Quote:
Originally Posted by omk3
Well, I see it as keeping the randomness that keeps football so interesting and unexpected. It is very open to unknown factors: the weather, the sun in your eyes, the wind affecting the ball's trajectory, the referee making mistakes. Sometimes I'm a romantic  |
A few years ago I would have agreed - then technology was introduced to international cricket (it's a bit like baseball, but more exciting and the best games last for 5 days). There were all sorts of concerns about the authority of the umpire being undermined, that it would disrupt the game, that it would, in some way, take the "sport" out of it. In fact just the opposite has happened: umpires are the ones who decide whether to call on the technology to help them with a decision on any particular occasion, it takes about 15 seconds for the technology to give a result, and waiting for the result just adds to the excitement of the game, (and believe me, in a game that lasts 5 days anything that adds excitement is to be welcomed).
Apart from the ridiculous situation in the England v Germany game, it would stop a lot of the falling over in the penalty box because if you convince the ref to give you a penalty it's almost a guaranteed goal and other forms of gamesmanship - which is just a polite word for cheating.