By Pirate Irwin
November 23rd 2009 @ 6:14am
Related coverage
Scandal and tragedy leave football scarred
It is just as well football is the most popular and perhaps most lucrative sport in the world because the publicity it has had in the past fortnight could have killed lesser ones off.
The suicide of German national goalkeeper Robert Enke did not help the macho image of the game given that he had sought to hide his battle with depression fearful that it would harm his image in the sport.
Then there came the “hand of frog” – Thierry Henry’s blatant handball which effectively put France into the World Cup finals at the expense of the Republic of Ireland in Wednesday’s play-off.
As if that was not bad enough allegations surfaced on Friday of widespread matchfixing from Germany to Bosnia-Hercegovina filtering down to even regional matches and Under-19 level.
Enke’s suicide after years of battling depression was at least treated with great dignity — not least by his widow Teresa whose behaviour makes her definitely worthy of role model status — and decorum with a tribute at his club Hanover’s stadium.
However, if any good can come out of such a tragedy it was highlighted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel who said that his death should serve as a means of making German society a more transparent and caring one.
“We must send a clear signal,” Merkel told German weekly newspaper Die Zeit.
“We can help to change the social climate so that taboos like depression, and also issues like homosexuality, are no longer impossible to discuss.
“If someone is affected by either issue, they should be able to talk about it in peace.”
Whether Henry, one of the formerly more respected players in a sport not exactly awash with role models, can rebuild his reputation is a moot point.
Even the Barcelona forward’s calls for the match with the Irish to be replayed fell on deaf ears as FIFA had already ruled that possibility out before he issued his statement.
Henry is caught in the eye of the storm after his handball gave William Gallas the chance to score the goal which took the 1998 champions through, leaving the Irish distraught and the former Arsenal striker sheepish as he admitted his misdemeanour.
“Of course the fairest solution would be to replay the game but it is not in my control,” the France captain said.
“Naturally I feel embarrassed at the way that we won and feel extremely sorry for the Irish who definitely deserve to be in South Africa.”
“The ball bounced and it hit my hand,” added Henry, though he insisted: “I am not a cheat.”
The circumstances, while not as blatant as Diego Maradona’s slam dunk past England keeper Peter Shilton in the 1986 finals, may now sadly prove the abiding memory of a player who has worn French blue for 12 years, won the Champions League with Barca and lit up the English Premiership with Arsenal.
Certainly that is the opinion of the Eric Cantona, who suffered his own World Cup heartbreak in the final qualifier for the 1994 edition when Bulgaria scored in the final minute.
“What shocked me most was that at the end of the match, in front of the television cameras, this player (Henry) went and sat down next to an Irish player to console him, even though he’d screwed them three minutes earlier,” Cantona said.
“If I’d been Irish, he wouldn’t have lasted three seconds.”
So if there is any good to come out of this dark episode then calls for video replays to be introduced — like they are used in tennis and rugby union — have reached a cacophony which is so loud that even UEFA supremo Michel Platini’s implacable opposition to such a measure might wilt.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
© 2008 AFP
(53)
mahony said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Globalisation is driving the growth of football – even in Australia. We won’t avoid it any more than we can avoid any other manifestation of globalisation. Reports of the death of football in Australia are exagerated. For every person anoyed by the handball incident, there are people fascinated by the global nature of the Cup, its qualification and the geopolitics at play. The only thing to come out of the habdball incident was hours of broadcast news coverage and metres of ink for the beutifull game in this country.
Pippinu said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Australians have shown a great propensity to stick to democratic principles and the rule of law, when most of the world has failed to do the same – so clearly some world trends fail penetrate Australian sensibilities.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
The sport will never do well in Australia because your league will never be good.
However, it is meant to be intriguing. It is meant to be controversial.
Does anyone remember the try scored by Mal Meninga against GB in about 1990 ? It’s been taken off Youtube, I think.
Anyway, I as an Englishman have nothing against the try. Mal Meninga pushes someone out of the way but I do NOT want video technology. Let the try stand. It was a great try from a great player.
The pro-technology geeks want to suck the life out of football. It is slick and exciting. Leave it as it is.
We are all in the gutter. Some of us are looking at the stars.
Michael C said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
I thought this article effectively ignored the ‘match fixing’ scandal that it mentions in the introduction but doesn’t return to. That could proove the far, far greater story than Enke or Henry.
