Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[Mellotron]

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?

While I'm not sure exactly where I sit on the whole debate, and what I would implement and what I wouldn't, I HAVE to agree here.

It was incredibly EMBARRASSING, and made football as a worldwide sport look AMATEURISH.

I was watching it with people who aren't really into football, and I was almost embarrassed myself having to explain why they wouldn't then rule the goal out despite everyone in the entire world knowing it was not a goal. It is ridiculous when you think about it, isn't it Easy?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

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.

If that actually happened, I think you could have a riot on your hands with both teams and sets of fans feeling aggrieved.

 

[Easy 10]

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'.

Realistically though, we all know appeals to TV would be made by all and sundry. I can see the little Charades signs for 'television' being made by players and managers already.

Look, the problem comes when you try to define an "obvious error", or a "glaring error".

Now you can't get much more obvious than the Lampard incident, I think we're all agreed on that. Then you've got the Henry handball, which was obvious (at least on replays) that he handled it.

Then you've got to start going down the scale. An "obvious" dive that resulted in a penalty ? An "obvious" foul that resulted in a red card ? Its not so simple is it ? An error is an error, and if it results in a goal being scored then how "obvious" that error was becomes the crucial debate in all this.

You open the door a tiny crack on TV decisions and you create a whole new set of problems and interpretations. And because of the technology, people will expect / demand that the decision reached is PERFECT (ie unamimous and beyond any possible dispute), when we all know there are a whole multitude of differing opinions that come out even DESPITE the replays.

 

[folkestonesgull]

I think that video replay technology should be available to the ref if a goal is scored only - much like rugby union. The video ref would be in direct contact with the match ref and a decision will take seconds, a far shorter period of time than any protest from players.

The match ref listens to the comments of the video ref and the final say rests with him. There is no public knowledge of the video refs comments and therefore the match ref is not undermined.

The level at which this is introduced is dependent on the leagues.
Why not try it for a year in the champions league as a test?

 

[simmo]

If that actually happened, I think you could have a riot on your hands with both teams and sets of fans feeling aggrieved.

In theory though this shouldn't actually happen, it should take 10 seconds for a goal line replay to show on a TV monitor, TV ref/umpire sees it, tells the ref stop the game go look at the TV screen the ball is 1 metre over the line... goal......but if it did happen on a very, very rare occasion, you have to go with the first incident it would be absurd not to.

Any borderline decision, open to conjecture etc on any issue go with the on field officials, as in cricket.

It is that simple!

 

[The Large One]

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.

If you're going to use officiating cricket as a justification for the way you would like to see football officiated, I don't think you've got the point of this debate.

 

[Easy 10]

I was watching it with people who aren't really into football, and I was almost embarrassed myself having to explain why they wouldn't then rule the goal out despite everyone in the entire world knowing it was not a goal. It is ridiculous when you think about it, isn't it Easy?

It was a ridiculous decision, yes. A horrendous mistake to have made. And its something that would easily be cleared up with the use of goalline technology.

What I will NEVER agree to though is an extra official refereeing the game via a TV monitor, making calls on fouls, penalties, cards, offsides etc.

TV replays does not always enable the "correct" decision to be made, its just another interpretation by someone else. I'm happy to have an HONEST interpretation by the ref adn accept that sometimes human error will come into that. I'll accept it because the alternative would be a f***ing NIGHTMARE to introduce and legislate during a game.

 

[The Large One]

It was a ridiculous decision, yes. A horrendous mistake to have made. And its something that would easily be cleared up with the use of goalline technology.

What I will NEVER agree to though is an extra official refereeing the game via a TV monitor, making calls on fouls, penalties, cards, offsides etc.

TV replays does not always enable the "correct" decision to be made, its just another interpretation by someone else. I'm happy to have an HONEST interpretation by the ref adn accept that sometimes human error will come into that. I'll accept it because the alternative would be a f***ing NIGHTMARE to introduce and legislate during a game.

It would basically take away the role of the referee.

And do you know what, as long it's an honest (rather than incompetent) decision, I will accept it as being part of the human game of football, even if (but whatever values you judge a given incident) it's wrong.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

In theory though this shouldn't actually happen, it should take 10 seconds for a goal line replay to show on a TV monitor, TV ref/umpire sees it, tells the ref stop the game go look at the TV screen the ball is 1 metre over the line... goal......but if it did happen on a very, very rare occasion, you have to go with the first incident it would be absurd not to.

Any borderline decision, open to conjecture etc on any issue go with the on field officials, as in cricket.

It is that simple!

And how long does it take to go from one end to the other - I've seen many at 6 or 7 seconds from a corner at one end to goal at the other

 

[Yoda]

Why has he not apologised for Germany's first goal as well then?

