World Cup 2010 Prediction Contest

[gwnn]

oh I didnt know these matches counted double

[hotShot]

I know the ball was behind the line, but there are those who deny that.

 

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9487/1277650995551.jpg

[fyrish]

53) 1

 

54) 1

 

55) 2

 

56) 1

[Aberlour10]

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4536/view163.jpg

[mike777]

As a nonexpert in this sport, all i hear is players flop....refs miss calls......at the very top level.

 

 

this is the very best of the game? the game of the world?

 

per this forum...the rankings we are told are a joke......

 

-------------

 

 

in any event...perhaps the best of the best will still win........

 

 

-----------------

 

 

 

As a nonexpert my impression of the game at the very top level is:

 

 

players cheat...cheat alot

 

refs are horrible...really horrible-----

 

 

------

 

 

fans agree....the best advance...the game as is ....great...the world fav...........

[Aberlour10]

Football is politics. FIFA-Mandarins think and act like politicians. A pool of really top professional refs would solve the problem or substantial limit the number of wrong decisions. All this and the video-proof at the deciding moments could be introduced immediately....but nothing happens, because FIFA politicians play their own game with correct ref-quotas for every continent, etc etc...

[hotShot]

As a nonexpert in this sport, all i hear is players flop....refs miss calls......at the very top level.

As an expert in Bridge you know that usually an opponent has to flop, to get you a good result. There are unforced errors, but you don't see them often at this level of play and there are forced errors that are a consequence of better individual strength or better (tactical) team moves.

 

As to the referees, there are great referees in the top leagues, but they are amateurs and the FIFA has to take referees from around the world.

 

 

this is the very best of the game? the game of the world?

Of cause not that is bridge :)

 

per this forum...the rankings we are told are a joke......

 

-------------

They are better than masterpoints ......

 

 

in any event...perhaps the best of the best will still win........

 

 

-----------------

Well the best of the best should make it to the round of 16.

After that, one has to admit that top teams are often of about the same strength. There is an element of luck involved.

 

 

 

As a nonexpert my impression of the game at the very top level is:

 

 

players cheat...cheat alot

 

refs are horrible...really horrible-----

 

 

------

Actually it is not that simple, if you were fouled and manage to stay on your feet, but lose your chance to score, the referee will have trouble to recognize the foul.

So the best legal advice is: In case of a foul don't try to stay on your feet.

Most of the so called dives just follow this advice.

Of cause this means that there is room for discussion. These discussions are part of what makes interesting.

 

And yes there are some terrible referees.

[hotShot]

The matter of video proof is not that simple.

 

I don't see much of a problems with video proof to decide if a ball was behind the goal line or not. But that would not help if a player is between the camera and the ball.

 

There is not much of a problem to decide if a goal was scored by a player who was offside.

 

If no goal is scored immediately, what should a linesman do if he is unsure if a player is offside?

If he signals offside and the video proof shows he was wrong, what is the compensation? A free kick or a penalty?

So the linesman would not signal offside if he is in doubt. The play continues while the video crew checks for offside. After some time, the video crew signals the offside.

Do you reset the clock? The team that in lead could kill time that way.

[gwnn]

don't know but that Argentinian guy who scored first must have known for sure that he was offside. shows that he is coached by a bloody cheater.

 

/rant

[hotShot]

don't know but that Argentinian guy who scored first must have known for sure that he was offside. shows that he is coached by a bloody cheater.

 

/rant

You are probably right, but how could he know that the Mexican guy behind him was not lifting the offside?

 

Bridge Law 72 B. 3.:

3. Inadvertent Infraction

 

    There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation).

 

Why should a soccer player call attention to the fact that he was offside?

[gwnn]

Football players have higher moral standards than the slimy evil bridge players, or at least ought to! :)

 

What pisses me off is seeing the Mexican guys surround the referee shouting "he was offside! he was offside!!! look at the screen!" which was closely followed by the Argentinians "He wasn't! No he wasn't!! Please don't look at the screen!!!!". Of course surrounding the ref should be illegal and I would love to see some serious penalties awarded for this, but it is much more disgusting when the only reason they surround him is to try to sell a lie to him.

[Codo]

We had these discussions before in bridge. Should a player always tell the truth or should he try to get the best possible result for his side? We all have our opinions.

 

As much as I dislike the "Coach" from Argentina, Tevez should not have made his own ruling by saying that he was offside.

 

And about the video ruling. Our expert on German TV had a great statement about this: Football lifes from emotions. The bad feelings are needed too.

Mistakes are part of the game and they are the salt to make the game hot and spicy.

 

In Germany we still talk about the games where we won World Championships. We still talk about great games and the WC 2006.

But we talk about "the Wembley goal 66" and "The dishonor of Gijon" and the lost against Austria in Argentina too.

 

Video proofs are no improvement. They make the game fairer, yes. But who needs this? In the long run, it is fair. I know no club and no country which has always luck. Do you?

 

Do you watch more Tennis after they have the bulls eye? Or do you enjoy it more? Do you watch more american football or icehockey after they have the video challenge? And do you enjoy it more?