Gweeds said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Some countries have created scandals in cricket, but it doesn’t appeared to have diminished the popularity of the sport in Australia.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
The idea that scandals will destroy a sport is a joke.
In cycling, everyone says that ” Drugs are killing the sport”.
Really ?
Look at the facts. Cycling is prospering, with or without the drugs.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
I think the article makes little sense. Why introduce video replays into football ? The game is fine without them.
In Rugby Union, they have video use BUT…
In 2007, The All Blacks lost in Cardiff to France because Wayne Barnes made refereeing mistakes. Human error cost the All Blacks their place in the SF. Did the video stuff stop the French from throwing a blatant forward pass to win the match ?
No, thought not.
Not for the first time, FIFA are right: keep silly video replays out of football.
Dan said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Video replays have a place in soccer, even if limited and used retrospectively. You could, for instance, institute a system where by each match was carefully watched again by 2 separate high level referees. Any player caught diving clearly enough for both referees to agree could then be given a 5 match ban and loss of salary for that period.
Video technology does still produce errors due to lack of clarity and human interpretation, but these errors are still statistically VASTLY less frequent than the errors produced by a single on-field official as happens in soccer. Soccer matches often end with very low scores, so a limited video review of goals the referee is unsure of would definitely reduce the horrendous number of mistakes the officials currently make. You may not like it, but it is definitely possible to introduce a form of video inspection that would have an altogether negligible effect on the game’s flow.
The reality is that video technology is avoided not because of fears of “flow”, but that FIFA is simply too large to implement any real change. The body has more members than the United nations (given that it includes bodies that are not actually international states) and suffers from the same executive impotence as that body due to the incredible multitude of voices it must contend with. This is certainly one thing sports of more localised and limited appeal, like Australia Rules Football, Rugby League or American Football, are lucky not to have to contend with.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
You think that RL is lucky that it’s really unpopular ???
Strange kind of luck, that.
It’s a nice idea that people should attack football for being popular but, of course, it’s more about envy than real criticism.
On the BBC World Service last week, an American said that video technology had turned the NFL into the No Fun League.
Keep watching the RL if you want, young man, but don’t pretend that football is hamstrung by its popularity. Popularity is a good thing, n’est-ce pas ??????
Dan said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Mr Cheese,
“It’s a nice idea that people should attack football for being popular but, of course, it’s more about envy than real criticism.”
That wasn’t an attack, it was an observation of the reality that any sufficiently large multi-member organisation is faced with. Go and review the difficulty with which any mildly contentious United Nations Resolution faces and come back and tell in what way my statement was “an attack”.
“On the BBC World Service last week, an American said that video technology had turned the NFL into the No Fun League.”
Anecdotal rubbish. Watch ESPN sports news and you’ll find NFL commentators explaining how silly it is that France were able to get away with a hand-ball and how something like that would never happen in their “more sophisticated form of football”. Both are opinions, but that doesn’t means stating them makes either right.
What I find interesting Cheeso, is that on all occasions you’ve replied to me here (I’ve been moving up the page) you’ve failed to grasp the central tenet of what I’m saying: that soccer could utilise video review systems in a limited and controlled manner that would reduce the referee’s error rate. Instead you’ve attempted to divert the argument with nonsense like ‘football is the biggest… therefore it’s the best and its perfect!!!’.
I’m honestly beginning to wonder how old you are…
AndyRoo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
It’s going to be close thing wether Roar Readers care more about France beating Ireland in Football or their own rugby team losing to Scotland …. the Wallabies were similarly duded with Elsons try not being given. So far Henry has got more stories but the Rugby more comments.
Sadly for the A league only Rob has complained about the Roar getting duded on Saturday night…. something that got me more upset.
True Tah said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
AndyRoo
its pretty hard to compare the two. Im not a European, so Im not too worried about whether France or Ireland went through to be honest, I guess given Australia beat Ireland recently at Thomond Park, I knew we could beat them if we met them.
I dont believe the video ref should be introduced to futbol, Im not exactly a huge fan of it in rugby either. And I dont think futbol will be scarred by Thierry’s actions either. To an extent, quite a few sports are about who can push the rules to their limits the best. In this sense, Thierry is not much differant to Richie McCaw or Heinrich Brussow.
And Im not going to blame the referee at all for Australia losing to the Scots due to Elsom’s try not being given, the fact is we just didnt show enough ticker. The Scots played for each other and it was their defence which won them the game. Scottish rugby is in the doldrums (the same could be said of Australian rugby) and you would normally pick the Wallabies to put 40 points on them, alas it was not to be. Doesnt mean Im not pissed off, because I am, but I cant blame the referee.
