Goal for World Cup: Get It Right!

Argentina's controversial goal in its World Cup round-of-16 win over Mexico is another example of the difficulty officials have when the demands put on them exceed the abilities of normal human vision. This goal marked the third time in the past few days (the second today) that officials obviously were wrong on a goal scored/not scored call.

The goal-scorer in this instance, Carlos Tevez, was clearly closer to the goal than any opponent--offsides--when the ball was kicked by Lionel Messi. We know that because we can view the instant replay from the side. However, no official was so fortuitously located.

The play, as is often the case in soccer, unfolded quickly. The offsides could not have been anticipated, and so no official could have hoped to get into a spot where he could view the play from that side angle.

In fact two defenders had Tevez nearly bracketed at the moment Messi kicked the ball, and by the time it reached Tevez, they were dead-even with him. The officials were naturally looking at Messi when he kicked it, and their eyes followed the ball to where it reached Tevez--who by then was no longer offsides.

The offsides rule is a difficult one to enforce accurately because it is based on where player A is when player B kicks the ball. Humans have two eyes but they cannot focus separately. We must shift our eyes'collective focus back and forth. During that process, time lapses and things change.

We can clearly see the advantages of instant replay:  a choice of viewing angles, the ability to freeze the picture frame, repeat viewing.

So why not give each team the opportunity to challenge up to, say, two scoring/not scoring calls per game? In soccer, where every goal is critical, it makes sense to bring in the instant replay on goals scored/not scored calls.

Play is stopped for a while anyway after a goal while the scorers celebrate and then everyone moves to midfield area. Give the coach, say 30 seconds after goal is scored to protest it.

Have the fourth official hooked-up to review the instant replay immediately and if the call appears questionable, bring in the referee to decide it. The referee remains the final arbiter so his/her authority is not undermined.

If the call is upheld, the challenging team is one-and-done in that department. If the call is reversed, the challenging team can do so one more time.

It's a bit trickier with goals that should have been counted but were missed--like England's in loss to Germany or USA's in draw with Slovenia. That's partly because play ordinarily continues after the non-goal.

Perhaps an electronic monitor could be triggered whenever the plane of the goal is broken. But they'd need to be able to distinguish between the ball and a player (pattern recognition), and/or have "hits" referred to instant replay. Quickly flagging these possible missed goal calls would avoid interrupting fast breaks going the other way. They might take a cue from the National Hockey League's use of sirens.

This system would work in the cases like the English goal that wasn't seen by the referee. The electronic trigger would alert the fourth official who would check the videotape. If it looks like a score (ball completely over the goal line), the referee would be asked to make a determination. If, however, it's ultimately ruled no-goal, play would simply resume at the place the ball was last touched by the team last touching it.

Probably most difficult to correct are subjective situations such as the USA goal that was disallowed because the referee thought there was a foul by the Americans on the play. Since the ball went in the net, a point was taken off the scoreboard--so it should definitely be a challengeable call. The challenge should be restricted to the call that caused the goal to be disallowed.

The coach should be given 30 seconds from the time the goal is disallowed to challenge the call. The referee would then review the videotape to determine whether the disallowance should stand or a goal be tallied.

July 2, 2010
The headline question of the day is: Can Ghana Gana Again? (Or: Is Ghana Gonna Gana Again?)

Steven (Starjet) Kearney

"Gay-isms"

In recognition of Gay Awareness month, here are some proposed "GAY-ISMS"

SUPERLATIVES
That's remarkgayble!
How fabgaylous!
Simply spectacgaylar!
You're ungaylievable!

DRAMA QUEENS
"To gay or not to gay...."
"all for gay and gay for all"

GAY SOCIETY
they're gayting
how fascigating
he's a gayonnaire
Grand Gayman Island
your luckgay day
they're engayged
a party invigaytion
a big celegaytion
a gayted community
"way to gay"
adopting a gayby
found on e-gay
take a vagaytion
happy holigays

JOHN LAW NEWS
on the Togay Show
the instigaytor
esgayped from prison
chase on the expressgay
armed and gayngerous
you can gayggle him
under investigaytion

MISCELLGAYNEOUS
you're exaggergayting
are you OGay?
oh it's all gay, it's all gay!
United States of Amerigay
yestergay's news
gay-tech
a gaynabler
a false gaylarm

Soccer's Scoring Drought: Analysis and Suggested Remedies

With nearly all the teams having played their opening match, it's already clear that the lack of scoring in World Cup soccer has gotten absurd. To illustrate, through the first 14 games in South Africa:

