96 percent of WCup referee calls correct
in [World Football]
|
Prev: FS: 2006 Panini FIFA World Cup German Per Mertesacker (Deutschland) Autographed Soccer Card
Next: I guess I'm left with rooting for the Dutch.
From: HASM on 10 Jul 2010 09:37 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5368989/ce/us/match-officials-big-success-fifa-says?cc=5901&ver=us DERDEPOORT, South Africa -- Despite complaints about game-changing mistakes and FIFA's agreement to revisit how technology can help officials, the head of refereeing for soccer's governing body says that the World Cup has been a success. Jose-Marcia Garcia-Aranda said Saturday that an analysis of the first 62 matches showed referees got more than 96 percent of their decisions right. "It is a big success," the Spanish official said at a news briefing. "We have to say it is not an opinion [but] facts." FIFA acknowledged that referees made errors, though in "only a few" matches. "We are not hiding our mistakes or the mistakes of the referees on the field of play," Garcia-Aranda said in a robust defense of FIFA's officiating program. World Cup final referee Howard Webb agreed that mistakes had been made but said they were largely isolated. "There is no point us sitting here as match officials and saying everything is absolutely perfect," said the 38-year-old Englishman, who is one of the few professional referees among the 29 FIFA selected for World Cup duty. "But it's also right to point out that the vast majority of decisions have been very sound and very correct." Referees were widely criticized after a series of mistakes in the first half of the tournament. In the group stage, the United States was denied a likely winning goal late in its game against Slovenia, then a Brazil goal against Ivory Coast was allowed to stand despite two apparent handballs by Luis Fabiano leading up to it. Brazil's Kaka was ejected later in the same match when it appeared he and an Ivory Coast player collided accidentally. The pressure was stepped up after errors by assistant referees affected the outcome of two second-round games. FIFA will revisit proposals to introduce goal-line technology in response to England being denied a clear goal which would have tied its match against Germany 2-2 late in the first half. Germany went on to win 4-1. Italian referee Roberto Rosetti has retired, three years before reaching the mandatory age to step down from duty, after he missed an offside call that allowed Argentina to score its first goal against Mexico. The Argentines went on to win, 3-1. FIFA did not award control of another match to any of the four referees involved in the main controversies. Garcia-Aranda said all the errors have been studied carefully, and the referees' 96 percent accuracy rate favorably with the success of players taking penalty kicks. Just nine of 15 penalties awarded during matches have been scored, a 60 percent accuracy rate. "I think the refereeing in this tournament has been more than good," Garcia-Aranda said.
From: Starcade on 10 Jul 2010 14:52 Who paid you for that bullshit? Sepp Blatter??? Mike (to the supposed Head of officials, not the poster of the article)
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 10 Jul 2010 21:40 HASM <netnews(a)invalid.com> writes: > http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5368989/ce/us/match-officials-big-success-fifa-says?cc=5901&ver=us > > DERDEPOORT, South Africa -- Despite complaints about game-changing > mistakes and FIFA's agreement to revisit how technology can help > officials, the head of refereeing for soccer's governing body says > that the World Cup has been a success. > > Jose-Marcia Garcia-Aranda said Saturday that an analysis of the > first 62 matches showed referees got more than 96 percent of their > decisions right. [snip] > Garcia-Aranda said all the errors have been studied carefully, and the > referees' 96 percent accuracy rate favorably with the success of players > taking penalty kicks. > > Just nine of 15 penalties awarded during matches have been scored, a 60 > percent accuracy rate. > > "I think the refereeing in this tournament has been more than good," > Garcia-Aranda said. I have to wonder what they count as "decisions" and "right". Did they count all the time when they didn't blow their whistle but arguably should have? Or didn't play advantage. Did they assume that anything that was "in the opinion of the referee" couldn't have been called wrong? Did they count every throw-in, goal kick, corner, and goal as a "decision"? The vast majority of decisions a referee is called on to make are trivial. What's the percentage on calls and non-calls about which there was any controversy? Close off-sides (or not). Foul, dive, or incidental contact. Card or just free kick (or nothing). That sort of thing. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Deeppe on 10 Jul 2010 22:11 On Jul 10, 6:40 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > HASM <netn...(a)invalid.com> writes: > >http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5368989/ce/us/match... > > > DERDEPOORT, South Africa -- Despite complaints about game-changing > > mistakes and FIFA's agreement to revisit how technology can help > > officials, the head of refereeing for soccer's governing body says > > that the World Cup has been a success. > > > Jose-Marcia Garcia-Aranda said Saturday that an analysis of the > > first 62 matches showed referees got more than 96 percent of their > > decisions right. > > [snip] > > > Garcia-Aranda said all the errors have been studied carefully, and the > > referees' 96 percent accuracy rate favorably with the success of players > > taking penalty kicks. > > > Just nine of 15 penalties awarded during matches have been scored, a 60 > > percent accuracy rate. > > > "I think the refereeing in this tournament has been more than good," > > Garcia-Aranda said. > > I have to wonder what they count as "decisions" and "right". Did they > count all the time when they didn't blow their whistle but arguably > should have? Or didn't play advantage. Did they assume that anything > that was "in the opinion of the referee" couldn't have been called > wrong? Did they count every throw-in, goal kick, corner, and goal as > a "decision"? The vast majority of decisions a referee is called on > to make are trivial. What's the percentage on calls and non-calls > about which there was any controversy? Close off-sides (or not). > Foul, dive, or incidental contact. Card or just free kick (or > nothing). That sort of thing. > Good points, and it's the credit of the officials that such high expectations are there at all. That said, I'd have to say they underperformed in total. But not by all that much.They're on such a thin line aren't they, one call is all it takes and an official is a shiite.
From: MH on 10 Jul 2010 22:12
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > HASM <netnews(a)invalid.com> writes: > >> http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5368989/ce/us/match-officials-big-success-fifa-says?cc=5901&ver=us >> >> DERDEPOORT, South Africa -- Despite complaints about game-changing >> mistakes and FIFA's agreement to revisit how technology can help >> officials, the head of refereeing for soccer's governing body says >> that the World Cup has been a success. >> >> Jose-Marcia Garcia-Aranda said Saturday that an analysis of the >> first 62 matches showed referees got more than 96 percent of their >> decisions right. > > [snip] > >> Garcia-Aranda said all the errors have been studied carefully, and the >> referees' 96 percent accuracy rate favorably with the success of players >> taking penalty kicks. >> >> Just nine of 15 penalties awarded during matches have been scored, a 60 >> percent accuracy rate. >> >> "I think the refereeing in this tournament has been more than good," >> Garcia-Aranda said. > > I have to wonder what they count as "decisions" and "right". Did they > count all the time when they didn't blow their whistle but arguably > should have? Or didn't play advantage. Did they assume that anything > that was "in the opinion of the referee" couldn't have been called > wrong? Did they count every throw-in, goal kick, corner, and goal as > a "decision"? The vast majority of decisions a referee is called on > to make are trivial. What's the percentage on calls and non-calls > about which there was any controversy? Close off-sides (or not). > Foul, dive, or incidental contact. Card or just free kick (or > nothing). That sort of thing. I would like to see just a simple analysis of fouls given, how many correctly. I don't see how you could possibly measure all fouls not given, as nobody can keep track of all the off the ball ones. > |