AndyRoo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
If only the Irish were as well balanced as you True Tah, a bunch of trees would have been saved
pothale said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
No one in Ireland is blaming the ref either.
There were plenty of posts devoted to Palu’s sending off by Australians where they felt an injustice had been done, and calls for use of video replay to determine what occured in his tackle on Kearney. And on Kearney’s tackle on Elsom’s try. There were calls that Palu should have stayed on and Jearney binned and if that had transpired Australia could have won the game.
the issue is a wider one beyond whether Ireland got a wrong rub of the green. Henry cheated. The ref was unsighted. The penalty call for Anelka was called by the ref because he saw it – he waved play on. Anelka milked it and looked for the penalty.
Bottom line. Ireland lost. A replay isn’t going to happen. And cheating will continue to happen.
End of story.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
True Tah,
you are a man / woman after my own heart. I thought I was the only one who believed the traditionalist stuff.
On BBC Radio 5 Live yesterday, the opinionated Alan Green said that everybody with a brain agreed that we need video technology. FIFA are neanderthals, he said.
You and I have no brain, apparently.
True Tah said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Mr Cheese, I dont know who the hell Alan Green is, but the fact is we need referees in futbol/rugby, and the fact is they are human and will make mistakes, and not every mistake will be picked up. Some referees will be biased against certain teams (i.e. the Wallabies really struggle to win under that prick Kaplan) but that should encourage a team even more.
When a team loses a close game, there are tendancies to blame referees, when I think the focus should be on the losing team, two good examples being NZ in 2007 RWC and Ireland last week.
The other perspective is that FIFA were never going to allow a replay or anything, for the simple fact is that France brings a lot more as a World Cup participant than Ireland does, as it is a far larger market for $$$.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
I felt sorry for the All Blacks against France in the 2007 world cup.
Wayne Barnes did make a fair few mistakes, and without them they’d have gone through.
However, the Damien Traille forward pass in that match was NOT sent to the video ref.
In the final, the Mark Cueto try WAS sent to the video ref.
They’re both illegal, but one is apparently more illegal than the other.
Am I the only one who is confused ??????????????
Lazza said | November 23rd 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
How refreshing to read such informed and ‘balanced’ comments. As you know Rugby has had a few ‘cheating’ scandals with “Bloodgate” and all that.
We should judge the incidents and individuals concerned and not use it as an excuse to judge a whole sport and take cheap shots at it. Unfortunately that’s what will happen here with a lot of fearful and insecure fans from other sports but it’s not as bad as it would of been a few years ago.
keeper11 said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
the call for video refs is ofcourse just another p*ss poor effort by the usual cluelless mob in strayan media to bag football and ‘prove’ how st*pid/ different/ backward / corrupt/ more violent/ boring ..etc etc ( just tick the box of the week ) this foreign game is compared to ‘our’ you beaut good as gol homegrown ‘great’ games..
The sum total of the AFL /NRL universe barely extends beyond is friday night footy in same major australian city…
same last year…and next year..
Technonlogy /infrastructure etc are taken for granted in all those…umm 6 or modern cities ?
if ever these two sports ventured beyond their little back yard ..then the challenge of applying identiacl rules and technology in some 200 countries across the globe might actually cross their provincial minds….
AndyRoo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Keeper11…that would have been my first reaction a while ago but I think because of the Socceroos people know what really happens at football matches now. You can’t scare people from attending A league matches now with footage of a South American riot.
Diving is probably something that hurts football image in Australia because the casual fan saw the game against Italy and was gutted. But the A league doesn’t see that much of it and there is a punishment mechanism in place if the public ever felt really duded.
Perhaps also supporting Rugby league has battle hardened me against negative media stories but I no longer cringe when I see such stories.
More football on TV and showing how important it is to other countries is a good thing, it a reminder the World Cup is on soon . The fact a few people who didn’t like Football before the incident say “this is why I don’t like it” means sweet f all.
Dan said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
Take your “I’m a persecuted soccer fan” hat off for a moment and have a look at the situation rationally. I won’t go into it here, as there have already been a vast number of suggestions as to how a video system could be introduced in a limited or retrospective way so as to avoid affect the flow, but for video technology to be used does not necessitate that every single country in the world have access to it. No, it would only be for the major tournaments where the money to implement it is ample. The fact that university rugby sides in Japan won’t have access to a video ref to check their tries does not mean that it suddenly has no place in the World Cup or Super 14.