If you watch the replay, Klose was a good 3 meters offside when their goal kick was taken. How could the lino miss that as well?

 

[The Large One]

Why has he not apologised for Germany's first goal as well then?

If you watch the replay, Klose was a good 3 meters offside when their goal kick was taken. How could the lino miss that as well?

Very funny.

 

[Igor Gurinovich?]

For me the debate is more about the precedent than anything else. The introduction of tv replays has been rejected for years and years and we've all seen many cases when even debated on MOTD that night, calls are not always clearcut when seen in replay.
The introduction of replays for goal line situations would be the start of it. Ive heard the arguements about, its only for goals or only in this situation, but thats not where it would end. As soon as we use replays for this, why not for handballs or tackles in the box or to interpret whether a player has dived, each can impact a game significantly.
Whilst its unbelievable that officials can make the mistakes they did, i think id concentrate on why these mistakes were made rather than turn to technology.

 

[essbee]

I bet we get Germany in the next World Cup at some stage and they benefit from the technology with a "goal" against us!

 

[Easy 10]

Why has he not apologised for Germany's first goal as well then?

If you watch the replay, Klose was a good 3 meters offside when their goal kick was taken. How could the lino miss that as well?

I was screaming for that as well - without realising you can't be offside from a goal kick

 

[simmo]

If you're going to use officiating cricket as a justification for the way you would like to see football officiated, I don't think you've got the point of this debate.

What? I thought this debate was primarily about getting the correct decisions in a sporting event forgive me if I am wrong.

All I am saying and trying to point out is that the use of TV technology has helped cricket and other sports tennis/rugby union/rugby league for example, to get more more decisions right than they did before they used it. Now is that correct or not?

 

[simmo]

And how long does it take to go from one end to the other - I've seen many at 6 or 7 seconds from a corner at one end to goal at the other

Did you not actually bother to read my post at all?

I did actually put this

but if it did happen on a very, very rare occasion, you have to go with the first incident it would be absurd not to.

 

[Mellotron]

It was a ridiculous decision, yes. A horrendous mistake to have made. And its something that would easily be cleared up with the use of goalline technology.

Eh? I'm talking about the Mexico Argies game, something that would not have been cleared up by goalline technology, and it was f**king EMBARRASSING as a football fan to be watching it with non-football fans and having to explain why the way football is officiated is broken, as proved by that goal being allowed to stand.

Like I said, maybe I'm not being very helpful as I honestly don't know exactly how I'd implement the technology, however football is going to get left further and further behind other sports in this respect and therefore will continue to look more and more embarrassing and amatuerish unless we figure out a way to make games fairer.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Why has he not apologised for Germany's first goal as well then?

If you watch the replay, Klose was a good 3 meters offside when their goal kick was taken. How could the lino miss that as well?

I've just tried to verify this. the only vid I could find was not the best quality,
so it's not easy to see, but it looks like he was easily played onside by (it looks like) Upson. As I say, may be wrong due to the vid quality.

Oh, and I've just been reminded by the other thread that you can't be offside from a GK anyway.

 

[sten_super]

I have one major MAJOR problem with any kind of video referee; it would stop an official ever making a decision. Linesmen would never flag for offside, because if they are wrong it's impossible to restart the game in a similar situation; they'd be much better off waiting for the TV official to say its offside than potentially wrongly denying a striker a run on goal. Similarly, a referee would never give a penalty, as he'd be worried about a potential counterattack if he's wrong. The only place it could possibly end is with the referee simply being the mouthpiece for the TV official who is actually reffing the game, and that would be terrible.

 

[Easy 10]

Eh? I'm talking about the Mexico Argies game, something that would not have been cleared up by goalline technology, and it was f**king EMBARRASSING as a football to be watching it with non-football fans and having to explain why the way football is officiated is broken, as proved by that goal being allowed to stand.

Like I said, maybe I'm not being very helpful as I honestly don't know exactly how I'd implement the technology, however football is going to get left further and further behind other sports in this respect and therefore will continue to look more and more embarrassing and amatuerish unless we figure out a way to make games fairer.

Sorry, I assumed you were talking about the Lampard incident.

There IS no technology that would help with offside because there are so many interpretations of it. On the whole I think the linesmen have done extremely well wioth the offside calls in this World Cup. We have to accept sometimes they'll get it wrong (and BADLY wrong in the case of the Tevez goal), but they also managed to make it worse by replaying it on bloody great screens.

There has to be an acceptance of an element of human error in football. Its not perfect, it never will be, and trying to bring in TV to make the decisions is not going to be the "magical solution" so many people seem to believe. It will just bring new problems, and create more problems than it resolves.