Sepp Blatter Appologises To England and Mexico

Oh would they??? That's a fact? Prove it?

If that goal had counted, it would have been 2 - 2 at half time. So how do you know that Germany would have scored more than England in the second half? Surely, it would be more realistic to say that seeing as they each scored 2 in the first half, a similar result would be expected in the 2nd half? But no... Its somehow a FACT that Germany would still have ripped the England team to shreds. And lets not forget, England had more possession, and were quite easily ripping the defence apart for the 10 minutes or so before half time. I'm not saying England would have won, but to say its a certainty the Germans would still have got through is a fact is stupidity.



Yes, it very easily can... Would you play as defensively if you were a goal behind with 30 minutes left as if you were even? No

And then, there's also the fact that 1 team has a goal they shouldn't (or doesn't have a goal they should)



On the other hand, England might have fared better.... Best to eliminate the uncertainty, no?

Cant prove it...impossible...yes if they had gone in 2-2 then maybe just maybe they could have won it but my money was on the Germans to come out and score more goals than england could do...which they did easily in the 2nd half.

I dont know what game you were watching in all honesty but from what i saw England barring the last 10 mins of the first half...the Germans were in control...hell even Klose in the the papers yesterday was saying he couldnt believe that they were playing England because they were so dire...geez England were only down one goal at halftime but yet in the 2nd half still let the Germans blast 2 more goals in...so whatever was said in the halftime talk obviously didnt work because England came out and played even more badly than the 1st half...i dont know about anyone else but i would have been seething at the goal that wasnt allowed...spur my players on to go and take the game by the horns as your quite right...the last 10 mins of the first half the Germans looked very shaky in defence but to me it looked like England let that affect them when really they should have used that to gain some revenge.
 
I love how people keep saying "we had more possession" as if that made the slightest bit of difference, Germany actually attacked with their possession, most of ours was sideways and backwards passes.
 
I agree it was no way a Guaranteed FACT that Germany would have won with or without the goal. Yes odds were in Germany's favour but it was far from guaranteed. It would have been 2-2 with us having more possession. Going into the half with the upper hand heads up high with the Germans a little worried. . I think its just because its england. If it was any other team going into the 2nd half after just coming back 2-0 to 2-2 people would be saying that the comeback team would have the momentum.

Its got FA all to do with it just being England lol....this is what makes me laugh about english fans tbh...look at the confederations cup that was played last yr in Africa...in the final USA were up 2-0 on Brazil at halftime...the Americans were more or less cruising to that win....but nope in the 2nd half Brazil came out and spanked 3 goals past them...that is what England should have done if they were playing well but they werent.
 
Its got FA all to do with it just being England lol....this is what makes me laugh about english fans tbh...look at the confederations cup that was played last yr in Africa...in the final USA were up 2-0 on Brazil at halftime...the Americans were more or less cruising to that win....but nope in the 2nd half Brazil came out and spanked 3 goals past them...that is what England should have done if they were playing well but they werent.

This is true. I'm just saying there is noway to say it is guaranteed or certain that we would have lost and anyone who does say that is just talking ****.

I like to think of it like a sort of butterfly effect. So many things would have changed if we were at 2-2. The style of play , the attitudes of the players would have been up instead of down for being screwed. Formations from either side could have changed. Heck a German player might of lost his head and got a red or they might of turned it up a notch and beat us by a even bigger margin. There are hundreds of small or big things which could have happened differently. But we will never know due to a referee error.
 
Last edited:
W

Seriously, how many decisions do you get a season in a league like the one you had V England? Does it warrant the millions upon millions to introduce it at every level. You get a few every weekend I'd imagine, IF that, nobody really cares about the lower leagues.

It's part and parcel of football, you get decisions for and against you.

I don't like money in football, I dislike technology for one and not for all more.

How many goals are scored from offsides, incorrect red cards, or punches/elbows missed that should result in a red card, well, it happens every week, sometimes these decisions even out often they don't.

But millions and millions? Are you for real, EVERY single premiership match is covered by tv crews producing instant replays throughout, all the people involved are trained with the equipment and every stadium has places setup for these people to work. So essentially it would cost incredibly little as half the people involved are already in place every single game anyway.

Every lower league match is already recorded and every now and then these league 2 games are on tv where they manage to show live replays.

Unlike refs, these guys don't have to be unbiased, or really care much about anything. Theres already an extra couple of officials at every game. The only "regulation" required is the 5th substitute official/backup guy sits in the room with the guys splicing the replays together without leaving any out.

Its pretty simple most games will have 6 camera's at least, make that a minimum in terms of angles being shown in replays. There would be potential for a liverpool fan to be working behind the scenes on putting replays together and leaving out one that shows the contact while the others don't.

Thats the easy part of it, it would also cost incredibly little to implement.

I mean you could hire a group of 10 guys to do this new at every single game in the land, or you could use the existing ones and then, for instance, make sure the managers/team get a copy of the footage and especially a copy of all replays ref's use to make a decision and if they want to make a complaint from there they can.

Its video replays, not rocket science, it doesn't take a 60k a year linesman to train every day after their normal job to do it, the decisions will still be in the hands of those already trained for the job.

Essentially its a case of putting up the replays on a small screen in the tunnel, the ref runs over takes no more than 30 seconds to view the angles, he overturns the decision or play goes on, thats it, a little tv, in the tunnel, where theres probably already a tv.............. its hardly Star Trek levels of cost and technology.

Infact, considering we would need a moderate amount of people to work all the games, would that be generating jobs, paid for out of profit and not public sector spending, IE Rooney doesn't get a raise to 150k a week, its 149k a week and 1k a week extra goes to a payment to the FA to help create a bunch more jobs and make the game fair.

I for one would love to see players not yanking shirts in the box, not bear hug a CB like Lucio had done to him, essentially a wrestling/judo move and get away with it. I want to see football, not fouling and diving, which judging by this world cup is at its worst ever with the most inconsistant refering we've seen at a tournament yet.

SPain, Brazil, not massive cheats in the past have been rather embarassing, video replay 99% of cheating wiped out in 3 weeks.

Also remember, after a very short settling in period, people WILL foul less, they WILL cheat less. Here's another thing, ref's and linesmen will GET BETTER when they can instantly see a replay and know if they are right or wrong. They'll get better and make the right call more often anyway, aswell as have less calls to make due to less cheating, and because they are under less pressure they'll make less mistakes aswell because theres a safety net.

I've said this many times, we'd have 3-4 weeks of the funniest month of football in the history of football, we'll have red cards broadly applied to ALL teams that play, they'll all get caught cheating, they'll quickly learn they can't get away with anything anymore. We'll probably get a single 150minute game sometime, and then we'll get more fluid football than we have now, with less fouling, and less kicking the crap out of the other team to injure/keep them out the game and stop their fluid movement. Teams will be forced to play football, improve the football, not cheat and so we'll have less stoppages long term.

I mean if Vidic gets sent off for his first elbow of the season, or Terry gets a red for his first shirt pull in the area, do you really think they'll do it next week? Short term it will be fantastic entertainment, after a few weeks, we'll be back to football and no cheating.
 
Last edited:
The attitude displayed here is exactly that which holds the England team back from developing.

Just because the overall result would not have been affected is no reason not to criticise and fix massive glaring errors that occurred along the way. Whether England would have won or lost, penalties or 90 minutes, whatever - a huge, blatant and stupid mistake was made, one that makes football look retarded on the biggest world stage and we have the ability to fix it in numerous ways. It needs to be done.

Just as with England's qualifying games - ignoring the glaring issues because the results meant they 'didn't matter'... it just ends in tears when it reaches the point one day where it does matter.
 
Tummy, what the hell are you talking about? Technology would ruin the game? Are you having a laugh?

Technology would only offer benfit to the top clubs, the ones you watch and Sky promote, the Premier league. Who's going to pay for technology for the league 2 sides?

Whats going to happen when Chelsea go down to a league 2 side in the F.A. Cup and there are no replays because the F.A. / Sky won't pay for them to have it?

You do know that this "technology" is just video cameras right? The same cameras that are prevelant at most if not all domestic league games? What have Sky got to do with anything? They're already displaying the feed on the big screen. The only change that needs to happen is a fourth official needs to be put in a room with a TV screen that every other Tom, Dick and Harry can see.