Teams are scoring on average less than a goal per game--.8 of a goal;

In 9 of the 14 games--64%--at least one of the teams failed to score;

In 10 of the 14 games--71%--neither team scored more than 1 goal;

In 12 of the 14 games--86%--no more than 2 total goals were scored by both teams combined;

Only one of the first 28 teams to play scored more than 2 goals in their first game (Germany got 4);

6 games, that's 43%, were ties;

Goal-scoring has become so rare that fluke goals--such as the English goalkeepers fumble and the Danish wrong-way ricochet header--are decisive;

The crowds have so little to cheer about that they resort to blowing on deafening horns en masse to entertain themselves;

The International Soccer Federation (FIFA) is reportedly considering enlarging the goal to boost scoring. However, such a move could have negative repercussions on how the game is played. And it would compel millions of people to redo or replace their goal structures.

There are other ways to make it easier to score. Taking a cue from thoroughbred racing/exercise programs, officials could "handicap" the goalies by fitting them with ankle weights. Or they could enforce penalties by making the goalie wear a patch over one eye or tying one hand behind his/her back. A really heinous violation might be punished by strapping the offending player ball & chain-style to the goalie. While these scenarios may sound like torture, sitting through a typical soccer game today is already a torturous experience for many.

Reference
Increasing Soccer Goal Size is Questionable!!! (website).

Steven (Starjet) Kearney

World Cup Soccer: US Hopes to Tar and Feather British

Dunce Cap Fits BP Well

The huge Dunce Cap placed over the erupting BP (aka British Petroleum) oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has been partially successful. The Dunce Cap is a better fit than anything else BP has tried. That said, the wound is still hemorrhaging.

Enter: World Cup Soccer--US Hopes to Tar and Feather the British in Showdown Saturday.

The British are heavy favorites, having more internationally experienced players. But the Americans have youth and enthusiasm on their side.

The US also has a history of surprising victories over the Redcoats--such as the stunning 1950 win by a score of 1-0.

On top of that, the US will be playing with the anger of a nation behind them. This, of course, is because of the tremendous devastation wreaked on the US Gulf Coast this spring by British Petroleum's massive Oil Spill.

A US soccer fan says he hopes "that when the American players hit the field they'll run circles around the Brits--make 'em look like they're mired in muck, like all those pelicans of ours."

One fan says that if any other country had spewed-out all of that oil, many Americans would consider it an act of war or terrorism. But this Euro-trashing of the Gulf Coast has been gotten away with. The perpetrators are predominantly White and English-speaking, not like your typical profiled enemy or terrorist.

A fan of the American Tea Party agreed that it would be fun to see the British humiliated in a Revolutionary victory. "People might think that we'd be pro-water-fouling, given our history, but actually we're more pro-waterfowl. The Audubon Society has some very influential chapters in Massachusetts."

Sarah Palin is rumored to have quipped that if she'd ever caught Vladimir Putin drilling for oil off the Alaska Coast, she'd have shot him in the buttocks with a crossbow.
Afterwords
How it turned out: 1-1 tie--a "moral victory" for the USofAers.   The most likely tar & feathering would have been by British fans of their owngoalie who let an easy shot get by him. 

BP Followup
A BP robot has evidently knocked the Dunce Cap off the well head! The company's CEO could not be reached for comment as he was busy unwinding from a nerve-wracking yacht race over the weekend. A BP spokesman said they'd likely try to put the Dunce Cap back on. It was unclear whether the robot, which reportedly had said "Woops, my bad!" would be asked to play any role in the retrofitting.

Name That Horse

Since we haven't had a Triple Crown winner in 32 years, a lot of horseracing people are looking to change something. Take a look at the names of the 11 horses who have won a Triple Crown, and you'll see assertiveness, strength and triumph. Names like Gallant Fox, War Admiral, Assault, Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed.

Now we've got horses running around with names like "dude this' and "dude that". If Seattle Slew had been called Seattle Slaw, he might not have gotten as much respect. Ditto if Affirmed had been named Denied. Look at two of the last three horses to get to the Belmont Stakes with a chance for a triple crown: Funny Cide and Smarty Jones. You've got to be kidding!

