World Cup 2006 refereeing

5 views
Skip to first unread message

FairFootball

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 11:25:49 PM7/10/06
to
Unfortunately, this time the refs heavily influenced the winner, as
well as distort the final rankings at the top.

See
http://www.FairFootball.com

The FairFootball team

Diabolik

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 11:38:44 PM7/10/06
to

"FairFootball" <FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote in message
news:1152588349....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Unfortunately, this time the refs heavily influenced the winner

Which winner?
Italy got more calls against than for, so we won without any help from the
refs.


FairFootball

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 11:44:31 PM7/10/06
to

mavigozler

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 1:06:45 AM7/11/06
to
"Diabolik" <Diab...@noemail.com> wrote in rec.sport.soccer:

Italians are probably the quickest study of all factors that affect the
game.

They are probably given advance knowledge of the referee and his complete
history.

They know beforehand if the referee is quick with yellow and/or red cards,
or in contrast, if he won't even whistle a foul with the goalkeeper is
intentionally slugged in the face by a striker.

With that knowledge, if they know the referee is a let-them-play-the-game
type, the Italians are the most innovative, artful, and sneaky jersey-
pulling, shoulder-grabbing, nipple-twisting team on the planet. They will
rarely simulate in such a match (it serves no purpose), and they will play
as physically as anyone (including name-your-favorite-African-club-here).

When they know the referee will red card his own mother just for breathing
strangely, the Italians go into melodrama mode. Diving every 15 seconds.
Falling down in the penalty box even though the nearest defender is 10
meters away from them. Grabbing their face in mortal agony even though it
was their leg that was brushed up against.

Perhaps they are champions more for all the factors outside of the purpose
involving ball control and kicking the ball into the net. Some would say
that football is more than just being able to dribble the ball with your
feet and getting goals.

James Farrar

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 6:01:32 AM7/11/06
to
On 10 Jul 2006 20:25:49 -0700, "FairFootball"
<FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:

Your formula is bollocks.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

imhotep

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 11:39:08 AM7/11/06
to

Pathetic dude. Italy are deserved world champions because they played
the best football. Were the most consistent. Conceeded the least goals.
Scored the most. Is it any suprise that 7 of the 22 squad FIFA selected
as the best players are Italian? Is it any suprise 4 of the 10 golden
ball nominees were Italian.

Fuck off.

FairFootball

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 12:21:38 PM7/11/06
to

:)) Right. Good post. I was thinking something along these lines too.
Truth is they are a strong team, but they are also very good at
breaking the law.
In the final, my own impression was that France was indeed way better.
(By contrast, with Germany they were clearly the better team.) The only
thing they do very well is still defending, though this time they
played more offensively than usual. But they just don't have the kind
of offensive players like Zidane, Henry, Ribery, even Vieira. Totti was
absent, Del Piero isn't what he used to be any more, the only one who
comes close is maybe Pirlo.

FairFootball

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 12:29:40 PM7/11/06
to

That's not the point. We also don't think Portugal was necessarily the
best team of the tournament (though we do think they deserve the title
more than Italy, considering what happened on the field). You can take
it as an illustration that the refs really messed things up.

James Farrar

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 6:00:45 PM7/11/06
to
On 11 Jul 2006 09:29:40 -0700, "FairFootball"
<FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:

>You can take
>it as an illustration that the refs really messed things up.

Oh, like you need a website to demonstrate that.

FairFootball

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 8:56:05 PM7/11/06
to

James Farrar wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2006 09:29:40 -0700, "FairFootball"
> <FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:
>
> >You can take
> >it as an illustration that the refs really messed things up.
>
> Oh, like you need a website to demonstrate that.

Whether you need it or not, that's up to you. As for us, we like to
know who the most deserved winner is, given the circumstances.

James Farrar

unread,
Jul 12, 2006, 5:06:31 AM7/12/06
to
On 11 Jul 2006 17:56:05 -0700, "FairFootball"
<FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:

But that's something you can't possibly know.

FairFootball

unread,
Jul 13, 2006, 8:56:44 PM7/13/06
to

James Farrar wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2006 17:56:05 -0700, "FairFootball"
> <FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >James Farrar wrote:
> >> On 11 Jul 2006 09:29:40 -0700, "FairFootball"
> >> <FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You can take
> >> >it as an illustration that the refs really messed things up.
> >>
> >> Oh, like you need a website to demonstrate that.
> >
> >Whether you need it or not, that's up to you. As for us, we like to
> >know who the most deserved winner is, given the circumstances.
>
> But that's something you can't possibly know.
>
You cannot know for sure, but you can make a good guess. One way to do
that is our formula, as you call it. We think it's a good way,
certainly not the best; there are better ones but they are more
complex. We believe ours is the best way at its level of complexity and
objectivity.

