Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[Mellotron]

I reckon, if we're NOT going to implement technology in any form, GET RID of the screens.

 

[simmo]

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.

I do agree, it was embarrassing it was actually worse than the England one because the on field officials knew from the replays that they saw that the goal should not have stood before Mexico kicked off again, yet were almost powerless to overturn their own incorrect decision to give a goal. This and the Lampard no goal on the same day in front of the whole world really doesn't do football in general any favours. To the non comitted football (and even the commited) fan it is a joke, they can see with their own eyes it is wrong.

 

[Harold]

I think the answer is to concentrate on becoming significantly better than the opposition, then we can let them worry about stuff like this.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

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.

Yes, I did read it and you seem to be claiming that 10 seconds will be fine, whereas it clearly wouldn't be. I am actually all in favour of technology for some things, but it has to be practical.

 

[simmo]

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.

All the officials on the pitch officiate in exactly the same way as they do now but also you have 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.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I do agree, it was embarrassing it was actually worse than the England one because the on field officials knew from the replays that they saw that the goal should not have stood before Mexico kicked off again, yet were almost powerless to overturn their own incorrect decision to give a goal. This and the Lampard no goal on the same day in front of the whole world really doesn't do football in general any favours. To the non comitted football (and even the commited) fan it is a joke, they can see with their own eyes it is wrong.

I agree that in the richest sporting event in the world to have one incident like that would be embarrassing, two on the same day, just hghlights the flaws in the system. We can disagree that the Argie one was worse, because Lampards was factual, offside is subjective. Whilst that offside may have been blindingly obvious, most are not. The fact that some muppet showed it on the big screen is something else entirely.

 

[beorhthelm]

having read on a further 3 pages, imparticular the Easy v Simmo discussion, its very very clear why Fifa want to close the issue with a simple "no technology" ruling.

 

[simmo]

Yes, I did read it and you seem to be claiming that 10 seconds will be fine, whereas it clearly wouldn't be. I am actually all in favour of technology for some things, but it has to be practical.

Ok I used the figure ten seconds.... maybe I should be more specific, as quick as the TV replay can get on the screen! I don't know I am not a TV editor you would have to ask them how long it takes, but I am sure they could get it on within 1 second if needs must.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

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.
.

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".



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.

ys.

I'm hearing you but I dont think it is too difficult to set the parameters for the monitor official. Fouls are to the ref's disgression only but all straight red card decisions are checked over. whereas penalties awarded are all double checked by the monitor ref and this could be done in the normal passage of time without any hold up. Blatant offsides can be flagged and ANY grey area is left with the original decision of the man in the middle.
Any appeal by anyone would be entirely ignored.
I really think this is workable and would affect the game in such a minimal way as one wouldn't notice.

 

[Notters]

OKOK, we've had the arguments both ways but SURELY the answer is to try it in a few matches in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy and see what happens?

 

[pasty]

The only use of technology should be for goal line decisions to determine whether or not a goal has been scored. All other decisions in football, offside, fouling, handball are subjective whereas if a ball crossed a line or not is 100% FACT (to use an NSC-ism).

99% of the time when there is a dispute about if the ball crossed the line or not, the game has stopped anyway (okay, except Lampards) so a quick review by the 4th official and it's done and dusted. Even in the Lampard scenario, because it was so close, the ref should be able to blow his whistle and halt play whilst it is checked. I do think however, as Mellotron said above, the big screens should be removed, or at least the contentious decisions not shown. I'm sure some players will dispute even the 4th officials verdict after a review on the tv screen. If they can't see it, they can't argue.

Get technology in as soon as possible, but for goal line decisions only.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

The only use of technology should be for goaline decisions to determine whether or not a goal has been scored. All other decisions in football, offside, fouling, handball are subjective whereas if a ball crossed a live or not is 100% FACT (to use an NSC-ism).

99% of the time when there is a dispute about if the ball crossed the line or not, the game has stopped anyway (okay, except Lampards) so a quick review by the 4th official and it's done and dusted. I do think however, as Mellotron said above, the big screens should be removed, or at least the contentious decision not shown. I'm sure some players will dispute even the 4th officials verdict after a review on the tv screen. If they can't see it, they can't argue.