 

To me, the answers are no. Of course, I am furious if such a big mistake like yesterday is made from a ref against my team. But this is part of the game.

[gwnn]

why don't we have a coin toss at the beginning and give one arbitrary team a 1-0 lead? in the long run it's fair and at least we'd see some attacking football for goodness' sake!

[gwnn]

Oh how mature you are FIFA, Federation of Inept Foolish Arrogance.

 

JOHANNESBURG — FIFA will censor World Cup replays on giant screens inside the stadium after replays of Argentina's disputed first goal against Mexico fuelled arguments on the pitch.

Angry Mexico players protested to referee Roberto Rosetti after the screens in Johannesburg's Soccer City showed Argentina forward Carlos Tevez was offside before he scored the opening goal in a 3-1 victory on Sunday.

FIFA spokesman Nicolas Maingot said Monday that replaying the incident was "a clear mistake."

"This will be corrected and we will have a closer look into that," Maingot told a news conference Monday. "We will work on this and be a bit more, I would say, tight on this for the games to be played."

 

How about working on your nearsighted referees?

[cherdanno]

With video replays I just wonder how you make them completely impartial. My assumption is that the TV images for a game are always produced by one national TV station - I can't imagine their employees selecting the camera objectively when the FIFA official wants a replay and one angle suggests a penalty and the other a dive, and their own team is in a KO world cup match.

 

I would rather have a completely impartial and sometimes faulty referee than a biased process.

 

For the same reason I think the FIFA is right to ban replays of controversial decisions on the in-stadium screen - of course the referee will be biased by watching his own mistake, and may try to compensate later.

 

Anyway, I am not at all against video replays, but it really is very tricky to get right in football.

[NickRW]

I don't see much of a problems with video proof to decide if a ball was behind the goal line or not. But that would not help if a player is between the camera and the ball.

Rugby, a game with a lot less money, has a video ref to see whether a try was scored or not and has had for some years (at the top level anyway). It doesn't solve all problems especially when there are a lot of players literally on top of the ball - but it solves most.

 

Heck, my medium sized bridge club - with several orders of magnitude less money, is thinking of getting bridgemates. If we can afford technology, so can football - and the idiot politician at the head of FIFA should have resigned years ago.

 

Nick

[dicklont]

Here's my prediction for the rest of the tournament, I asume the order is chronological and the match for 3/4th place is included:

 

57) 1

58) 2

59) 2

60) 2

61) 2

62) 2

63) 2

64) 1

 

I can leave for a holiday in France now, where I won't touch a computer for at least two weeks.

I won't discuss football there either. :lol:

[Aberlour10]

OK, I will add it exactly so...

 

Have a good time in France :) Anyone there will talk only about Le Tour :lol:

[helene_t]

I can leave for a holiday in France now, where I won't touch a computer for at least two weeks.

I won't discuss football there either. :lol:

Where in France? Any chance you will run into Fluffy, Shogi and me in Biarritz?

[mike777]

I understand FIFA makes about 3 billion from the world cup.

 

You would think they could spend a little for some limited replay at least in world cup games every 4 years.

 

How limited? experiment. You got 4 years to tweak it.

 

I mean does not cricket and tennis have instant replay?

------------

 

 

As for the world rankings, if the current system is a joke, how hard is it to improve it?

[gwnn]

It would be very hard to make an accurate ranking system. Say New Zealand beat Solomon Islands 11-0. Say Kazakhstan earns a 0-0 draw at home against Montenegro. Obviously Montenegro is a much better team than the Solomon Islands. How to compare these two results? Especially if there are few friendlies between Australia and European teams/Kazakhstan and Oceanian teams.

[Rossoneri]

I understand FIFA makes about 3 billion from the world cup.

Guess where all that money goes to.

 

Sponsorship deals - loads of money into FIFA.

 

The host nation plows billions and does not get anything from FIFA.

 

FIFA bills it as the world's game or whatever marketing spiel, and then proceeds to charge every country for broadcasting rights. From what I know, these rights aren't cheap at all.

 

Of course, most countries have governments/broadcasters who absorb the costs from sponsorships but then you have countries like a particular one which charges the equivalent of 50 USD or more just to watch the World Cup.

 

There are already many books/articles written about the issue of money and the politician who runs FIFA. I rest my case.

[cherdanno]

It would be very hard to make an accurate ranking system. Say New Zealand beat Solomon Islands 11-0. Say Kazakhstan earns a 0-0 draw at home against Montenegro. Obviously Montenegro is a much better team than the Solomon Islands. How to compare these two results? Especially if there are few friendlies between Australia and European teams/Kazakhstan and Oceanian teams.

Well, someone tried - more specifically Nate Silver, based on the data gathered by ESPN, and the result (ESPN SPI) is pretty good. I think it would have done pretty well on our prediction contest, e.g.

[gwnn]

I like the Elo rankings but their site seems to be offline now.

[Hanoi5]

So, who's leading now?