James Farrar

unread,
Jul 14, 2006, 3:53:27 AM7/14/06
to
On 13 Jul 2006 17:56:44 -0700, "FairFootball"
<FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:

>
>James Farrar wrote:
>> On 11 Jul 2006 17:56:05 -0700, "FairFootball"
>> <FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >James Farrar wrote:
>> >> On 11 Jul 2006 09:29:40 -0700, "FairFootball"
>> >> <FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You can take
>> >> >it as an illustration that the refs really messed things up.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, like you need a website to demonstrate that.
>> >
>> >Whether you need it or not, that's up to you. As for us, we like to
>> >know who the most deserved winner is, given the circumstances.
>>
>> But that's something you can't possibly know.
>>
>You cannot know for sure, but you can make a good guess. One way to do
>that is our formula, as you call it.

Glad you appreciate it's a guess.

Cinghius

unread,
Jul 14, 2006, 8:04:43 AM7/14/06
to

mavigozler ha scritto:


>
> Italians are probably the quickest study of all factors that affect the
> game.
>
> They are probably given advance knowledge of the referee and his complete
> history.
>
> They know beforehand if the referee is quick with yellow and/or red cards,
> or in contrast, if he won't even whistle a foul with the goalkeeper is
> intentionally slugged in the face by a striker.
>
> With that knowledge, if they know the referee is a let-them-play-the-game
> type, the Italians are the most innovative, artful, and sneaky jersey-
> pulling, shoulder-grabbing, nipple-twisting team on the planet. They will
> rarely simulate in such a match (it serves no purpose), and they will play
> as physically as anyone (including name-your-favorite-African-club-here).
>
> When they know the referee will red card his own mother just for breathing
> strangely, the Italians go into melodrama mode. Diving every 15 seconds.
> Falling down in the penalty box even though the nearest defender is 10
> meters away from them. Grabbing their face in mortal agony even though it
> was their leg that was brushed up against.
>
> Perhaps they are champions more for all the factors outside of the purpose
> involving ball control and kicking the ball into the net. Some would say
> that football is more than just being able to dribble the ball with your
> feet and getting goals.

Then,after the match they all go to eat their pizzas,wearing their
Godfather's clothes and playng their mandolino all the time.

This is the usual bunch of abused clichè...please, evolve...

pst...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Jul 14, 2006, 9:17:57 AM7/14/06
to

>FairFootball wrote:
>
> You cannot know for sure, but you can make a good guess. One way to do
> that is our formula, as you call it. We think it's a good way,
> certainly not the best; there are better ones but they are more
> complex. We believe ours is the best way at its level of complexity and
> objectivity.

What makes your analysis complete and utter bollocks, is that it
assumes that there is no connection between events in a game - that
they can all be considered in isolation. What nonsense. Do you not
think that a team that is 1-0 down plays differently than one that is
winning? Of course it does. Therefore, if you think that a goal was
rightly/wrongly awarded at some point of a game, you cannot simply
give/take a goal and adjust the score - an event at that point could
have transformed how the rest of the game materialized.

FairFootball

unread,
Jul 14, 2006, 3:31:40 PM7/14/06
to

We know this, of course. As you surely have seen on our site. But if
you think like this you have no choice but to accept Italy as the
champion, knowing very well that they won because of referee mistakes.
In our view it's much better to think of the FairFootball winner as the
actual champion.
Actually, in this particular instance, we truly believe that Portugal
has a good chance of being the team that played best. The only other
teams that come into consideration are Brazil and France. Certainly not
Italy. The point is, when the teams are closely balanced, we think our
scheme has a good chance of finding a deserved winner, and a very good
chance of finding a better winner than the official one.
And anyway, we don't care very much if you or others think we're
bollocks, and even if we are, we think this is a nice way of protesting
FIFA's refusal of video refereeing and going by decisions everybody can
see are wrong.

The FairFootball team

FairFootball

unread,
Jul 14, 2006, 3:53:47 PM7/14/06
to

James Farrar wrote:
>
> Glad you appreciate it's a guess.
>
Well, if you think a little, almost everything is :) . Certainly the
World Cup as a way of determining the best team of the moment. Even
without the ref errors; assuming for a moment they would decide
perfectly (such as if they used video help), still, every game is to a
large extent a matter of luck, especially between closely balanced
teams. Or am I wrong ?

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages