Good question, but I'd argue it's more about shot selection than anything. Most of those goals were well beyond the 18 (the penalty box). If you're comparing to recent games (yeah, I'm in the US, I still call them games, shoot me), like in the World Cup, you see very few shots outside the 18. An extreme example would be the Netherlands-Argentina game where they both played very defensive games. Even in games like Germany-Brazil, it seemed Germany was more about finesse and getting the ball deep inside the box to increase chances of the shot going in the back of the net. Even on free kicks near the 18, not many are even an attempt on goal, but rather crosses.
I used to play, and IMHO shot shaping is more about technique (and shot selection) than the design of the ball. You'll notice in your video a lot of them were hit with the outside of the foot, right or left, and that's the easiest way to get it to curve to the outside. You don't see many players these days even attempting those.
I agree with the point you're making, in this post and others, but what if the smart gun manufacturers erred on the side of an operational, not disabled, weapon? In other words, if the battery dies or fails, or if it's determined that a fingerprint scan couldn't be gathered successfully (if it's using fingerprints), then default to an enabled state?
This would still put the onus of making the gun safe on the gun's owner, much like making sure a trigger lock is in place, requiring that the battery be checked frequently, and so on.
I realize that there are still other fail cases that would reduce reliability (like, in the case of fingerprints, a scan was successfully gathered but is not correctly identified), but eliminating the power failure, among others, by defaulting to an enabled state would no doubt get much closer to your high reliability target, would it not?
The way I see it, this would likely prevent more accidental shootings while getting closer to that reliability target.
However, you may be able to say that a flash suppressor has no affect on the function of the weapon in a literal sense, but I'd argue it completely changes the weapon's intended use. A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor. This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.
More than one year before the Pebble there was Metawatch [metawatch.org] (which uses exactly the same display type), and ages before the Pebble there were much, much more advanced "smartwatches".
Like the inPulse watch? You know, made by Allerta, who became Pebble?
No doubt this false sense of security (and driving talent/experience) comes standard with most 4WD/AWD/4x4 vehicles.
When I had a 4x4 SUV, I even found myself having trouble keeping in mind the fact that I wasn't invincible.
My girlfriend and I were in Illinois a few Christmases ago when we found ourselves having to begin our 5-6 hour drive after 5-6 inches had already fallen. Even in IL, those country roads were not cleared one bit. We were in a Hyundai Sonata (4-door sedan, front-wheel drive), going maybe half the speed limit. We encountered numerous vehicles in the ditch, almost all of which were SUVs. We did end up doing a 180 in the middle of a straight road (presumably hitting some hidden ice under the snow), but we were able to at least make it to a major city in Indiana where we gave up (having gone half our distance in 5-6 hours) and stayed the night.