soccer

Refereeing standards in spotlight again at Asian World Cup qualifiers

10 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

10 Comments
Login to comment

I don't know why they are soooooo reluctant to introduce instant replay in the world cup games and the qualifiers. That would resolve most of these cases. Give each team say 2 or 3 times to protest the official's calls each game, it could be about goal or not, off-side or not, foul or not etc.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I agree Hide! The cameras are there, use them!

The Jordan game was fine and the guy crying because his team got whipped. The Oz/Japan game was shocking. The worst ref I have EVER seen in my life. The guy needs to be sacked, no questioned asked. Why they don't bring in some European refs for such games is beyond me.

Honda.... while I thought it was wrong that he didn't get his kick, he sure takes his sweet time and well, perhaps he's learned to hurry up and take the kick?? He did exactly the same thing for a previous kick and got boo'd by the Aussies for wasting time - and rightly so!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hide

I don't know why they are soooooo reluctant to introduce instant replay in the world cup games and the qualifiers. That would resolve most of these cases. Give each team say 2 or 3 times to protest the official's calls each game, it could be about goal or not, off-side or not, foul or not etc.

Exactly. The FIFA dinosaurs like Sepp Blatter are about the only ones who don't want to use the technology - and they tend to have the final say.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Those Europeans need to learn how to have better respect for gaijin in Europe.

That has to be the most idiotic comment of the day so far; what exactly are you trying to say?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's a given that referees are human and do make mistakes. This can never be fixed (only improved) and we should basically remain tolerant (although I agree Mr. Ghamdi's case may have been an extreme and unacceptable one). What is more concerning however is the possible tendency for these referees (possibly seen with Mr. Ghamdi as well) to intentionally make questionable calls later in the game influenced by the need to make up for prior harsh decisions (incl acknowledged errors) made against either team. If this becomes more prevalent and "intentional" decisions become more of the key determining factor of the game's outcome in head to head situations, the game itself risks losing its original thrilling and breathtaking appeal. For that I also strongly agree with the need to introduce video replays for unclear situations. Having said that however I believe this is much less an issue in Europe (ie FIFA) and may not be brought up any time soon as the referees are seemingly much better there and questionable decisions seldom become an issue. I wonder if Asia can make its own decisions and rules (using instant replays) for the time being as a near term measure.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Giving in to technology would be taking power from the refs and FIFA alike, and hence they don't want it to happen. I still think the game should involve refs on the ground, but instant replays should be allowed in cases where it's critical -- as in the Uzbek game.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In a sense, both teams suffered from the refereeing in this game. I don't think either team had an advantage. There were bad calls and missed calls on both sides. That being said, FIFA does have to raise the standards, especially for WC qualifying matches.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan

Giving in to technology would be taking power from the refs and FIFA alike, and hence they don't want it to happen

No, it wouldn't. In other sports where technology is used, such as cricket, rugby, gridiron etc the match is officiated over by a '3rd' umpire, or '2nd' in the case of soccer. These people are still referees with the same training and experience who use the technology to assist them to make the exact call. There will be basically minimal delay to the game,because, say in the case of Milligan's penalty - he blows the whistle to signal a foul, and waits perhaps 15-30 sec for the '2nd' ref to say 'unintentional contact, free kick, no card' or 'intentional contact, foul and yellow card'. We wait up to 30 seconds for a potentially game changing decision to be made accurately, and then the game continues. The only adjustment to the game would be the occasional slight delay over important decisions. I'd much prefer that to having them get it wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's hard to define a 'critical decision'. Offsides? Ball crossing/not crossing the line? Penalty decisions? Red cards? We can't keep stopping play for confirmation by replay. One of the beauties of football is the fact that it isn't stop-start and that is part of the reason why it is the most popular game. I've felt aggrieved at decisions against my team but in the end the spectacle is the most important thing. Raising refereeing standards is of course needed but the spectacle shouldn't be compromised.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It all comes down to the fact that the referees in the Asian qualifiers come from other Asian countries. Outside Austria, Japan and South Korea it seems the refs barely know the rules, more less how to apply them.

The ref in AU-JP game was a joke and both teams suffered from this. This can be fixed only by more training (slow) or bringing the refs from Europe (politically incorrect).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites