Blatter calls for goal-line technology - amazing!

[Tricky Dicky]

if that goal had been given (wrongly as it was off side) It wouldnt have changed how the group finished anyway.

How do you know that. If it had been given (agreed, incorrectly) it changes everything that went after. A good chance Ukraine would get a boost, and score a couple more - we'll never know. For all we know, finding out they'd equalized could have given the French a lift as well to go and score.

 

[Triggaaar]

Offside decisions are very diffcult to judge in real time from the sideline, especially if the ref's assistant is shit.

Actually, regarding offside decisions, I've been amazed at how good the assistants have been in the last year. And I'm not even being sarcastic (for a change). The amount of times it's freeze framed on tv, and you find that the assistants have got a marginal decision right is amazing.

We don't need clever technology for this stuff, just a 2nd ref with a monitor and access to the camera footage.

 

[Sheebo]

The timing is INTERESTING though, to say the least. As a goal being given would've been the WRONG decision.

Where's the calls for OFFSIDE technology?

Haha - Glad you were straight on this. Everyone's going on about the luck we had when the bloke was 2 yards offside to start with. So no it's not justice for Lamps goal vs the Germans - we've still got that luck card to come.

Oh and it certainly wasn't conclusive for me that it was def over the line - couldn't see any green in between line and ball so there must've been millimetres in it.

So anyway, for those in any doubt IT WAS OFFSIDE SO THE JUSTICE OF THE 'GOAL' NOT BEING GIVEN WAS THAT 3 SECONDS BEFORE THERE WAS A CLEAR OFFSIDE

 

[Was not Was]

FIFA are so anti-English it's laughable.

Have you been snorting tabloids, young man? FIFA is corrupt from top to bottom - why would they bother being anti-English?

 

[El Turi]

Have you been snorting tabloids, young man? FIFA is corrupt from top to bottom - why would they bother being anti-English?

Because it's the English that are usually trying to expose the corruption.

 

[peterward]

Blatter is externally a smiling head of FIFA but underneath that he is a corrupt and totally ruthless politician, who thinks he owns football.

He destroyed all opposition to his rule prior to the FIFA election, much like any political dictatator does, and always with a smile.

And it was the English media (panorama twice), plus the English newspapers that have done the most to expose the rampant corruption of his little fiefdom.

He hates England, even though he always smiles and says the right PR things........... thus why Blatter allegedly guided his Executive commitee in the world cup bid against England, and thus why he is happy to look away from any English injustices but will be doing all he can to react to any English club/country victories or injustices in our favour.

Blatter is on a revenge crusade

 

[Easy 10]

Very much this. I would LOVE offside technology. I know he was off side yesterday, but more often than not the flag goes up for offside when it is a borderline call. I reckon we'd see loads more goals if play was allowed to continue with the benefit of the attacking team. I'd like to see that, with the defending side allowed up to two offside reviews a game, much as it works in cricket.

Horrible idea.

If teams have 2 offside reviews per match, then you can guarantee almost every time a goal is scored they'd be using the review on the offchance of getting it overturned, especially if the goal reviews are late on in the game. Would you fancy waiting for a "green light" from an offside review judge in order to celebrate a goal ? It would remove all spontaneity from a goal celebration.

Offside can be a very contencious decision anyway, what with phases of play, interfering with play etc. Its still down to interpretation, and a TV replay won't always give you a black and white decision.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

The bloke is a complete and utter waste of space.

 

[Smythe]

How do you know that. If it had been given (agreed, incorrectly) it changes everything that went after. A good chance Ukraine would get a boost, and score a couple more - we'll never know. For all we know, finding out they'd equalized could have given the French a lift as well to go and score.

or it may have stayed 1-1 and we still win the group, or we may have won 2-1 who knows eh.

 

[sydney]

Blatter is a poisonous little toad and Plattini will be no better..........why not give Gazza a go.

 

[peterward]

or it may have stayed 1-1 and we still win the group, or we may have won 2-1 who knows eh.

even if we had lost 2-1, we would have gone through second because France lost 2-0

 

[Johnny Crumplin Football]

Where is the technology for checking for 'fouls' in the box over ruled out goals v Portugal and Argentina ?

Good call

 

[Everest]

Oh and it certainly wasn't conclusive for me that it was def over the line - couldn't see any green in between line and ball so there must've been millimetres in it.

You either need new glasses or a new TV then.

 

[trueblue]

Its a very complex 3-D modelling system, using multiple cameras and Local Area transponder-based Tracking systems. It already exists.The company I work for produce one (amongst others).

I can sell you one, if you like, for roughly £400k.

It does however require all the players to wear a transponder (woven into the shirts, etc), and it can't produce the results in real time (which is the FIFA requirement for goal-line tech).

If a player's foot is a couple of inches ahead of the penultimate defender, he's offside. How does a transponder in a shirt deal with that?

 

[Aadam]

If a player's foot is a couple of inches ahead of the penultimate defender, he's offside. How does a transponder in a shirt deal with that?

What? Are you sure about that? I thought you had to see air between the attacker and defender in order for it to be offside. Or did the rules change again?

 

[Biscuit]

Have you been snorting tabloids, young man? FIFA is corrupt from top to bottom - why would they bother being anti-English?

I didn't argue otherwise! Anti-Englishness is just a symptom of the corruption!

 

[drew]

i know we like to knock him, but hasnt he been advocating goal line tech for a couple of years now? ever since our WC incident?

You're right, I think this thread shows exactly how much interest some people take in footie other than watching 90 minutes on the box or going to the Amex!!!

As soon as TV pictures showed the ball did in fact cross the line, I was waiting for Blatter to call for goal-line technology. FIFA are so anti-English it's laughable.

The timing is INTERESTING though, to say the least. As a goal being given would've been the WRONG decision.

Where's the calls for OFFSIDE technology?

Nothing wrong with the timing as Lampard was never offside!!!!

Also platini was quoted in may last year saying he never wants goal like technology!

And he controls the euros and champions league....be interesting to see if he changed his mind once master blatter installs it

If Fifa bring it in then I don't think Uefa can go their own way.

What? Are you sure about that? I thought you had to see air between the attacker and defender in order for it to be offside. Or did the rules change again?

Can't ever remember when the definition of offside was only when there was 'air' gap!!!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If a player's foot is a couple of inches ahead of the penultimate defender, he's offside. How does a transponder in a shirt deal with that?

A transponder alone can't. that's why its a combination of local area tracking AND multiple cameras.The camera tracks the ball too, despite that having no transponder, etc fitted. Its terribly clever, and TERRIBLY complicated. I'm not going to fully explain it on here, as a. I'd get into TROUBLE, and b. I don't really understand it...

What? Are you sure about that? I thought you had to see air between the attacker and defender in order for it to be offside. Or did the rules change again?

That was never a rule, more general guidance, at a time when there was an unwritten rule to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

 

[Sheebo]

You either need new glasses or a new TV then.

Well I didn't have my glasses on and was watching in a pub 4 pints down so maybe. Still don't remember seeing grass between the ball and line or it being 'inches' over as the beeb suggest. Still it was offside so no point in worrying

 

[CHAPPERS]

What? Are you sure about that? I thought you had to see air between the attacker and defender in order for it to be offside. Or did the rules change again?

If any part of the body that one could use the SCORE is ahead of the defender then the attacker is offside.