View Full Version : Football Video Referee !!!!
I posted a recent post calling for the above under ( football cheats ) to mixed comments.
If such a thing was operational would we have won last night !!!!
Well for sure cause the video clearly shows it was a legal goal.
And if your grandma had balls....
I was very sorry that England had a disallowed goal - not because it means they went out, but because the media, and some fans will use this as the reason and not because you were rubbish and spent most of the game camped in your own half.
eeeerrr YEAH!....of course we'll use it as the reason we went out!!!...cause if the legal goal was no dissallowed then we'd have won at 90 minutes!!!! doh! :monkey: :)
..but back on topic, should football have video refs, like cricket does?
eeeerrr YEAH!....of course we'll use it as the reason we went out!!!...cause if the legal goal was no dissallowed then we'd have won at 90 minutes!!!! doh! :monkey: :)
..but back on topic, should football have video refs, like cricket does?
Well maybe if you had played better and actually tried to pass the ball instead of hoofing it up field you mightn't have lost.
All this talk of being robbed, yeah maybe if you were the best team and went out to a bad decision then you would have been robbed, but you didn't deserve to win. You'd have thought you'd learn from the French match.
So tell me, if they say OK we'll bring in Video refs, and two years from now, the same scenaro, 1/4 final of the world cup who ever england are playing score a goal the ref disallows it, but it then goes to video ref who allows it, what will you be saying then?
ok keeping this thread ontopic, then I'll ignore your first pointless commment.
Your second comment is a fair point and a good point, but when a legal goal is dissallowed then it doesn't change the fact that the ref's decision changed to course of the whole tournement.
Should Ref's be totally allowed to make these decision all on their own, my opinion is no whoever is playing and whoever scores.
gary_580
25-06-2004, 10:13
if they had video refs then they would have been able to confirm that there was no push but Terry had his arm on the goalies shoulder. So same outcome in the end.
ok keeping this thread ontopic, then I'll ignore your first pointless commment.
Your second comment is a fair point and a good point, but when a legal goal is dissallowed then it doesn't change the fact that the ref's decision changed to course of the whole tournement.
Should Ref's be totally allowed to make these decision all on their own, my opinion is no whoever is playing and whoever scores.
Pointless? Oh right.
So Casper, one last question, if Portugal had a goal disallowed and England won, would you be posting here now asking for Video refs?
gary_580
25-06-2004, 10:25
Gazzae, i totally agree with you. If they had played with 11 men rather than 7 then it might have been easier. What did those 4 in midfield actually do? Gerrard and Beckham both looked very jaded.
How many times did they tackle, win the ball and then immediately lose it. It happened time after time
Earl of Bronze
25-06-2004, 10:38
if they had video refs then they would have been able to confirm that there was no push but Terry had his arm on the goalies shoulder. So same outcome in the end.
Couldnt agree more.
The camera behind the goal clearly showed Terry with his left arm on the goalie's left shoulder. It is also clear that the goalie trying to jump and contest the ball in the air but was unable to (possibly due to Terry using him as a 'jumping aid', then add in Sol Campbell climbing up Treey's back and you have a recipie for a disallowed goal).
Yes I believe there is a good case for a video ref, and if one had been in use last night, I think the goal would have been disallowed.
And who is going to police the fourth official/video ref ? If the video ref was English would his decision have been the same as say a Portugese one. So "have neutral ones", I hear you say. How do you think a French, Turkish, Irish ;) etc referee would have viewed this situation.:rolleyes:
gary_580
25-06-2004, 10:49
And who is going to police the fourth official/video ref ? If the video ref was English would his decision have been the same as say a Portugese one. So "have neutral ones", I hear you say. How do you think a French, Turkish, Irish ;) etc referee would have viewed this situation.:rolleyes:
Does it matter? Im english, im sad to see England go out. BUT i know what i saw and it was NOT a goal
Couldnt agree more.
The camera behind the goal clearly showed Terry with his left arm on the goalie's left shoulder. It is also clear that the goalie trying to jump and contest the ball in the air but was unable to (possibly due to Terry using him as a 'jumping aid', then add in Sol Campbell climbing up Treey's back and you have a recipie for a disallowed goal).
Yes I believe there is a good case for a video ref, and if one had been in use last night, I think the goal would have been disallowed.
I agree totally with this...............if it was at the other end we all would be calling for it to be disallowed !
How about this then.......................score draws not to be decided on penlties but total prosession in other teams half. Then the best team would win ????? and it would encourage team to try and play and not just waste time
Earl of Bronze
25-06-2004, 10:52
And who is going to police the fourth official/video ref ? If the video ref was English would his decision have been the same as say a Portugese one. So "have neutral ones", I hear you say. How do you think a French, Turkish, Irish ;) etc referee would have viewed this situation.:rolleyes:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
So you think England can never get a decision given for them because everyone is out to get England.
