Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[sam86]

They tried the additonal officials, it didnt work.

It would only really work if something happened though. Nothing in those games happened.

If the additional official was there for the Henry incident, or the Lampard goal, then everyone would be saying it worked.

Just for the record, I've always thought it was a bad idea, as you'd need too many officials, for too many games, who for the majority of the season won't have anything to do.

 

[Easy 10]

Ok not the 4th official then a TV ref/umpire like they have in cricket or rugby league in a booth. I just thought off the 4th official it doesn't have to be that. The TV ref/umpire says to the on the pitch ref on those mikes that they all have, hang on a minute, that ball was a metre over the goal line or that Tevez is actually two players offside. Go and have a look at a TV screen that everyone in the world can see and make the correct decision.

Also you have TV replays available where they are available like at cricket, some of Sussex games are some aren't it just depends if it is covered by TV (of course all WC,Euros/CL's/EPL's have enormous TV coverage) Where you don't have a major TV presence you don't have a TV umpire/ref/adjudicator like at most games at the Withdean, you just don't have one.

So the guy making the decision would be effectively tucked away somewhere for his own protection then. That speaks volumes for starters.

And I'm sorry, but having football matches refereed from a booth only IF they are "blessed" by the Sky Sports cameras for that match is not really good enough. You either have it in the professional game or you don't.

"Cor, lucky our FA Cup match was on Sky, otherwise we'd NEVER have got that goal ruled out for offside".

Naah. Not for me.

 

[keaton]

I agree but surely now there is so much TV technology at the World Cup/Euros/Prem etc. for this not to be so. I mean most other sports now use it, tennis, cricket, rugby union, rugby league, this is the 21st Century you know.

They showed a replay of the Argie goal before Mexico kicked off and everyone in the stadium including the lino and the ref knew it shouldn't stand and yet to make themselves not look fools they talked to each other and tried to find out a way not to give it but in the end had to give a goal that everyone in the world knew shouldn't stand, what a joke.....yet if the 4th official had the right to call over the ref to look at a monitor it gives them an easy way out to reversing this and therefore making the correct decision

But the examples people give are really applicable to football. Tennis and cricket are incredibly stop start games, it doesn't really ruin the flow of the game. In rugby it's only really used when the ball is dead. In football with the Lampard goal, there might not have been a stop in play for a couple of minutes after the incident

 

[sten_super]

It's not used in cricket by the officials. I forgot about tennis

Sorry, I hadn't realised that it's use in cricket was on a trial basis and was subsequently removed. To be honest, cricket probably isn't the best example of a sport using technology, given what a pigs ear they've made of taking it on board (such as making broadcasters pay for it!).

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

So the guy making the decision would be effectively tucked away somewhere for his own protection then. That speaks volumes for starters.

And I'm sorry, but having football matches refereed from a booth only IF they are "blessed" by the Sky Sports cameras for that match is not really good enough. You either have it in the professional game or you don't.

"Cor, lucky our FA Cup match was on Sky, otherwise we'd NEVER have got that goal ruled out for offside".

Naah. Not for me.

Surely we can redeploy a few of the thousands of CCTV cameras looking at the crowd to look at the pitch instead, or is that just a bit too obvious ? C'mon, video technology is dirt cheap these days, it must be, I've got it on my 'phone.....

 

[simmo]

So the guy making the decision would be effectively tucked away somewhere for his own protection then. That speaks volumes for starters.

And I'm sorry, but having football matches refereed from a booth only IF they are "blessed" by the Sky Sports cameras for that match is not really good enough. You either have it in the professional game or you don't.

"Cor, lucky our FA Cup match was on Sky, otherwise we'd NEVER have got that goal ruled out for offside".

Naah. Not for me.

What just like he is in a booth in cricket and rugby league and rugby union! You were the one that was saying that he may be influenced by managers etc. not me. If it bothers you that much I am giving you a potential way around this by a TV officiator and and now you are trying to use this as a stick to beat back, it doesn't bother me either way 4th official or TV umpire but I am offering you an answer to your problem.

