban?

Poor spelling as per usual bluebas.

I wanted to abbreviate as much as I could (LOL) to save cblue from falling asleep again when he got around to reading the post.

My sincere apologies for any offense incurred by you.

 

[mancity1]

Everyone stop quoting such large passages of text lol

Apologies foetus but I have to say the same thing albeit in different ways to the likes of cblue on numerous occasions so that he actually understands.

a) whats being asked of him.

b) why its poor form to answer a question with more questions than what is originally asked of him.

When I ask most people to answer for evidence or answer a question with a simple yes or no that's what I get.

With cblue you get a dissertation every time as to why the game as we know it has to change to accommodate vr why it will never be introduced into football etc etc and lately how it can be used to increase corruption in the game.

It all stemmed from the time I asked if he wanted Lampards goal against Germany to be given a goal (LOL).

A simple yes or no would have sufficed but cblue doesn't think in those terms (LOL).

 

[mancity1]

I made a post to this effect earlier, but let me repeat the gist of it, which is this:

This debate about VR has got bogged down in far too much detail and CBlue for one, cannot see the wood for the trees. It is not up to us in Bluemoon to worry about the detail of the ins and outs of some particular aspect of VR and how it will affect this or that. (a). We haven't the experience of working with the technology and (b) we don't make the rules.

If we ask the questions at a much more fundamental level, then the answer becomes obvious.

Are there some truly shocking decisions in football - bent or incompetent - which are grossly unfair, totally change the outcomes of games and which we wish did not happen? YES.

Are there potential technologies which if given proper consideration and careful introduction could help reduce these dreadful decisions? YES.

Should the governing bodies take a look a technologies like these - such as VR - and consider how they might be implemented in such a way to derive benefit, whilst not destroying the fundamentals of the game or it's natural flow? YES.

I don't see how any sane person could rage otherwise. Getting into this, yes but it won't reduce corruption, or no but the managers would stop play all the time, or whatever, is just horseshit that detracts from the fundamental point that it could help if implemented sensibly.

This is exactly what has happened in a number of sports played at the elite level throughout the world and with good reason.

To date VR has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the most effective , least costly way to assist officialdom produce a better product for the public to enjoy and still debate on vent spleen on etc after the game is over and until mankind comes up with a better alternative it will be continued to used where appropriate in increasing amounts.

It was Moomba who I think from memory was first to say on this forum that the excitement of a decision pending will add to the excitement of the contest if memory serves me correct and he raised a valid point in my opinion irrespective of the relative effectiveness of vr in football.

VR doomsayers for football shouldn't feel that the world game is so unique , so precious that its impractical or impossible to see its introduction to rule on some of the scenarios we talk about week in week out without compromising the "rules" or the way the game as its played now.

Refs don't want to be castigated week in week out by managers and supporters and the media for poor decisions that cost them in many cases their livelihood.

It's part of the reason that quality refs or potential quality refs don't want to be in the sport.

Throwing more money in their pay packet at them doesn't help them make better decisions.

The game is so quick now its highly likely that even quality refs get left behind when it comes to key decisions.

Once we got over the fact that video was designed to help officialdom and not make them feel more inadequate than they already do feel we were on the right course.

Without exception and without having to place total reliance on vr every person involved on match days on and off the park that has a role to play in the game has said that vr is good for the game.

If it was introduced into football I know that even the likes of cblue would eventually come on board.

 

[Mdr]

First of all people knew Armstrong was a cheat, for years. What was the great mystery was how he was getting away with it, but that sport is riddled with cheats in a different way to football.

Football is corrupt in it's own way. It's about profit, for the rich and successful. Against the little guys, they'll always back the big teams. However I do feel that now, especially in the Premiership, we are in that circle of being a big team.

There is nothing fair or even near honourable about football these days.
When was the last time you looked at football and said, ya, that's football. That's how it's supposed to be.

Celtic's win over Barcelona? That was something special.
The Irish fans in the Euro's against Spain? When they showed us what football really is?

You can count on one hand the times you saw football at it's best on the pitch. Somewhere along the way all of what football used to be got lost and we're witnessing what it is now, a coroprate business that's first priority is the money, then the game.

 

[LoveCity]

Anyone remember this? South Korea vs. Italy and South Korea vs. Spain in the World Cup (in Korea). Not sure how anyone could argue something wasn't off here, they made rag games look fair.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drxnq_BW5uA[/youtube]

 

[mancity1]

First of all people knew Armstrong was a cheat, for years. What was the great mystery was how he was getting away with it, but that sport is riddled with cheats in a different way to football.

Football is corrupt in it's own way. It's about profit, for the rich and successful. Against the little guys, they'll always back the big teams. However I do feel that now, especially in the Premiership, we are in that circle of being a big team.

There is nothing fair or even near honourable about football these days.
When was the last time you looked at football and said, ya, that's football. That's how it's supposed to be.

Celtic's win over Barcelona? That was something special.
The Irish fans in the Euro's against Spain? When they showed us what football really is?

You can count on one hand the times you saw football at it's best on the pitch. Somewhere along the way all of what football used to be got lost and we're witnessing what it is now, a coroprate business that's first priority is the money, then the game.

I still find good football in the premiership to watch every week despite what you say which I also believe to be the case irrespective of who and how much money they have behind them.