Football Video Referee !!!!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by poolking

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]

Originally Posted by danielf

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]

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.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by poolking

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.