Well is every cricket game blessed with TV cameras like Sussex 2nd XI? every tennis game like at Eastbourne? No, but those games at Lords and at Wimbledon do get better decisions because they are backed up or operturned by TV replays provided for by the miriad of TV companies that televise these sports and there is NO bigger than the TV coverage at at a World Cup. Any incorrect decision that every blooming person in the world can see on the box that the on the pitch officiators have not got right can be overturned in the other sports but not football, the biggest sport in the world!

What is wrong with you, you almost seem that you don't you want the correct decision to be reached.

 

[keaton]

Sorry, I hadn't realised that it's use in cricket was on a trial basis and was subsequently removed. To be honest, cricket probably isn't the best example of a sport using technology, given what a pigs ear they've made of taking it on board (such as making broadcasters pay for it!).

Exactly most of the test matches now don't use the referrals system. I can't believe it's solely to do with money, in the end it just created more arguments

 

[Mendoza]

there was a game about 6 or 7 years ago maybe, I cant remember who was playing, but I think it was League Two. A team thought they scored, the ref didnt give it and they carried on playing. Out of no where the 4th official came running down and told the ref it was a goal. I think the goal was given.

 

[The Large One]

What is wrong with you, you almost seem that you don't you want the correct decision to be reached.

When we're talking about interpretation of the rules, and opinion of the referee, please define 'correct decision'.

 

[simmo]

But the examples people give are really applicable to football. Tennis and cricket are incredibly stop start games, it doesn't really ruin the flow of the game. In rugby it's only really used when the ball is dead. In football with the Lampard goal, there might not have been a stop in play for a couple of minutes after the incident

Football is a stop start game too, throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, corner kicks, because Lampards shot was over the line the game would be stopped within 10 seconds (or how long it took to see the TV replay, in the Argie game the replay was on before Mexico kicked off again!) by a TV officiator saying to the ref, look at the TV it's one metre over the line, goal......2-2 kick off Germany

If it wasn't over the line they play on and the TV officiator does not bring it to the on field refs attention because the on field ref made the correct decision to play on.

 

[simmo]

When we're talking about interpretation of the rules, and opinion of the referee, please define 'correct decision'.

Lampard's shot was over the line.

Tevez was offside.

Correct or incorrect?

 

[Safeway]

there was a game about 6 or 7 years ago maybe, I cant remember who was playing, but I think it was League Two. A team thought they scored, the ref didnt give it and they carried on playing. Out of no where the 4th official came running down and told the ref it was a goal. I think the goal was given.

Zidane was sent off in the last World Cup final after the headbutt was spotted on a pitch-side TV monitor.

 

[Easy 10]

What just like he is in a booth in cricket and rugby league and rugby union! You were the one that was saying that he may be influenced by managers etc. not me. If it bothers you that much I am giving you a potential way around this by a TV officiator and and now you are trying to use this as a stick to beat back, it doesn't bother me either way 4th official or TV umpire but I am offering you an answer to your problem.

Well is every cricket game blessed with TV cameras like Sussex 2nd XI? every tennis game like at Eastbourne? No, but those games at Lords and at Wimbledon do get better decisions because they are backed up or operturned by TV replays provided for by the miriad of TV companies that televise these sports and there is NO bigger than the TV coverage at at a World Cup. Any incorrect decision that every blooming person in the world can see on the box that the on the pitch officiators have not got right can be overturned in the other sports but not football, the biggest sport in the world!

What is wrong with you, you almost seem that you don't you want the correct decision to be reached.

There is nothing "wrong" with me, but I really don't think you've fully thought through the mechanics of introducing referreeing by television, and how it would fundemantally alter the game. Everyone see's a terrible decision on the TV and the knee-jerk is always "why can't the officials just take a quick look at a monitor and clear it up there and then" ?

With football, its NOT THAT SIMPLE !!

When and how do you stop the game ? How often do you allow it ? What if the replay still isn't conclusive ? The obvious ones is one thing, but what if the decison is STILL highly debatable ? Remember, you'er not just talking about a line call here, like in tennis or cricket. You're asking for offsides (interfering / not interfering / 1st phase / 2nd phase), you're asking for penalty decisions, you're asking for fouls, dives, handballs (intentional ? Not intentional ?).

