Total Disagreement: Technology in Football

Every now and then, I encounter articles that I disagree with. However, I came to one that I agree with particularly vehemently. This was in The Times, arguing that a recent misuse of technology during a cricket match is a reason that technology should not be implemented in football. Here's a little tid bit:

Had the referral system never been introduced, the view of the traditional umpire that Graeme Smith’s bat had made no discernible contact with the ball would have prevailed and life would have gone on, albeit after some tut-tutting and expressions of sympathy for England. Cricket would be accepted as an imperfect game so complex in character that enthusiasts can find themselves praying for its enemies, such as rain and bad light.

Basically, his argument is that we wouldn't be critical of this play and we wouldn't have controversy over mistakes made by mishandling technology. The truth is that the error was made by a person. The introduction of video technology is to get rid of human error. The error in this instance was made by a human. That's where his argument falls apart.

Now, I don't think video technology should be introduced because I think it would change the game. Football is a flowing game of continuous action. However, that's a different conversation on its own. I was really annoyed by this article.

Pants on the Ground

Hilarious.

There's Stupid...

...Then there's Mike Leach



From ESPN:

A source close to the family of Adam James told Schad that the player was treated inappropriately while injured, including being confined to a room for a long period of time because he could not practice. Leach's attorney, Ted Liggett, said Tuesday that keeping the receiver inside during practice was better for the player than letting him remain outside.

You're a football coach. You're supposed to take care of your athletes, your students. You're supposed to be a role model, a parent away from home. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a coach do.