I don't disagree, but that's not the point. There are two things being debated. One is that the errors by the officials are unaccaptable and they must introduce technology to reduce them. I'm not discussing that. The other is that somehow the game is flawed because there aren't enough goals, and hence chance plays a large part. I'm arguing that such claims are misguided.

In some sense the two are not entirely orthogonal because a single error by an official that leads to, or prevents, a goal has an enormous effect on the game. Nevertheless, there are two issues, I'm talking about one, and you are talking about the other.

I'm discussing the point raised in the original submission. You aren't, except insofar as they are not entirely unrelated, as I remark above.

Funny analogy. And you've got a point.

But it doesn't really matter what the method is that makes soccer so unpredictable. Part of it is that there are few goals, so tiny mistakes are often decisive. Part of it is that referees often make mistakes. Should it be this way? I don't know. I'm sure that part of the appeal of Soccer is the randomness. I'm also pretty sure that part of the appeal is the frustration people feel towards referees. It makes everyone upset, but it keeps people talking, keeps people caring.

At the end of the day, what matters (to Fifa, at least) is to keep Soccer as popular as it is now. And since no one really knows if "fixing" the refereeing will help or hurt Soccer, I don't think anyone is willing to risk the change (and rightfully so).