Pippinu said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
I would have thought the calls for video technology are coming as much from overseas as they are from Australia.
For the record – the AFL doe not use video technology in any way, shape or form – so I’m not sure why the AFL would even be mentioned in this context.
jimbo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Le Cheat Thierry Henry is an absolute disgrace to the team, his country and to the sport.
He is the captain of the team, how could he do that and not say something or do something to correct it.
Then he lies at the press conference saying the ball hit him accidentally and it was up to the referee to make a call.
What a load of bullshyte, his hand moved toward the ball to stop it going for a goal kick.
Absolute scandal – he should be stood down by the French FA and never captain his country again – frog complicity by the whole management team.
Where there is gambling there will be dishonesty – football is the biggest sports betting market and the most to gain from cheating and match fixing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/02/16/1850109.htm
Darwin hammer said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
I’d almost have a minute portion of grudging respect for this w@nker if he reacted similar to Maradona – cop it – say yeah I did it and move on …
but all the rubbish about “I’m not a cheat” – f@#k off yes you are mate …. Cantona’s right – why didn’t the Irish bloke fill him in – everything after the incident seems nothing but floss … FIFA should impose a ban on him for the W/cup on the basis he’s brought the game into disrepute
Dan said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
You can’t be serious. He played to the referee’s whistle the same way every other player does and got lucky. That is all. If there is anyone who should be ashamed it is FIFA themselves for being so utterly inept at organising officials who have eyes.
Pippinu said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Yes – FIFA are bloody hopeless – they are lucky they look after a game that is extremely popular and takes care of itself come what may – but these jokers in FIFA are some of the most inept humans to walk the Earth.
dasilva said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Video ref is a good idea and if used correctly will not impact the flow of the game.
The next time a goal is scored, count how long it takes for the game to restart. This could take up to about two minutes.
There’s plenty of times to check every goal scored for offsides and fouls. If we really worried about decision taking too long, put a 60 second time limit for the video referee to change the decision.
Similarly, video referee can be used to rescind penalty decision, red card as well as crack down on diving.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
If you use a video for goals, why not use it for fouls ????
Why not use it for dives outside the box ?
Why not use it for foul throws ?
Why not use it for off-sides ?
Why not………………………..stop playing the game and just play computers ??
Blessed are the geeks for they shall inherit the earth ? No thanks.
jimbo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Would have taken 5 seconds for the video referee to see the handball and award a free kick for Ireland and a yellow card for Le Cheat . . .
Video review of incidents like diving and feigning injury would take more time but would severely reduce the incidence of them and improve the sport and its reputation – the time could be added to extra time as for any normal stoppages.
AndyRoo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Diving can be punished after the match with suspension like how it is done in the HAL.
A video ref can’t rule on fake injuries, just do what the refs are startign to do now and make them wait a while on the sidelines before they come back, and opponents should just play on.
Video ref decision within a 30 to 45 second time limit after a goal or penalty is awarded would be fine.
dasilva said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
You can used video review to stop diving in game without causing unnecessary stoppages..
Just do it by reviewing any penalty that is given (which is the most important effect of diving).
It takes time for penalty kick to be set up.
Therefore give the video ref a minute to rescind any penalty decision. If there is diving, the diver can get yellow card as well (although I preferentially prefer a red card to this offense).
Mr cheese said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:57am | Report comment
You argument makes no sense.
Video fans argue that it should be used for Black and White matters. A dive is not a black and white matter.
How can boredom raise football’s reputation ???
I watched the RU world cup final 2007 and at least one person I was watching it with doesn’t like Rugby Union.
Was she convinced by the long wait before England’s try was ruled out ????
No.
She thought it was boring. She was right.
Video technology is a waste of time.
Mick of Newie said | November 23rd 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Everyone who advocates the video ref, never goes to the trouble of saying how it would work. Clearly after a goal is scored there is an opportunity to review. But what if a goal is not scored. If the deliberate handball in question prevented a goal and play goes on how would you stop play to review the decision.
Evidence from league and union is that decisions often take many minutes to give. Some handballs are easy whilst some are very difficult because of the intent required. Slow motion replays do not help these decisions.
Evidence from cricket, league and union is that the host broadcaster plays a big role in this. World Cup qualifiers are played in 204 countries. Imagine the shenaigans that would go on getting the right replay if it could go against the host country in extra time of a world cup playoff (as happened last week).
