Great windup and analysis. It reminds me of a story of questionable umpire calls. The teenage boys in our farm community challenged our fathers to a softball game. My dad, who was in the Wisconsin Assembly at the time, had never played and didn't want to play, so we made him ump. Our pitcher thought Dad was making very questionable, fathers-favoring balls and strike calls in one inning. When the pitcher finally got three batters out he walked up to Dad and said, "You know, Harvey, some day we'll be old enough to vote." Jim Dueholm
Paul should have brought his long experience with football to bear here. The waiting to see if it was a goal or not: was the player’s toe offside? None of that has added to the game for me.
Right, John. Football, or soccer as we call it in these parts, perfectly illustrates when, in my view, technology is good for the sport and when it isn't.
Goal line technology can determine instantly whether a ball has fully crossed the line and should be a goal. The referee immediately gets the call on his watch. The game isn't delayed and goals are no longer incorrectly given or disallowed.
On the other hand, delaying the game for minutes to determine whether a player's toe was offside not only adds nothing, it detracts. No longer can fans wholeheartedly celebrate goals. They have to wait to see about that toe, or whether there was a slight push by the goal scorer, etc.
I've given this some thought over the past few years. And it seems to me that fans as well as myself like to see challenges, especially when the camera clearly shows the ump blew the call. But I would allow for more challenges but with a penalty added into the mix to prohibit abuse. Like.......if the batter, catcher or pitcher's challenge results in proving the ump correct, a penalty would be given in the form of .........an additional ball or strike or out, depending on the particular situation challenged. With a penalty in place, it would keep the 'challenge' in check which I believe, would allow for unlimited challenges, used only when a player knows for sure there is a very high probability the ump erred in judgement.
Great windup and analysis. It reminds me of a story of questionable umpire calls. The teenage boys in our farm community challenged our fathers to a softball game. My dad, who was in the Wisconsin Assembly at the time, had never played and didn't want to play, so we made him ump. Our pitcher thought Dad was making very questionable, fathers-favoring balls and strike calls in one inning. When the pitcher finally got three batters out he walked up to Dad and said, "You know, Harvey, some day we'll be old enough to vote." Jim Dueholm
Paul should have brought his long experience with football to bear here. The waiting to see if it was a goal or not: was the player’s toe offside? None of that has added to the game for me.
Right, John. Football, or soccer as we call it in these parts, perfectly illustrates when, in my view, technology is good for the sport and when it isn't.
Goal line technology can determine instantly whether a ball has fully crossed the line and should be a goal. The referee immediately gets the call on his watch. The game isn't delayed and goals are no longer incorrectly given or disallowed.
On the other hand, delaying the game for minutes to determine whether a player's toe was offside not only adds nothing, it detracts. No longer can fans wholeheartedly celebrate goals. They have to wait to see about that toe, or whether there was a slight push by the goal scorer, etc.
Do any with that nonsense.
I've given this some thought over the past few years. And it seems to me that fans as well as myself like to see challenges, especially when the camera clearly shows the ump blew the call. But I would allow for more challenges but with a penalty added into the mix to prohibit abuse. Like.......if the batter, catcher or pitcher's challenge results in proving the ump correct, a penalty would be given in the form of .........an additional ball or strike or out, depending on the particular situation challenged. With a penalty in place, it would keep the 'challenge' in check which I believe, would allow for unlimited challenges, used only when a player knows for sure there is a very high probability the ump erred in judgement.
If the technology exists to make calls automated it should be used.