Football is a fast, flowing game, why stop it to "replay" mistakes? They've always happened and football has done quite well without it so far in its history.

Right, ok. Not sure if you saw the massive delay caused by the Argentina goal. What's worse - a 10-second delay (that's no longer than the time it takes for the goalie to get the ball back or for everyone to get back to the middle anyway) or a two-minute argument involving 22 players and 2 referees over something that the other millions of spectators already know?

Who's going to pay the extra official to sit in front of a television? Should we just have Andy Gray do it?

Ah yes, because there's not much money going round in football, and people DO need to be paid a lot to sit in a room in front of a TV. What WERE we thinking?

Debate would be killed, Football fans love to talk about the offside decision that shouldn't of been given.

True - in a "that decision was absolutely dreadful and brings disrepute to the entire match and game". I'm sure football fans would find something else to talk about, just like they do for every other game that a mistake isn't made.

Are FIFA going to pay for technology in all the leagues?

No. The ruling is FIFA, the decision to implement an already existing, cheap and easy technology lies with the individual leagues and clubs. And let's face it, the cost is minor. The money in cricket for example is just a fraction of that in football, and yet they use technology far beyond what we're talking about here.

Football isn't as slow or stop start as other sports that have technology.

No, but the decision speed is relative too. The time it takes to check an offside decision is far less than that of say, Hawk Eye. And if an offside decision has to be checked anyway then the game will already have been stopped.

It would create a have V have not in regards to tech. Rich clubs have money, skint clubs don't but on the pitch they can't change decisions.

So? What's your point? Just because the local college team can't have "OMG SUPER ALREADY-EXISTING CAMCORDER TECHNOLOGY" doesn't mean that nobody else can either. It's not like the rich clubs are playing the poor clubs and so they get allowed more goals, is it?
 
Irrespective of what goal line technology would have done for England the other day, how about looking at it from the point of view if corruption and fixing of games. If important decisions have an instant video review system then either incompetent, or corrupt referees just couldn't do it.

Ask Leeds and Notts Forest fans about referees fixing euro matches in the 70's...
 
I like to think of it like a sort of butterfly effect. So many things would have changed if we were at 2-2. The style of play , the attitudes of the players would have been up instead of down for being screwed. Formations from either side could have changed. Heck a German player might of lost his head and got a red or they might of turned it up a notch and beat us by a even bigger margin. There are hundreds of small or big things which could have happened differently. But we will never know due to a referee error.

The fans might have blown their vuvuzelas that bit louder and distracted the ref while Rooney stamped on Ozil's foot really hard so he couldn't play properly for the rest of the game.
 
Becuase we were gash?

People really don't seem to grasp the concept of the counter-attack. Being 2-1 we made it so much easier for Germany to score, that's how it works when you need a goal. Germany's third goal came directly from the fact we had to force 9 men forward searching for a goal. The decision changed the whole shape of the game - credit to Germany for playing well, but it wasn't a "fair" result.

We probably would still have lost, but we will never know.
 
That argument is acceptable ONLY if England were really equal opponents during that match. We weren't.

I can understand it, quite a lot of the time in football it can be applied and extrapolated, but that game really had no evidence to suggest it could be. Not only that game, but look at England's group performance as well. The team hadn't been playing particularly well or effective all tournament.
 
Last edited:
Point out, why it wouldn't "ruin" football.

what you mean like its ruined rugby, tennis, F1, cricket etc..

The ability to retrospectively examine video evidence is crucial to making sure decisions are made correctly.

The excuse for it apparently ruining football is that it would slow it down. But what people fail to take account of is how long is wasted by players harassing the referee when a bad decision is made.

All the referee would have to do is indicate it was going to video replay panel and the players would leave him alone. They would have no reason to pester him as they would know that the video doesnt lie and the ref on the pitch isnt the one making the decision.

Combine that with a limit of 2 challenges per half or something, and you've wasted a max of 4/5 minutes per half of time waiting around.

Its utterly stupid that referees can still be arguing with the players about the decision when the big screen behind them is showing a replay that it was clearly off side.

Thats when you know video replay technology is needed.
 