My solution is much simpler. a goal line official, to support the referee, a technological solution to the ball crossing the line, red cards for cheating that creates a goal chance (diving, handballs, shirt pulling) and post match review of incidents involving any form of cheating with suspensions. Ps. I also think there should be review of yellow cards for foul play /cheating that creates or denies a goal that can result in suspension if the ref errs.
Pippinu said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Mick
I’m not an advocate, but I retain an open mind – my view is: good on anyone who wants to improve things.
As for your question – in the scenario you pain in your opening para – it seems clear to me – it wouldn’t matter – you’d play on – it only really matters when it’s about goals.
Why? because only 2.3 goals are scored per match – so each and everyone that is given should be spot on, and each and everyone that is denied should be a 100% correct decision – it’s hard to fathom why anyone would accept less than a 100% correct decision when it comes to goals.
To take this concept further – I’ve always been of the view: why stop the game for offside unless it directly leads to a goal – if it doesn’t – play on!
AndyRoo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
To take this concept further – I’ve always been of the view: why stop the game for offside unless it directly leads to a goal – if it doesn’t – play on!
Cynical players would take advatage. 20 minutes to go send a guy to each corner post and then lob it to them, if you don’t need to score another goal that is avery good time wasting tactic. Without the off side the field feels a lot bigger and those poor strikers trying to pressure the time wasting defence to do something have a much harder job.
I must admit my initial reaction was “that would be awesome and save a lot of time waiting for the goalie to take a poor free kick”
Pippinu said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
Yes – it’s a potential problem – on the other hand – it might be interesing all the same – it means the team defending the lead dedicating two players way up forward – so the delaying technique you allude to carries some risk with it.
AndyRoo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
I am sure this would help negative coaches more than positive ones unfortunately. Otherwise I would be on board, I am a big fan of playing on if someone is injured once you get out of junior football. being able to get up and play on should be a valuable asset.
You don’t normally want your two strikers doing much defensive work (except for Holmino) apart from for comedy value (i love a strikers effort at making a tackle as much as the next bloke).
dasilva said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
I think people need to think about this
Video referee will not remove all referee mistakes.
It will just reduce it
If there is a handball in the box that prevented a goal. You don’t review it and just hope the referee gets it right
If there is a handball that scores, you review it and can rescind any goal.
If there is a penalty that should be given but is not given. Bad luck
If there is a penalty that the referee has given. You can review it whether it was a mistake or not.
So is video referee perfect?
The answer no
However the key is that it will reduce the amount of referee errors in the game not remove it completely.
Mr cheese said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:58am | Report comment
It will introduce a 2 tier system of refereeing.
2 Tiers of refereeing within one match ?!?!?!?!
Sorry………………that is ridiculous.
The status quo is perfect. Leave it alone.
The Guru said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
Anyone calling for the video to be used in Football should get themselves to a NRL game. The amount of time spent reviewing replay after replay is mind numbing. When I’m at the stadium and the ref calls for the video, I start off wondering if It’s a try and after about the 3rd replay I’m wondering if I should go and get a pie and a beer and then come back for the decision. I would urge any sport to resist it, to maintain flow and continuity. Also, as some other posters have mentioned, the human element of sport and all it’s foibles is what makes it so interesting, so real. One sport video review does seem to work for is Cricket, as it gives the commentators something to talk about during the the vast intervals between any action.
Pippinu said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
Once again – I’m not an advocate – but I think with limited use of video technology (afterall, only 2.3 goals are scored per game), stacks of space remains for the human foibles of incompetent refs.
Dan said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
Bingo. People here seem to assume that having a video review system means it’ll turn the game into Rugby League or something. Haven’t people been reading this site lately and the propositions put forward by people like dasilva? Having video referees does not necessitate that there be significant stoppages in the game as you can engineer it to be limited, retrospective or to have time limits (which, if exceeded, would make it the refs call). There are any number of scenarios that one could envisage in which the flow of the game would be barely disturbed. Sure, there will still be mistakes, but there will not be as many mistakes as before, and that’s the point. Video referees are not perfect, but they have a much more controlled view than the onfield ref and thus are statistically far less likely to make incorrect decisions.
AndyRoo said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
I have heard enough, time to trial it in the HAL.
Just make sure there are strict time limits and I am on board. The NRL need to do something about their system too, I think a time limit would work in both codes. If you can’t find something clearly wrong about a goal or try within 40 seconds it should stand.