Now I cant remember how may yellow cards where given last night, but I think it was 4 or 5. With a pretty even split as to which teams got the cards. But the game last night flowed more than any previous game in the tournament.
Put the persecution complex away mate, it wont do you any favours on there. ;)
I agree totally with this...............if it was at the other end we all would be calling for it to be disallowed !
How about this then.......................score draws not to be decided on penlties but total prosession in other teams half. Then the best team would win ????? and it would encourage team to try and play and not just waste time
Interesting, but who would monitor the possession? What if it was 50-50. What about shots on target? Team with the most shots on target wins?
Or just keep playing till someone wins?
That said, I don't see anything really wrong with penalties, the game has to be decided some way.
Interesting, but who would monitor the possession? What if it was 50-50. What about shots on target? Team with the most shots on target wins?
Or just keep playing till someone wins?
That said, I don't see anything really wrong with penalties, the game has to be decided some way.
Shots on target maybe difficult to judge..............TV always showing statistcs on prossesion and thought this maybe a fairer way. People often say a team was crap...got lucky and won on penalties. This could stop that !
Earl of Bronze
25-06-2004, 11:04
Personally I'd go for a shoot-out.
Line up the 2 full teams 20 meters apart, give everyone a pistol with one shot. At the agreed signal everyone shoots, and the team with the most people standing wins. Sorta discourages teams to play badly as well. ;)
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
So you think England can never get a decision given for them because everyone is out to get England.
Now I cant remember how may yellow cards where given last night, but I think it was 4 or 5. With a pretty even split as to which teams got the cards. But the game last night flowed more than any previous game in the tournament.
Put the persecution complex away mate, it wont do you any favours on there. ;)You misunderstand me. I don't have a complex. I was trying to convey the fact that I am not really in favour of video refs for decisions that are open to interpretation. It is different to using them for line/ offside calls. If a ball has crossed a line or a player is not offside, 99% of us can make an accurate decision using modern technology. This is not the case with fouls. As a long time retired fullback, it makes me weep to see perfectly timed and executed tackles, called as fouls under current interpretation of the rules.
Earl of Bronze
25-06-2004, 11:23
You misunderstand me. I don't have a complex. I was trying to convey the fact that I am not really in favour of video refs for decisions that are open to interpretation. It is different to using them for line/ offside calls. If a ball has crossed a line or a player is not offside, 99% of us can make an accurate decision using modern technology. This is not the case with fouls. As a long time retired fullback, it makes me weep to see perfectly timed and executed tackles, called as fouls under current interpretation of the rules.
Sorry. My bad.
But in the same vein (sp), how many times have action-replays shown in this compitition that a player has taken a dive, rather than stepped over an out-thrust leg. Unfortunately this seems to be endemic in the game at the moment. Commentators call football the beautiful game, its not. Its a game that has been hijacked by professional cheaters, and why I've given up watching, bar the big competitions.
ian@huth
25-06-2004, 11:26
Couldnt agree more.
The camera behind the goal clearly showed Terry with his left arm on the goalie's left shoulder. It is also clear that the goalie trying to jump and contest the ball in the air but was unable to (possibly due to Terry using him as a 'jumping aid', then add in Sol Campbell climbing up Treey's back and you have a recipie for a disallowed goal).
Yes I believe there is a good case for a video ref, and if one had been in use last night, I think the goal would have been disallowed.
The thing is that the referee was not behind the goal in the same position as the camera. From where he was he could not see that an offence was being commited, if one was commited. The problem these days is that any contact between players seems to result in a foul being given, particularly if one of them is a goalkeeper. A cute goalkeeper doesn't need to make half the saves that he should have to, just has to learn how to jump into attackers and fall to the ground.
The thing is that the referee was not behind the goal in the same position as the camera. From where he was he could not see that an offence was being commited, if one was commited. The problem these days is that any contact between players seems to result in a foul being given, particularly if one of them is a goalkeeper. A cute goalkeeper doesn't need to make half the saves that he should have to, just has to learn how to jump into attackers and fall to the ground.
I agree, there is possibly too much protection for goalies, but last night, the decision was correct. Terry was stopping the Goalie from Jumping therefore no goal.
This is slightly off topic, but only slightly. Can someone clear something up for me, i thought that when taking a penalty it was classed as 'ungentlemanly Contuct' to stop and start before taking it, like Ronaldo did, therefore the pen should be taken again. I seem to remeber something about this, but i'm not sure
Earl of Bronze
25-06-2004, 12:29
The thing is that the referee was not behind the goal in the same position as the camera. From where he was he could not see that an offence was being commited, if one was commited. The problem these days is that any contact between players seems to result in a foul being given, particularly if one of them is a goalkeeper. A cute goalkeeper doesn't need to make half the saves that he should have to, just has to learn how to jump into attackers and fall to the ground.