Believe me, if you brought TV replays / appeals into football, then you are going to need a whole RAFT of new rules and regulations in order to accomodate it into the game. It will be complicated, it will be controversial, and it will be a whole new MAGNET for further disputes and arguments.

Do I want a WRONG decision ? Of course not. All I want is an HONEST decision, the rest of it is down to human interpretation and yes, sometimes human error. But as long as its honest, we can ask no more than that.

 

[The Large One]

Lampard's shot was over the line.

Tevez was offside.

Correct or incorrect?

While Tevez was obviously a howler, and an extreme example of incompetence, it also means that the technology can easily be used to over-rule a linesman on any given occasion (well, in major matches where there are dozens of cameras, not so at Withdean), thereby making his role largely redundant.

So what do you do when a linesman puts his flag up (in his OPINION, though wrongly after scrutiny) for offside, and the referee has blown for a free-kick? You can't have it both ways.

So, notwithstanding when an obvious mistake has been made (and that the answer is clear cut) I ask again, when we're talking about interpretation of the rules, and opinion of the referee, please define 'correct decision'.

 

[simmo]

There is nothing "wrong" with me, but I really don't think you've fully thought through the mechanics of introducing referreeing by television, and how it would fundemantally alter the game. Everyone see's a terrible decision on the TV and the knee-jerk is always "why can't the officials just take a quick look at a monitor and clear it up there and then" ?

With football, its NOT THAT SIMPLE !!

When and how do you stop the game ? How often do you allow it ? What if the replay still isn't conclusive ? The obvious ones is one thing, but what if the decison is STILL highly debatable ? Remember, you'er not just talking about a line call here, like in tennis or cricket. You're asking for offsides (interfering / not interfering / 1st phase / 2nd phase), you're asking for penalty decisions, you're asking for fouls, dives, handballs (intentional ? Not intentional ?).

Believe me, if you brought TV replays / appeals into football, then you are going to need a whole RAFT of new rules and regulations in order to accomodate it into the game. It will be complicated, it will be controversial, and it will be a whole new MAGNET for further disputes and arguments.

Do I want a WRONG decision ? Of course not. All I want is an HONEST decision, the rest of it is down to human interpretation and yes, sometimes human error. But as long as its honest, we can ask no more than that.

Football stops all the time, goal kicks, free kicks, throw ins, offsides, goals, corners, need I go on.

A TV official has a right to draw the referee's attention to something he believes the on field officials have got fundementally wrong in a game that will have a major bearing on the outcome (a goal allowed or not, a penalty allowed or not, a sending off made or not) so that the correct decision is made. It really is that simple.

 

[Easy 10]

Football is a stop start game too, throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, corner kicks, because Lampards shot was over the line the game would be stopped within 10 seconds (or how long it took to see the TV replay, in the Argie game the replay was on before Mexico kicked off again!) by a TV officiator saying to the ref, look at the TV it's one metre over the line, goal......2-2 kick off Germany

If it wasn't over the line they play on and the TV officiator does not bring it to the on field refs attention because the on field ref made the correct decision to play on.

This sounds fine when its so blatantly obvious as the Lampard incident. But what else are you going to have the tellyref stopping the game for ? Where do you draw the line ? A contencious penalty decision will have the opposition howling for the tellyref to look at it again. Or how about a marginal offside ? A perceived handball ?

Not ALL incidents are as shockingly bad as the Lampard / Henry / Tevez ones, and 99.9% of the time, the officials will see it and call it right. Of course its infuriating when they don't, but the alternative you are proposing, and the rules and the massive legislation needed in order to deal with these (very rare) horrendous calls, would completely alter the game as we know it, and I guarantee you we'd end up regretting it.

It would end up causing far more problems than it solved.

 

[The Large One]

Football stops all the time, goal kicks, free kicks, throw ins, offsides, goals, corners, need I go on.

A TV official has a right to draw the referee's attention to something he believes the on field officials have got fundementally wrong in a game that will have a major bearing on the outcome (a goal allowed or not, a penalty allowed or not, a sending off made or not) so that the correct decision is made. It really is that simple.

No it isn't.

You're identifying a problem, you're coming up with a solution, you're not considering the consequence of that solution.

There could be anything up to two or three minutes before there is a natural break in play. To think you can rely on someone kicking the ball out in order to make a decision is just plain daft. Do you remember what happened fewer than 15 seconds after Lampard's 'goal' was not given? The Germans went up the other end and cracked in a wicked shot that went 3 inches wide. What if that had gone in? f***ing chaos, that's what.

'Sorry, Lucas. I've got to give Frank the goal...'

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

With football, its NOT THAT SIMPLE !!

When and how do you stop the game ? How often do you allow it ? What if the replay still isn't conclusive ? The obvious ones is one thing, but what if the decison is STILL highly debatable ? Remember, you'er not just talking about a line call here, like in tennis or cricket. You're asking for offsides (interfering / not interfering / 1st phase / 2nd phase), you're asking for penalty decisions, you're asking for fouls, dives, handballs (intentional ? Not intentional ?).

Believe me, if you brought TV replays / appeals into football, then you are going to need a whole RAFT of new rules and regulations in order to accomodate it into the game. It will be complicated, it will be controversial, and it will be a whole new MAGNET for further disputes and arguments.

Do I want a WRONG decision ? Of course not. All I want is an HONEST decision, the rest of it is down to human interpretation and yes, sometimes human error. But as long as its honest, we can ask no more than that.

I think you are overcooking this Easy. The way I see it is that there would be no option to 'appeal' by anyone. The 3 officials on the pitch would make their decisions as per usual. The official with the monitor only gets involved when an 'obvious' error has been made by one of those officials.
Assuming the officials on the pitch are not making any glaring errors then the game would not need to be stopped an any point in the game by 'monitor ref'.

 

[Easy 10]

Football stops all the time, goal kicks, free kicks, throw ins, offsides, goals, corners, need I go on.

A TV official has a right to draw the referee's attention to something he believes the on field officials have got fundementally wrong in a game that will have a major bearing on the outcome (a goal allowed or not, a penalty allowed or not, a sending off made or not) so that the correct decision is made. It really is that simple.

And there is where your prose falls flat on its arse.
At the end of it all, its STILL an officials interpretation of an incident (whether he be on the pitch or in a booth), and it could STILL be open to debate.

You won't just have a Lampard incident, which is plain for all to see. If you're got a ref in a booth, he'll be expected to make big, important calls on stuff that is down to the refs interpretation, or marginal.

What one person will call a "blatant" hand ball could be seen as accidental by someone else. What one person will call a "stone wall" penalty or red card could be seen differently by someone else. Who's to say who's right ?

You can't open up a bleeding DEBATE on these things during a game !

 

[simmo]

While Tevez was obviously a howler, and an extreme example of incompetence, it also means that the technology can easily be used to over-rule a linesman on any given occasion (well, in major matches where there are dozens of cameras, not so at Withdean), thereby making his role largely redundant.

So what do you do when a linesman puts his flag up (in his OPINION, though wrongly after scrutiny) for offside, and the referee has blown for a free-kick? You can't have it both ways.

So, notwithstanding when an obvious mistake has been made (and that the answer is clear cut) I ask again, when we're talking about interpretation of the rules, and opinion of the referee, please define 'correct decision'.

Do you actually watch any other sports than football? Because TV offiiciating has helped get more decsions right than wrong , I agree it is not 100% infallible but it has made getting the correct decisions occur more often than before the use of TV, where you have the oppurtunity to use it you should use it.

Do you not think it is a farce that everyone in the world (even the ref and the lino) knew that the Argentina 1st goal should not stand before Mexico kicked off again, isn't that making a mockery of the game?

To answer your other points, as in rugby, the first decision is the thing that matters i.e if Germany had gone down the other end and scored after Lampards shot the England goal would have counted as it occured first.

Concerning the correct decision, as in cricket, the decision of the on field official/s is correct unless there is evidence that the TV official can see differently. In fact it is much easier in football than in cricket because in cricket they use Hawkeye which is a theoretical projector of the path of the ball after hitting a pad, in neither Tevez or Lampards case this wouldn't have mattered because we could all see it with our eyes.