All the referee would have to do is indicate it was going to video replay panel and the players would leave him alone. They would have no reason to pester him as they would know that the video doesnt lie and the ref on the pitch isnt the one making the decision.

Combine that with a limit of 2 challenges per half or something, and you've wasted a max of 4/5 minutes per half of time waiting around.


Thats when you know video replay technology is needed.

Football is a different sport, just because technology works in other sports doesn't mean anything :) null and void imo.

Whats all this two challenges per half?

People are harping on about having the right decisions made but then unsure how they want it used? You can only change two decisions per game? what? utter nonsense.

You either have a video ref look at every decision, the throw ins, the fouls, the goalkick or corner debate or you have it for nothing.

Two challeneges? Those two challenges won't stop bad decisons?

You'd need it at every level of football imo as well.

The F.A. are skint, they've just spent 800 Million on a ground and FIFA aren't going to pay for it.
 
I'd advocate technology for goal decisions. Ref could call the 4th assistant to review it on his screen - if there is doubt the ref's decision stands, if there isn't the 4th official can override the call, like in Rugby. Would take 2 minutes tops per dubious goal (which happens maybe once every 50 games).

The extra cost is minimal, the 4th officials already have access to the screens, and the time taken away is nothing compared to the anger you feel at being given a dud decision.

Technology for penalties/dives etc wouldn't work, although I could see challenging a goal for onside/offside.
 
Whats all this two challenges per half?

People are harping on about having the right decisions made but then unsure how they want it used? You can only change two decisions per game? what? utter nonsense.

You either have a video ref look at every decision, the throw ins, the fouls, the goalkick or corner debate or you have it for nothing.

Two challeneges? Those two challenges won't stop bad decisons?

You're not trying to stop bad decisions with this - you stop bad decisions by weeding out bad referees. You want this technology to stop mistakes being made on difficult calls - there is a difference.

I don't see why you're up in arms about people suggesting it only be used on a certain number of calls. That's how it works in tennis, and it's fine. To be honest, you're making a bit of a straw man here - you don't like the idea of a moderate system, so you're constructing the idea of a ludicrously unworkable system because that's easier to argue against.

Besides, how many truly awful decisions are there per match? England v Germany had Lampard's goal. Argentina v Mexico had Tevez being offside. Spain v Portugal had Capdevila's apparent diving. Looks like 1 each. 2 challenges per half should be more than enough.

Tummy said:
You'd need it at every level of football imo as well.

Why? That's another straw man. I doubt Hawk-Eye gets used at every level of professional tennis.

Tummy said:
The F.A. are skint, they've just spent 800 Million on a ground and FIFA aren't going to pay for it.

The cost of implementing goal line tech would apparently be 300k per ground. I have no idea how workable that is, so I'll leave it to someone else to comment on that.
 
It's not only two (or three, or whatever) appeals per game. If your complaint is vindicated, you get your appeal back. That's how it works in tennis and cricket, at the least. Do you not watch any other sports Tummy?

also, the guy behind Hawk-Eye was saying it could be free to implement if they were allowed to utilise sponsorship. Which, given how much of a massive advertising whore football is, I doubt would be a problem.

So could you just tell us why you don't like the idea of decisions being fairer, instead of shooting down your own neatly-constructed opposing points?
 
Some people on here probably think that there should be no substitutes, no floodlights and heavy leather "caseys" for a ball. Football has introduced changes in the past and there should continue to be changes if they help the game in the future. Goal line technology would not even bring an interuption of play as the game would only stop if the ball went over the line and in those circumstances the game stops anyway.
 
So could you just tell us why you don't like the idea of decisions being fairer, instead of shooting down your own neatly-constructed opposing points?

I don't think Football needs technology, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I think if anything, first we should raise the standard of refereeing.

The argument that it works in other sports is silly, Its another sport.

I don't think for the sake of a handful of decisions per season or competition that technology would be worth it. I mean the debate about it only comes up when Sky/BBC/ITV decide that a decision was wrong and that technology would fix this.

I think it would create a two tier level of Football, which is a bad thing.

I agree there is the money there, but it's only there to benefit the big clubs, or which ever game Sky decide is the most important.
 
Back
Top Bottom