Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[sam86]

BBC Sport - Football - World Cup 2010: Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has apologised to the Football Association over Frank Lampard's disallowed goal in England's World Cup defeat by Germany.

Lampard was denied a goal in Sunday's 4-1 defeat, even though his shot clearly crossed the line.

He said the debate on goal-line technology would be reopened when the International FA Board meets in July.

Blatter also said sorry to Mexico after Argentina's Carlos Tevez scored from an offside position in their last 16 game.

Lampard's strike came during a spell of England dominance and would have levelled the score at 2-2.

"It is obvious that after the experiences so far at this World Cup it would be a nonsense not to re-open the file on goal-line technology," said Blatter.

The Tevez goal - the first in Argentina's 3-1 win - was replayed on the screens in the stadium, meaning players and fans could see the officials' mistake.

"Personally I deplore it when you see evident referee mistakes but it's not the end of a competition or the end of football, this can happen," said Blatter.

"The only thing I can do is yesterday I have spoken to the two federations (England and Mexico) directly concerned by referees mistakes.

"I have expressed to them apologies and I understand they are not happy and that people are criticising.

"We will naturally take on board the discussion on technology and have first opportunity in July at the business meeting."

I said after the game that I'd be less disappointed about the "goal", if it led to talks about goal line technology starting again.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Whatever happened to "that is the end of the discussion" announcement they made last time. "This won't be discussed again" from what I remember.

Also, the Lampard and the Argie ones are two coompletely different problems. One was a factual call, over-the-line or not, the offside was a jugdement call (acording to footballs rules).

 

[Easy 10]

Video replays for decisions - no
Goal-line technology - yes

Snort it.

 

[Timbo]

Video replays for decisions - no
Goal-line technology - yes

Snort it.

Spot on. You cant stop a game to look at a decision, You can however easily tell if a ball's crossed the line or not with a bit of technology.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Video replays for decisions - no
Goal-line technology - yes

Snort it.

By apologising to both us and Mexico, Blatter has equated the two it seems.

 

[algie]

Video replays for decisions - no
Goal-line technology - yes

Snort it.

So your theory would stuff Mexico?

 

[keaton]

Whatever happened to "that is the end of the discussion" announcement they made last time. "This won't be discussed again" from what I remember.

Also, the Lampard and the Argie ones are two coompletely different problems. One was a factual call, over-the-line or not, the offside was a jugdement call (acording to footballs rules).

I don't understand, what's the difference?

Surely Tevez was factually offside and Lampards was judged by us to be over the line?

 

[hitony]

It's all ok now then, inSEPPid Blubber has said sorry................that bloke seriously requires public humiliation!!!!!!..............(would being forced to watch all 4 of Englands games on the trot be a severe enough humiliation?)

 

[The Large One]

I don't understand, what's the difference?

Surely Tevez was factually offside and Lampards was judged by us to be over the line?

The difference being that there is a possibility that the linesman didn't see that the ball went over the line (unlikely, but possible). And if that was the case, you can't give what you don't see.

For Tevez, he could see that he was offside (the linesman was in the correct place), but didn't flag.

It boils down to the extent to which technology is used. Realistically, you could argue that Easy 10 has it about right. Morally, there is little difference between the Tevez and Lampard incidents (i.e. a call needed to be made), so if you excuse the pun - where is it that FIFA draws the line on use of technology?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I don't understand, what's the difference?

Surely Tevez was factually offside and Lampards was judged by us to be over the line?

Whether the ball is over the line or not is purely factual, and is what many people are calling for technology to deal with. Offside is more subjective, is the player interfering with play etc., not a factual decision at all - admitedly, on the face of it, the Argie decision was obvious, but there are many that wouldn't be and if you do it for one you have to do it for all.

 

[algie]

The difference being that there is a possibility that the linesman didn't see that the ball went over the line (unlikely, but possible). And if that was the case, you can't give what you don't see.

For Tevez, he could see that he was offside (the linesman was in the correct place), but didn't flag. That was just wrong.

It boils down to the extent to which technology is used. Realistically, you could argue that Easy 10 has it about right. Morally, there is little difference between the Tevez and Lampard incidents (i.e. a call needed to be made), so if you excuse the pun - where is it that FIFA draws the line on use of technology?