Dan said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
I agree entirely. It is the clearly wrong decisions that cause fans the most pain. Decisions that a video referee could not decide for one way or another within 30-40 seconds are generally going to be ambiguous anyway, and thus are less likely to cause the level of ire that has been witnessed since the Ireland France match.
Mr cheese said | November 24th 2009 @ 3:10am | Report comment
How do you know that you speak on behalf of all fans ???
I completely disagree with you. If you’re Australian, I have probably seen more football than you because I live in England and you don’t have football in Aussie.
We will NEVER agree on what is a “clearly wrong decision”. England lost some years ago because of a Maradona handball. That causes me no pain whatsoever.
Football is the most popular sport for a reason – it’s the best.
Where were the video referees when Tony Cascarino played for Ireland ??? Where were the video referees when an Englishman with no Irish connection whatsoever played for Ireland ??
I don’t remember hearing the Irish complain about that.
Freud of Football said | November 24th 2009 @ 5:09am | Report comment
I seem to recall that England also won a WC by way of one of the most dubious decision of all time.
But that’s sport, it all evens itself out eventually. Henry would have been denied dozens of penalties in his Arsenal days but no-one is going back to count them, or see what other injustice he or his team has faced.
I’ve heard enough from the narrow-minded people picking on the here and now to try and get video technology introduced into the sport and ruin it for everyone else.
Dan said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Mr cheese,
I am certain you have indeed seen more soccer than I have, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is possible to institute a video review system that would reduce the referee error rate and not disrupt the game.
That was my argument. Now, if you like the idea of matches containing a significant degree of randomness allows for a greater proportion of victories to occur due to inept refereeing, then I suppose that’s up to you, but I would suggest that if that’s the case you may as well just start flipping coins to decide who wins matches.
As for it being “the best”, well Personally I don’t think soccer is the best sport in the world, but I enjoy the world cups. To claim that it being the most popular in the world means “it’s the best” is subjective drivel on the same level as those who claim the world’s wide-spread belief in deities is proof that God must exist.
Soccer has the benefit of being one of the simplest and most accessible games, and this has enabled it to spread.
dasilva said | November 23rd 2009 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
The fact is people are very forgiving of line ball decision. If there is a decision that could go either way or you need a microscope to determine which one is correct then people will forget about it and just say it’s a luck of the draw
Video referee should not be used to overanalyse decision like that. THat’s why there should be a time limit.
However decision that are obvious mistakes that results in goals. This is where just looking at one replay, you can tell it’s a mistake. That’s where you get these outrages and accusation of cheating, corruptions etc.
Pippinu said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Yes – agreed – this isn’t about the line ball decisions (like the Neill/Grosso incident, video will not help there, the ref has to call it on the spot) – it’s about missing those obvious things that sway which way those 2.3 goals per game go.
Mr cheese said | November 23rd 2009 @ 11:58pm | Report comment
So what about Zidane in the 2006 World Cup Final ?
He was sent off because of the video ref. That had nothing to do with a goal.
You have videos for everything OR you have videos for nothing.
I say NOTHING.
Mr cheese said | November 24th 2009 @ 3:02am | Report comment
The Guru
I love you.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Have the video fans watched the RU World Cup final from 2007 ????
Mark Cueto’s ‘try’ was sent to the video ref. I went for a steak. I read the bible from cover to cover. I translated the complete works of Shakespare into Swedish.
When I came back into the room, they still hadn’t decided.
Slow two-tier refereeing in football ?
No thanks….
danny said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
is it the europa league where they’re trialling an extra referree behind each goal? that’s something that i would like to see more of, and it would certainly have helped with the ireland-france game.
Mick of Newie said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Pip
I take the opposite conclusion from the same premise, if we looked only when goals are scored the only outcome is that certain proportion will be disallowed, therefore less goals.
For example Paul Ifill’s goal against the Jets on the weekend may have been knocked back for high feet. Goal scored so can bew reviewed. But James Hollands handball in the Jets v Mariners GF would not be reviewed because no goal resulted.
Nothing annoys me more than the incorrect offside against the attacking side 30metres from goal. A goalscoring opportunity is lost.
If you are going to use video my problems are more practical than philosophical. If you are going to use it you must have a mechanism to look at foul play/cheating that prevents goals. I hate myself for suggesting it but if you are going to use video you would need a process for the captain to challenge a decision and have it referred.