Very true, the ref wasnt behind the goal. and to be honest I was able to see him in any of the replays. Though I do think he was in the area of the top right corner of the 18 yard box (as seen from the position of the camera). So may have had a pretty good view of the goal-mouth action. IF there had been a 'video ref', IMHO the goal wouldnt have stood. Not with the behind goal view. But I found it strange that the after match comments by Gary Liniker et all, totally dismissed this camera angle.
I agree, there is possibly too much protection for goalies, but last night, the decision was correct. Terry was stopping the Goalie from Jumping therefore no goal.
This is slightly off topic, but only slightly. Can someone clear something up for me, i thought that when taking a penalty it was classed as 'ungentlemanly Contuct' to stop and start before taking it, like Ronaldo did, therefore the pen should be taken again. I seem to remeber something about this, but i'm not sure
Not sure mate, the rule relating to Pen's (Law 14) mentions nothing about the run-up
Found this on the Fifa site...
So it appears its up to the ref to decide.
If a player taking a penalty-kick feints, what action should the referee take?
The referee should allow play to continue, unless he deems the action to be ungentlemanly conduct, in which case the player shall be cautioned and the kick, if already taken, shall be retaken if a goal is scored.
Found this on the Fifa site...
So it appears its up to the ref to decide.
cheers Gazzae. I wonder how far it would go until its classed as ungentlemanly Contuct
cheers Gazzae. I wonder how far it would go until its classed as ungentlemanly Contuct
No idea, any refs on this site?
MadGamer
25-06-2004, 12:50
What he should have done was looked at the fouth offical. Instead he just disallowed the goal and as a result we went out!
What he should have done was looked at the fouth offical. Instead he just disallowed the goal and as a result we went out!
I think the 4th official is only trained to check studs and that's about it!! ;)
What he should have done was looked at the fouth offical. Instead he just disallowed the goal and as a result we went out!
Fourth offical? He would have been further away than the ref.
Do you mean the linesman? Oh sorry assistant ref
According to a report on 5 Live, the referee has since stated that he blew for a foul committed by Campbell before he went up for the header.
In light of the fact that it has been confirmed that Rooney has sustained the dreaded "metatarsal" bone break, and would not be available to play for the rest of the tournament. Last nights result is purely academic. Could you see England progressing further with Vaassell or Heskey up front.
Earl of Bronze
25-06-2004, 16:56
Academic as you say yes, but then again England have'nt put in a good performance. FULL STOP. Last night just underlined how poor they have been. Dire is a good word to describe their performance.
So they take an early bath, and the fans get left feeling betrayed/ let down, again. I told my sister-in-law weeks ago, that England didnt have the quality to win the compitation. Which reminds me, I didnt email her and take the p1$$. :dunce:
Mr_Burns
25-06-2004, 17:33
In light of the fact that it has been confirmed that Rooney has sustained the dreaded "metatarsal" bone break, and would not be available to play for the rest of the tournament. Last nights result is purely academic. Could you see England progressing further with Vaassell or Heskey up front.
Well, if England's only hope of winning the tournament (or any match) is one individual player, then there's something wrong - they are a team after all. Last night they seemed to fall apart after Rooney was taken off.
MadGamer
25-06-2004, 18:59
Fourth offical? He would have been further away than the ref.
Do you mean the linesman? Oh sorry assistant ref I could have meant assistant ref or linesman. Thanks for pointing that out. :D
You know at the risk of sounding unpopular I am going to have to say this.
That goal was not necessary fine, I thought so until at few minutes ago when i say the replay for the umpteenth time. John Terry did have his arm on the goal keeper which did look like he was being pushed. Although the goal proerply should have stood it would have been unfair. If portugal had played better (which they did) then lost by a dubious goal then the ref would have been in trouble from the other side.
I think the goal should have stood but it is not as clear as it seems.
We should have played better but we didn't we should stop blaming a single event as the reason we lost]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualreplay/euro2004/index.shtml?25090
Here you can see the refs view of the incident, From that angle it does look a hard one to call
MadGamer
25-06-2004, 20:27
If you wish to leave comments here is his own website: Urs Meier (http://www.ursmeier.ch/referee/)
If you wish to leave comments here is his own website: Urs Meier (http://www.ursmeier.ch/referee/)
and what would that prove?
Are we really so sad and bitter in this country that we have to send abuse to the ref?
We lost because we where not playing well enough! Yes if the goal went in we would have won but same goes with the two missed penalties and the two conceded goals.
We should should try to improve on our performance, playing like that we would have lost the semi-final. Look at that link above and tell me that the goal was easy decision to call? We have the benefit of tv and slow replays
(no offense btw WNA ) ;)
poolking
25-06-2004, 21:06
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish.
