• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Technology - Cricket vs Soccer

deep85

Cricket Spectator
After seeing last weeks disallowed goal for Spurs against United I feel that Cricket is doing pretty well in terms of using technology. Being a United fan I didnt mind the decision at all. But you have to spare a thought for Spurs fans, they were robbed 3 points. In such a high profile game in the Primiership it would have taken 5 - 10 seconds to set the record straight. I think Fifa should seriously think of introducing technology.
ICC at least expt. with lbw decisions which are the more debatable of the lot. I think cricket is using enough technology at this stage. ICC may not be handling technology well off the field with angles, degrees... of bowlers arm but on field they have done pretty good job. What do you say?
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
deep85 said:
After seeing last weeks disallowed goal for Spurs against United I feel that Cricket is doing pretty well in terms of using technology. Being a United fan I didnt mind the decision at all. But you have to spare a thought for Spurs fans, they were robbed 3 points. In such a high profile game in the Primiership it would have taken 5 - 10 seconds to set the record straight. I think Fifa should seriously think of introducing technology.
ICC at least expt. with lbw decisions which are the more debatable of the lot. I think cricket is using enough technology at this stage. ICC may not be handling technology well off the field with angles, degrees... of bowlers arm but on field they have done pretty good job. What do you say?
There is much less in socccer that the naked eye (umpires/refrees) cant see. Cricket due to various factors like the faintness of edges and the various provisions of the lbw decision can easily fool the naked eye.

If there were no goal posts and the refree had to decide on whether it was a goal based on markings on the ground or something like that and the height of the bal above the ground as it passed the goal line, we would realise the problems of the cricket umpire.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
SJS said:
Is that adressed to me ?
Anyone who addresses football in it's "american" name. It's like me referring to cricket as english baseball. One of my pet hates.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
twctopcat said:
Anyone who addresses football in it's "american" name. It's like me referring to cricket as english baseball. One of my pet hates.
I agree with that. Now with both my sons in the US i am getting more used to it :wacko:
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
twctopcat said:
Anyone who addresses football in it's "american" name. It's like me referring to cricket as english baseball. One of my pet hates.
As a closet pedant (I have this little voice in me that yells "I think you'll find that...") I feel obliged to point out that "soccer" is actually an English name derived from "Association Football".

It's coinage is generally attributed to Charles Wreford-Brown in 1863, who later became an official of the FA. He was asked by some friends at Oxford Uni whether he cared to join them for a game of "Rugger" (Rugby Union). He refused, preferring instead to go for a game of "Soccer", his play on the word "Association". The name caught on and stuck in countries where other sports are erroneously tagged "Football" (US, Canada, NZ, Oz).

BTW, now the Australian Soccer Association has rebranded itself the Australian Football Association what are the Socceroos called?! :D
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Obviously Victorians with duff haircuts in tight, sleeveless shirts punching the ball to each other & fighting amongst themselves could be described as lots of things, but Football?!?!
 

Josh

International Regular
twctopcat said:
Well i could say it's just as idiotic calling soccer football because in my culture AFL was always football and not soccer, same goes for the americans... and even worse I'm a bit of both... :p so we'll have our football and you can have yours.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Josh said:
Well i could say it's just as idiotic calling soccer football because in my culture AFL was always football and not soccer, same goes for the americans... and even worse I'm a bit of both... :p so we'll have our football and you can have yours.
Fair play. We'll just agree that you & the Septics are wrong & leave it at that! ;)
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Josh said:
Well i could say it's just as idiotic calling soccer football because in my culture AFL was always football and not soccer, same goes for the americans... and even worse I'm a bit of both... :p so we'll have our football and you can have yours.
Fair enough. But you stole the word,;), we had football first.
 

deep85

Cricket Spectator
Hey, thread was supposed to debate on technology. But since it turned out to be a debate on name, I will have the final say. Since I started the debate it will always be FOOTBALL. I just wrote soccer so that Americans do not get confused & dig up United & Spurs from their so called NFL. Whats the point in calling it Football when half the time ball is in their hands!
 

Top