14 comments

• 

  Sanjay

  1 year ago

  Gaffer, great article mate. I agree with everything you've said. As a huge fan of both cricket and tennis, I just think its odd that Soccer Chiefs havent looked at how they have revolutionised those sports. If I'm not mistaken, didn't Blatter and Platini actually meet the guy who owns Hawk Eye and then turn him down??
  reply
• 

  betsy's bolton bum baster

  1 year ago

  thing with soccer is it is a global game and will take a massive under-taking at all relevant professional levels including rich, poor or whatever have you.
  reply
• 

  Johnny

  1 year ago

  Did you watch the match on NBC?
  
  
  Any thoughts on the style commentary?
  reply
• 

  JMB

  1 year ago

  I disagree. The thing I love about soccer is the ebb and flow of the game. Even if it only takes 12 or so seconds, you will still interrupt that movement. Refs are human and may make mistakes - same as players. The more you try to make the game "perfect" more more of the human eliment and character you will lose. I guess the question is whether or not it is worth it. In my mind... no.
  reply
• 

  eplnfl

  1 year ago

  All of the major tennis events are excellent, Aussie, French, Wimbledon, and US. Two weeks of fun, but you need to follow it closely as fan. Just jumping in on a match here and there leaves you wanting.
  
  The BBC gives away nothing with the online radio since Radio Wimbledon is free online with wall to wall coverage. So, no big favor for the BBC here.
  
  New this year for America was the multiple court coverage on demand by ESPN online on 360. Good news for most of ESPN and Comcast are in talks about adding 360 to their online menu.
  
  As to the replay system, it's time that FIFA mandates it period
  reply
• 

  Aaron S

  1 year ago

  I totally agree.
  reply
• 

  Matt

  1 year ago

  "thing with soccer is it is a global game" -- and tennis, rugby and cricket aren't?!
  
  The least football can do is have goal-line tecnology.
  
  Ps. Gaffer, 30 seconds? More like 10 mate.
  reply
• 

  Matt

  1 year ago

  Oh, and goal-line technology has been tested, proved and doesnt interrupt the flow of the game. It would be a micro-chip in the ball, sensors in the frame of the goal which alerts the referee via his watch when the ball breaks the sensors and thus is over the goal line. Very simple but FIFA are morons.
  reply
• 

  Phil McThomas

  1 year ago

  I would be shocked if the system could genuinely make a call that close. Does this thing have absolutely no margin of error? Does it ever say "I don't know"?
  
  A basic tenant of maths is "don't confuse precision with accuracy". That system looks very precise, but is it really that accurate?
  reply
• 

  betsy's bolton bum baster

  1 year ago

  of course tennis, rugby and cricket are too i didn't say they were not. but you don't see them played by the shear number of people as soccer. to change a certain rule in soccer, even if it affects just the professional level will be a massive and COSTLY under-taking that not all leagues, countries and federations could afford.
  reply
• 

  betsy's bolton bum baster

  1 year ago

  the hawk-eye system is not perfect either. that is why it should not always be relied upon, only when there is a challenge or question on the ruling.
  reply
• 

  Sacked

  1 year ago

  Seems that your RSS feed is busted. Also, my first comment... great site!
  reply
• 

  The Gaffer

  1 year ago

  Sacked,
  
  The RSS feed is working fine by me. Try it again at http://feeds.feedburner.com/epltalk
  
  Cheers,
  The Gaffer
  reply
• 

  damir

  1 year ago

  yea... if soccer was a ONE v ONE game...
  reply