Here are some good names for horses:
Get Bet Soon
Rainmaker
Morse Colt
Medicine Horse
Pole Star
Tonal Rail (has a nice ring to it)
Lustrous Finish
Wire to Wire
Record Setter
Go Figure Go (lineage of Go and Go)
Four Legs Good (from Orwell's Animal Farm)
Post Time Traveler
Surf In Turf (son of a mudder)
Bridle Wreath
Horse With A Name (ref. America song)
Runaway Charm (ref. my song)
ThoroughBroad (a filly)
Stretch Limo

by Steven (Starjet) Kearney

Umpire's Mistake Explained

"Galarraga's Perfect Game Ruined by Umpire"--the headlines blare. Why did the umpire--Joyce--miss the obvious game-ending out call at first base? It seems he must have choked, right?

Maybe an explanation comes from the way baseball umpires are trained. On a bang-bang play like the one at first base, the umpire looks for the foot touching the base and LISTENS for the ball hitting the mitt. However, on this particular play, Galarraga caught the ball snow-cone style. So there was no sound of the ball going "thump" while impacting the pocket of the glove.

The reason umpires listen for the ball is a simple limitation of human vision. We can only focus on one spot at a time. The umpire at first base stands down the line several feet from the base. On this play--a grounder to the 1st baseman with the pitcher covering the base, the umpire needs to focus on the base at the crucial time because he must evaluate two things in that visual spot--the hitter's foot arriving and the pitcher's foot arriving and often groping for the base. If the umpire takes his eye off the base for a split second to look for the ball, he may miss the pitcher's foot touching or straying from the base, and so miss the call.

Why, then can we all watch this instant replay and see the call was wrong? To begin with, the speed is usually slow so we have time to go back and forth with our eyes. Furthermore, glove and base are much closer together in the field of view on a TV screen compared with what the umpire sees.

The grounder to first baseman off the bag with pitcher covering is one of the more difficult to handle defensively and to umpire. It involves an intricate interplay between four principals--pitcher, first baseman, hitter/runner and umpire. So many things can go wrong: pitcher slow to react gets to base late; pitcher pressed for time looks for throw while groping for base; 1st-baseman aims at base and misses pitcher or aims at pitcher and misses base; 1st baseman leads the pitcher just as he's stopping; 1st-baseman prematurely anticipates pitcher stopping so throw goes behind him; pitcher and hitter/runner get tangled up; controversial call by umpire involving pitcher's foot on/off bag or ball caught cleanly/juggled.

The subjective judgment of umpires is clearly a part of the game. This is most evident on ball/strike calls. It's also apparent on tags and diving catches in the outfield. Unfortunately, what sells an above-the-wall circus catch--snow-cone ball--is cause for doubt in the play at first as it brings up the issue of possession. Understanding that the umpire was listening for, not looking at the ball, any inclination he might've had to reverse his call was squelched by that protruding ball.

While it may seem crazy to us now that this umpire--Joyce--would error on the side of ruining the perfect game, consider what would've happened if on the instant replay it was obvious that Armando Galarraga was juggling the ball. Joyce would be mocked as the soft-hearted umpire, the "yes" man umpire, the blind umpire,the wimpire, and so on. Galarraga's deed would be called the imperfect game, the umperfect game, the Quote "perfect" game, and so on.



PS Regarding limits of human vision. Ditto in other sports. Basketball out-of-bounds ball contested by 2+ players: the referee needs to watch the ball to see who touches it last and also monitor contact for fouls. In Football on a fumble: the official needs to watch for the carrier's knee touching ground and also the ball coming loose unexpectedly and possibly the ball and/or the runner going out-of-bounds, as well as a bunch of players diving for the loose ball.

These sports have wisely implemented instant replay on plays such as these. Baseball would be wise to do so on plays like the one that cost Galarraga his no-hitter.

Spanish Version of Take Me Out to the Ballgame

It would be cool if people here sang Take Me Out to the BallGame in Spanish every Cinco de Mayo.
However, most translations are unsatisfactory because:
*They don't get the correct meanings of some of the words, particularly the sports lingo--to "root" for a team doesn't mean to root around in the ground or trace one's ancestry.
*They lack a sense of rhythm, use too many words/syllables and so are clumsy/rushed when sung.
*They don't translate everything--leaving bits and pieces of English.

So here goes:

Llevame al partido de beisbol
Llevame con la multitud
Compreme cacahuetes y Galleta Jack
No me importa si nunca vuelvo
Rugir, rugir para los Cachorros/Diamantes/Atleticos/Nacionales/Yanquis/etc.
Si no ganan, que lastima
Porque es uno, dos, tres y ponchado
En el pasatiempo grandioso!