Add new comment

U.S. - Slovenia Bag Job (3)

=== Who's the Man Behind the Curtain?, cont. ===

 ... What is the influence in the World Cup, though?  You had an American team playing a European team, with an African ref.  What does FIFA care whether the U.S. advances over Slovenia?  The U.S. TV market is like 150 times Slovenia's.  Is it that (1) FIFA is trying to grease England's skids to the knockout round?

Or, perish the thought, (2) DO gamblers influence refs in the World Cup?   Is that what happened, was that the African ref was threatened and bribed so that crime bosses could profit?

Some commentators have argued that it was (3) a simple case of anti-Americanism.  Maybe.  But I don't notice that this is the first ref's call that has ever decided a game, and the U.S. isn't a frequent player on this stage.

So what are they saying, that refs in the World Cup simply favor countries over other countries based on geopolitics?  :- )   C'mon...

.

=== Put the Plexiglass Screen in Front of the Pitchers' Mound Before Somebody Gets Killed ===

You begin to understand why refs commonly and routinely fear for their lives in South America and Europe.  Fans are going to watch their beloved sport, but they're not going to take the fixes lying down.  It gets so that every questionable call is presumed to be a bag job and the ref culprit is literally presumed to be worthy of death.

Not the healthiest situation, I wouldn't think, but then neither is U.S. offshore drilling and the competing interests behind that.  When a lot is at stake, the nasties come out of the wordwork, and in World Cup soccer there is surely a whale of a lot at stake.

.

=== Distant Replay ===

I used to think that MLB umpires resisted instant replay mostly out of a pride factor.  Out of fear that they'd be automated out of their jobs.  That they felt insulted by it.

As you get to looking at this thing, though, you really start to wonder, especially with respect to soccer.  The resistance to TV replay is especially ferocious in that sport, and especially from the powers-that-be.   It would be the simplest and quickest thing in the world to review offsides calls from the line judges.  But they'd rather drink Gulf water first.

Could it be because shadowy figures behind the scenes know that instant replay will lessen their ability to control the outcome of a game?  Is that a primary lobby against replay - those who are using officiating to script their industries?

The NFL has been quite forthcoming in its efforts to move replay forward.  SSI construes this to mean that the NFL is relatively clean.  I don't notice, however, that baseball is real quick to legislate fair outcomes.

.

BABVA,

Jeff

.


Interest categories: 
Interest locations: 

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.