Get technology in as soon as possible, but for goal line decisions only.

Just to throw a spanner in - what about the Reading game where the ball clearly missed the goal completely by 5 yeards and a goal was given ?

 

[pasty]

Just to throw a spanner in - what about the Reading game where the ball clearly missed the goal completely by 5 yeards and a goal was given ?

You keep your spanners to yourself. I don't bloody know do I

 

[Easy 10]

I'm hearing you but I dont think it is too difficult to set the parameters for the monitor official. Fouls are to the ref's disgression only but all straight red card decisions are checked over. whereas penalties awarded are all double checked by the monitor ref and this could be done in the normal passage of time without any hold up. Blatant offsides can be flagged and ANY grey area is left with the original decision of the man in the middle.
Any appeal by anyone would be entirely ignored.
I really think this is workable and would affect the game in such a minimal way as one wouldn't notice.

So you're effectively taking any major decisions out of the referees hands - he will instead be relying on a call from the tellyref. Why give a penalty when the tellyref might then whisper "err...hang on a minute...", and then make him look silly by having to un-award it (what then ? a drop ball ?). More likely the ref will either just let an incident go, or ask for a call on it whilst on-the-hoof, and christ knows what else may have happened by then in that passage of play !

Or with a sending off - are we really saying the ref has to stand there consulting the tellyref for clearance before brandishing a red card ? All that says is that the ref isn't sure about the decision on whether it was a foul worthy of a red - and if he isn't sure, then his authority on that pitch is COMPLETELY undermined. "Its not me, its the guy in the box"

Don't you see - all this stuff sounds FINE in theory, until you start trying to apply it in a match situation. It will just cause so much more aggro than it solves.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Getting back on topic about Blatter, what we needed was not an apology but a resignation.

Blatter himself has been instrumental in the prevention of goal-line technology and, hence, is culpable for the Lampard shot fall-out.

What makes me angry is that there was a massive incident 4 years ago in the World Cup Final itself that brought the use of technology into the fore, namley Zidane's headbutt on Materazzi and the 4th official's role in the sending-off. All of this could have been prevented.

And, on the basis of the Zidane decision, I honestly believe that if the Lampard incident had happened in a World Cup Final the goal would have been disallowed.

The FA will be considering sacking Cappello, which could cost them - ultimately the English people - £10million plus, and it is (just) conceivable had the goal been given England might have won the game.

I really don't understand FIFA's preoccupation with human decision-making and the same officiating regardless of the level of football being played. The key thing is avoiding clearly incorrect decisions and increasing the level and consistency of good officiating.

 

[simmo]

Just to throw a spanner in - what about the Reading game where the ball clearly missed the goal completely by 5 yeards and a goal was given ?

If you use this criteria

All the officials on the pitch officiate in exactly the same way as they do now but also you have 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.

The TV official (via the mikes that they all wear) can draw the attention to the onfield ref that he made an incorrect decision in allowing a goal, and that the correct decision is a goal kick.

 

[Jello]

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

Snort it.

I'd agree to a degree but use video replays for any goal to make sure ball was over line, not offside etc. That way it's only called upon occasionally rather than every offside.
Though I do kind of like the quirkiness of refs getting it wrong.

 

[Easy 10]

If you use this criteria

All the officials on the pitch officiate in exactly the same way as they do now but also you have 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.

The TV official (via the mikes that they all wear) can draw the attention to the onfield ref that he made an incorrect decision in allowing a goal, and that the correct decision is a goal kick.

Again, fine in principal. But you've GOT to differentiate between an interpretation (a foul, a penalty, an offside, a red card), and a line call (did the ball cross the line or not).

A TV Official should never get involved in interpretations. His opinion of the incident might be different from the refs, but it doesn't necessarily make it automatically correct.

Line calls should be sorted out once and for all by the introduction of goalline technology.

Thats it.

 

[Mendoza]

OKOK, we've had the arguments both ways but SURELY the answer is to try it in a few matches in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy and see what happens?

who pays for the equipment to be installed though? I cant see Northampton being able to afford it

 

[Easy 10]

who pays for the equipment to be installed though? I cant see Northampton being able to afford it

Sponsorship ?

"This goal was disallowed for you courtesy of Tesco. Every little helps...."