I am positive that there is more to this than the disallowed goal.
Look at it from this perspective, would it be in the best interests of certain parties for the host nation to be knocked out?
Something definetly smells funny about the whole of this.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish.
I am positive that there is more to this than the disallowed goal.
Look at it from this perspective, would it be in the best interests of certain parties for the host nation to be knocked out?
Something definetly smells funny about the whole of this.
Yes must be the start of an evil cover up to hide the incoming alien invasion due to land in Portugal during the final, the final will keep all the Portuguese busy when aliens get a foothold and destroy mankind
:dozey: :rolleyes:
poolking
25-06-2004, 21:15
Yes must be the start of an evil cover up to hide the incoming alien invasion due to land in Portugal during the final, the final will keep all the Portuguese busy when aliens get a foothold and destroy mankind
:dozey: :rolleyes:
Don't be immature please.
I'm just stating my opinion.
Every picture tells a story! ;)
And did you know he has his own web site: http://www.ursmeier.ch/referee/ref30.html
In light of the fact that it has been confirmed that Rooney has sustained the dreaded "metatarsal" bone break, http://www.gentili.net/fracture.asp?ID=77
Enlarge the xray and look at the shaft of the second long bone from the left. (3/4 of the way up from the bottom)....thats the kind of fracture he must have.
Don't be boring about losing.Just suck it up as no one likes a sore loser.
Let us be English about this and take it on the chin.Stiff upper lip and all that.:)
homealone
25-06-2004, 22:24
http://www.gentili.net/fracture.asp?ID=77
Enlarge the xray and look at the shaft of the second long bone from the left. (3/4 of the way up from the bottom)
:notopic:
suddenly thought - Fast Show/Ramrod sketch - "Aren't feet complicated" ;)
- Good link :tu:
http://www.gentili.net/fracture.asp?ID=77
Enlarge the xray and look at the shaft of the second long bone from the left. (3/4 of the way up from the bottom)Now if we could only get Timbo to drop his racket on his foot, he would have a valid excuse for his poor performances as well.:rolleyes:
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish.
I am positive that there is more to this than the disallowed goal.
Look at it from this perspective, would it be in the best interests of certain parties for the host nation to be knocked out?
Something definetly smells funny about the whole of this.
Oh come on. England were poor, they let the Portugese camp outside the box for 60 minutes and kept giving the ball back to them. And it's not as if they couldn't cause England weren't bad (and scored) in extra time. At this level, you can't sit back and defend a 1-0 lead for 80 minutes. Hell, even Italy can't...
At the end of the day, the best side (or at least the more positive/attacking side) won.
andygrif
26-06-2004, 15:36
Oh come on. England were poor, they let the Portugese camp outside the box for 60 minutes and kept giving the ball back to them. And it's not as if they couldn't cause England weren't bad (and scored) in extra time. At this level, you can't sit back and defend a 1-0 lead for 80 minutes. Hell, even Italy can't...
At the end of the day, the best side (or at least the more positive/attacking side) won.
I think that's bit unfair. Portugal were certainly better at running, passing and creating opportunities, but were pretty lousy at their shots at goal.
I'm not qualified enough in the world of football to know whether that goal at 89 mins was valid or not, however the ref is supposed to make use of the linesmen (the nearest of which declared it was a goal) but the ref overturned it based on his view from halfway down the pitch.
If there is this much conjecture based on us all seeing the replay from every angle over and over again, there is no way the ref's decision is valid. It was a bad decision, but it was his decision. If you want to play the game then you have to play by the rules, and the rules say that the ref's decision is final.
Hugely dispointing yes, but I think you can draw comparison to the Venus Williams match, where again the linesman called 'out' it was clearly out, but the umpire said it was in. She didn't dispute it or kick off, and afterwards she said that he was a very fair umpire. That's true sportsmanship.
ian@huth
26-06-2004, 15:54
When you look at cricket that is televised, every second of the game is scrutinised using different camera angles and high speed cameras and the umpires get their decision right the vast majority of the time. The umpires only have to concentrate on a very small area of the pitch at any one time. There are many instances in cricket where, even with all the video replays, high speed cameras and snickometers it is impossible to know what actually happened.
With football, the referee has to concentrate on a very large area with his vision often being blocked by players between him and the incident that he is having to take a decision on. The referee is going to get it wrong on many an occasion, but in my opinion it is better to have this than video refereeing constantly holding up the game.
Football is in need of a shake up as it is getting farsical with the present offside laws and theatrical diving, etc.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish.
I am positive that there is more to this than the disallowed goal.
Look at it from this perspective, would it be in the best interests of certain parties for the host nation to be knocked out?
Something definetly smells funny about the whole of this.
Maybe, but then you could also apply this theory to the 1/4 final of Euro 96 when England were the host nation.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.