1. FIFA makes a ton of money from the World Cup. The sponsorship and protection efforts of the sponsorship are ridiculously elaborate.
2. Even FIFA doesn't scale the game linearly. In the World Cup there are always 3 refs on the field, even though really only 1 is needed. Further, there are many different types of football balls (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_%28ball%29 ), so again, the game played on the streets or school leagues is not necessarily exactly the same as the World Cup.
3. FIFA constantly innovates in the making of the actual ball. Every WC we get a new ball that has different characteristics. This year's ball is the most consistent in distance and trajectory in tests (i.e. hit it the same way and you'll get the same volley).
With all that said, I don't think "maintaining consistency" is the reason FIFA refuses to introduce replay refs. I think it's more about politics: they have always supported the number 1 ref as the final arbiter of play and introducing a replay ref would undermine this long-held traditional philosophy.
In the World Cup there are always 3 refs on the field, even though really only 1 is needed.
I don't get that; the extra "refs" simply reduce the chance of an error being made. It is possible to play pretty effectively without them.
Actually there is still only one ref - none of the others can make a decision, only advise the referee and provide an alternative viewpoint if he misses an event.
Which is exactly how a video ref would work: advise the main referee to reduce mistakes. And the current world cup certainly could use that given the horrible rate of horrible calls.
yes, but it is going too far. Waving a flag, or perhaps the occasional short conversation does not delay a match very much. There is a net gain.
I can't see much of a net gain in video refs simply due to the unnecessary delay. One of the delights of football is that 15-20 seconds after a goal they are kicking off again.
(the calls in this world cup have been pretty good; I've watched, literally, every game so far and there have been a couple of shockers - which obviously we notice - but generally it has been good)
1. FIFA makes a ton of money from the World Cup. The sponsorship and protection efforts of the sponsorship are ridiculously elaborate.
2. Even FIFA doesn't scale the game linearly. In the World Cup there are always 3 refs on the field, even though really only 1 is needed. Further, there are many different types of football balls (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_%28ball%29 ), so again, the game played on the streets or school leagues is not necessarily exactly the same as the World Cup.
3. FIFA constantly innovates in the making of the actual ball. Every WC we get a new ball that has different characteristics. This year's ball is the most consistent in distance and trajectory in tests (i.e. hit it the same way and you'll get the same volley).
With all that said, I don't think "maintaining consistency" is the reason FIFA refuses to introduce replay refs. I think it's more about politics: they have always supported the number 1 ref as the final arbiter of play and introducing a replay ref would undermine this long-held traditional philosophy.