He isn't right though is he? He wants goal line technology only.

What happens if someone knocks the ball in with his hand? We all know about that including the Irish.

 

[The Large One]

He isn't right thogh is he? He wants goal line technology only?

What happens if someone knocks the ball in with his hand? We all know about that including the Irish.

Well, this is the argument.

How do you use technology without either (a) constantly stopping and starting a match or (b) using it to the extent of diminishing the role of the referee and (taking it to its extreme) doing away with him entirely and officiating the match via a control room?

In the case of your example, one of the linesman used behind the goal-line such as was used in the UEFA Cup this season ('Europa League' - pah!) would have spotted it. So are those officials in those spaces required? Maybe, but it would end up being refereed like tennis in the end.

But... as I say, the referee can only give what he sees. In the case of Mexico, it was seen but not given. That's not an 'acceptable' mistake, that's incompetence. No amount of technology is going to make up for that, unless you wish to bring in retrospective decision-making.

 

[Easy 10]

So your theory would stuff Mexico?

Yip. Afraid so.

You cannot open the door to making decisions on referee's INTERPRETATIONS (ie fouls and offsides). Whilst the Tevez offside was absolutley cut and dried totally blatant, thats not always going to be the case (especially when you start factoring in "interference", "2nd phase" etc). Thats a right old can of worms and would cause more problems than it solves.

However. A ball is either over the goal-line, or it isn't. Thats not something to interpret, or attempt to decide, it either is or it isn't. Therefore, I would totally support a bit of kit like Hawkeye to make that judgement call.

Maybe even have a BUZZER go off, like in ice hockey. That would be FLAIR.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

i'm no technological wizard, but surely all you need is something in the ball, and something on the goal line (in the crossbar or in each post), and when one crosses the other a big f*** off KLAXON goes off or something

i dunno

 

[keaton]

Yip. Afraid so.

You cannot open the door to making decisions on referee's INTERPRETATIONS (ie fouls and offsides). Whilst the Tevez offside was absolutley cut and dried totally blatant, thats not always going to be the case (especially when you start factoring in "interference", "2nd phase" etc). Thats a right old can of worms and would cause more problems than it solves.

However. A ball is either over the goal-line, or it isn't. Thats not something to interpret, or attempt to decide, it either is or it isn't. Therefore, I would totally support a bit of kit like Hawkeye to make that judgement call.

Maybe even have a BUZZER go off, like in ice hockey. That would be FLAIR.

Is it not quite telling that you used the example of Hawkeye though, something that isn't used by the officials?

 

[Safeway]

i'm no technological wizard, but surely all you need is something in the ball, and something on the goal line (in the crossbar or in each post), and when one crosses the other a big f*** off KLAXON goes off or something

Rather like in ice hockey? Would work, though I rather fancy the idea of the goal frame lighting up in rainbow colours to indicate the ball crossing the line.

And maybe some fireworks going off from each STANTION.

GOAL!

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

They tried the additonal officials, it didnt work.

Time for Hawkeye.

 

[The Large One]

Is it not quite telling that you used the example of Hawkeye though, something that isn't used by the officials?

It is in tennis.

 

[sam86]

If they eventually decide to use goal line technology, everyone will get used to it, and then another Henry moment will happen, and everyone will be saying "we have the technology to stop things like that happening, blah, blah, blah".

 

[simmo]

I cannot undersatnd why with all the technology that they have that the 4th official cannot have the right to call over the referee to a TV monitor to check ANY contentious issue i.e sending off, goal line incidents, offside goals, penalties anything that may have a huge effect on the game and that the officials on the pitch have got wrong (they practically did this with Zidane's headbutt, but at least they got the right decision). You know the 4th official really does have pretty much nothing to do he could recheck with a monitor that what is happening is right. You may say where does this end, but you can legislate that the 4th official has no say on bookings, throw ins, corners that is left to the ref and the ref only to keep the game flowing.

I saw the Argie one and it was a farce, everyone in the world and in that stadium knew that before Mexico kicked off again that Tevez was so offside and yet the goal almost had to stand, it was embarressing (as was the England no goal) and it does make a mockery of the game.