From: farzin@apollo3.apollo3.ntt.JP (Farzin Mokhtarian)
Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan,fj.rec.sports.football
Subject: Re: [Soccer] Re: Asia Cup
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:28:54 GMT
	<ISHIKAWA.92Nov12231837@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp>
	<4k7.kp369@lab.ntt.jp>
	<ISHIKAWA.92Nov16131405@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp>
	<nr8.ku5n8@lab.ntt.jp>
	<ISHIKAWA.92Nov17222250@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp>
	<r9c.l3uca@lab.ntt.jp
Followup-To: fj.life.in-japan
Organization: none

In article <ISHIKAWA.92Nov19225952@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp> ishikawa@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp (Chiaki Ishikawa) writes:


 @In article <r9c.l3uca@lab.ntt.jp> farzin@apollo3.apollo3.ntt.JP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes:
 @
 @>   I know Iran is planning to complain or has already done so. Maybe they
 @>   can get to the bottom of this. But this kind of thing clearly shows
 @>   that they need cameras to cover the "offside angle" to settle such
 @>   disputes.
 @
 @	  I agree that such cameras WILL BE VERY USEFUL for confirming
 @the referee's call. I wonder if the next world cup in U.S.A. will
 @adopt such hardware.  At least, it will be helpful to decide whether a
 @play was an offside or a goal is scored or not.
 @	  However, I don't know if the referees of the world would like
 @this or not.

I think they should. Obviously, this kind of thing can determine the
very outcome of a match so it is very important. The referees should
welcome all the technical tools which can be used to improve the
quality and accuracy of the refereeing process.
                       
 @>   Earlier you said that "guilt was clear" and now you say you "are not
 @>   sure if the Iranian player was intent on charging". If he was not
 @>   intent on charging, then he was not guilty and he should not have
 @>   received a red card.
 @>
 @	  "If he was not intent on charging, then ...". Too true.  But,
 @how can a referee decide whehter he was intent or not reliably?  All a
 @referee can rely is the physical evidence, plus his/her hunch.  My
 @meaning of the word "guilty" here in the context of refereeing a
 @soccer game is NOT about the intent in the player's mind. I only mean
 @if a play that is deemed a foul play was committed who was directly
 @responsible for that play. If someone is responsible for that play,
 @then he/she is "guilty" in my sense as far as the soccer refereeing is
 @concerned.
 @
 @	  I believe if you ever played the role of the main referee
 @between teams which you have never met before in a somewhat semiformal
 @arrangement, you would find it easy to understand the point I try to
 @make. I did before and I know how tough it can be to maintain order.
 @
 @	  So I support the referee's decision. If it had been a Japanese
 @player, I would have supported the referee's position although I might
 @make disparaging remakrs for a while, but I would have called the
 @PLAYER the most stupid player in the world thereafter.
 @
 @ishikawa

I still think only if guilt (in the moral sense) is clear and the offence
is serious, the referee should give a red card. In case of doubt, yellow
card or free kick should be given at most. That is we believe in the
concept of "innocent until proven guilty". In courts, known serious
criminals are freed if hard evidence against them is not available
and the society still has "order". Why should soccer be different?!
   
  - Farzin