Richard Andrew King asked:
The World Cup is the biggest sporting event the world over. Unfortunately, it is broken and is in dire need of repair in the 21st Century. If left broken, its distinguished title may well change from World Cup to ignominious appellations as Empty Cup, Broken Cup, Shattered Cup or even Once-Upon-A-Time Cup.
The World Cup attracts soccer fans from the four corners of the earth. Hundreds of millions of viewers watch, enthusiastically, as their country battles for the Cup’s coveted championship title. Furthermore, also to millions, soccer is not just a game or an activity but a passion, sometimes to a fault, sometimes to a lethal fault.
Why is the World Cup broken? Simply, it’s not keeping up with the times, nor doing everything in its power to insure the ethics of its sport. Perhaps the greatest and most grievous issue involves its officiating, whose quality clearly does not equate or rise to the status of professional standards in the modern world.
At this level of competition, referees cannot be allowed to err in their calls, especially when those calls affect outcomes held dearly by nations and multitudes of fans and enthusiasts. For example, in the England vs. Germany game, a clear English goal was disallowed, the ball bouncing off the goal post to three feet or so inside the goal. A video replay offered indisputable proof that the ball did cross the line, substantiating a score. Yet, the game continued, no doubt having a dramatic affect on the momentum of the English team and perhaps the final outcome of the game. Another instance was in a U.S. game when the ball bounced off the shoulder of an attacker in the box which was called a handball which, by indisputable video replay, showed the ball never hitting the player’s hand. This obviously affected the outcome of its game.
In lieu of these grievous mistakes the question has to be asked, “Why, in the World Cup – the greatest sporting event in the world – and with so much at stake, is video replay not allowed?” In this modern era of video technology and capability, it is absolutely unforgivable that in the search of truth video replay is not utilized. Such disallowance does nothing but hinder the ethics of the game, its credibility and continuing support. Moreover, it is unconscionable that World Cup organizers and officials have allowed this most pejorative situation to exist. Why should anyone watch or support the World Cup when the truth and purity of the outcomes of games are neither respected nor honored? Such oversights create a sham of the World Cup. Other sports and sporting events in the world have grown and embraced technology in the quest to “get it right” and insure that truth of victory is held to the highest of standards. Clearly, the 2010 World Cup has not risen to the highest standard of sport, but if it wishes to remain an iconic event, it has no option but to divest itself of worn out systems of officiating and embrace technology in the quest to “get it right” and insure that truth, not temporal tradition, prevails.
Bud1 % @ ? @ ? @ ? @ E % DSDB ` ? @ ? @ ? @
The World Cup is the biggest sporting event the world over. Unfortunately, it is broken and is in dire need of repair in the 21st Century. If left broken, its distinguished title may well change from World Cup to ignominious appellations as Empty Cup, Broken Cup, Shattered Cup or even Once-Upon-A-Time Cup.
The World Cup attracts soccer fans from the four corners of the earth. Hundreds of millions of viewers watch, enthusiastically, as their country battles for the Cup’s coveted championship title. Furthermore, also to millions, soccer is not just a game or an activity but a passion, sometimes to a fault, sometimes to a lethal fault.
Why is the World Cup broken? Simply, it’s not keeping up with the times, nor doing everything in its power to insure the ethics of its sport. Perhaps the greatest and most grievous issue involves its officiating, whose quality clearly does not equate or rise to the status of professional standards in the modern world.
At this level of competition, referees cannot be allowed to err in their calls, especially when those calls affect outcomes held dearly by nations and multitudes of fans and enthusiasts. For example, in the England vs. Germany game, a clear English goal was disallowed, the ball bouncing off the goal post to three feet or so inside the goal. A video replay offered indisputable proof that the ball did cross the line, substantiating a score. Yet, the game continued, no doubt having a dramatic affect on the momentum of the English team and perhaps the final outcome of the game. Another instance was in a U.S. game when the ball bounced off the shoulder of an attacker in the box which was called a handball which, by indisputable video replay, showed the ball never hitting the player’s hand. This obviously affected the outcome of its game.
In lieu of these grievous mistakes the question has to be asked, “Why, in the World Cup – the greatest sporting event in the world – and with so much at stake, is video replay not allowed?” In this modern era of video technology and capability, it is absolutely unforgivable that in the search of truth video replay is not utilized. Such disallowance does nothing but hinder the ethics of the game, its credibility and continuing support. Moreover, it is unconscionable that World Cup organizers and officials have allowed this most pejorative situation to exist. Why should anyone watch or support the World Cup when the truth and purity of the outcomes of games are neither respected nor honored? Such oversights create a sham of the World Cup. Other sports and sporting events in the world have grown and embraced technology in the quest to “get it right” and insure that truth of victory is held to the highest of standards. Clearly, the 2010 World Cup has not risen to the highest standard of sport, but if it wishes to remain an iconic event, it has no option but to divest itself of worn out systems of officiating and embrace technology in the quest to “get it right” and insure that truth, not temporal tradition, prevails.
Bud1 % @ ? @ ? @ ? @ E % DSDB ` ? @ ? @ ? @
