Controversy surrounded France's qualification for the World Cup against Ireland. So much that French president Nicolas Sarkozy apologized while the Irish have demanded that the match should be replayed (this was rejected by FIFA).
The problem is France's equalizer in extra time (that brought France ahead 2-1 on aggregate, and gave them the spot in South Africa) where Thierry Henry is clearly seen handling the ball before passing it to Gallas who scores.
Cheating Frenchmen or a lousy referee? Who is to blame for this blatant injustice? I don't think it should be either Thierry Henry, the French players, or even the Swedish referee who was under horrible pressure.
Clearly FIFA is to blame: Firstly, FIFA changed the rules on the seeding before the play-offs, giving chance an "easier" opponent in Ireland. Now that France, with all its power and superstars are in, all is good! I have no doubt that had it been Damien Duff who had handled the ball to give Ireland a winner, FIFA would have called for a re-match.
Secondly, this decision just underlines FIFA's need to introduce TV cameras in refereeing! Just to use the example from another famous hand-goal, Maradona's against England in 1986, in the time the English/Irish players were protesting to the unwavering referees, the entire world saw the goals time and time again in replay! After one minute, the only person in the world that had not seen the hand was the man who has to make the decision: the referee!
Isn't the point to create the most fair results and best conditions for players, referees and fans?!? Apparently not for FIFA.
This is plainly stupid, and one has to suspect that FIFA, who are not stupid, must have ulterior motives for this?
It is a great pity for Ireland, but also for France, who will go to the World Cup under the shadow of poor sportsmanship.
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The beach ball goal
I was in a pub in Århus, casually, and started watching the Premier League match between Sunderland and Liverpool. Not long into the match, saw one of the strangest goals I have seen: Glen Johnson shot on goal for Sunderland, and a beach ball that had been thrown onto the pitch got in the way of the ball, changing its trajectory into Liverpool's goal.
Considering that Liverpool lost 1-0, this goal is of great importance (and forget that Liverpool was quite bad - nobody will remember that - only the goal!) for a Liverpool team that is probably not going to win the Premier League this season. The referee has been critiziced for allowing the goal, but the rules are not clear.
What a strange goal!
Considering that Liverpool lost 1-0, this goal is of great importance (and forget that Liverpool was quite bad - nobody will remember that - only the goal!) for a Liverpool team that is probably not going to win the Premier League this season. The referee has been critiziced for allowing the goal, but the rules are not clear.
What a strange goal!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
FIFA prohibits video refereeing
In the match between Brazil and Egypt, an Egyptian player made a save on the line in the last minute of the match. Initially, the referee called a corner, but apparently, after his 4th referee called his attention, called the penalty kick, whereby Brazil won on a goal by Kaká. This was the just thing, and should show that TV images are useful for referees.
However, after protests by Egypt, FIFA has denied that video images of the situation influenced the referee, and has instead stated that all TV screens near the box are to be outlawed in this Confederations Cup.
What a sad day for all football fans, fair football teams, and for all referees who want to be as just as possible...
When something unjust, illegal, and unfar happens, isn't it in the interest of everyone to find out!? And if technology can help to improve this, without interrupting the flow and beauty of the match, shouldn't this be the way to go!?!?
I understand that we shouldn't call TV for every penalty, but this is not necessary - in most matches no situation calls for it, and in a few matches, only one situation does, like the situation was the case in the Brazil-Egypt match, and it didn't interrupt the flow of the game, but gave the match a more fair result!
It is a pity, a shame, that FIFA does not even want to test this. I think it can only be in the interest of FIFA to have as fair a match as possible.
Why not use the opportunities at hand? Why not help the referees to be better? Why not create a more fair game?
It would be for the best of the most beautiful game on the planet. FIFA's apparent intransigence on this is a hindrance to a better game.
However, after protests by Egypt, FIFA has denied that video images of the situation influenced the referee, and has instead stated that all TV screens near the box are to be outlawed in this Confederations Cup.
What a sad day for all football fans, fair football teams, and for all referees who want to be as just as possible...
When something unjust, illegal, and unfar happens, isn't it in the interest of everyone to find out!? And if technology can help to improve this, without interrupting the flow and beauty of the match, shouldn't this be the way to go!?!?
I understand that we shouldn't call TV for every penalty, but this is not necessary - in most matches no situation calls for it, and in a few matches, only one situation does, like the situation was the case in the Brazil-Egypt match, and it didn't interrupt the flow of the game, but gave the match a more fair result!
It is a pity, a shame, that FIFA does not even want to test this. I think it can only be in the interest of FIFA to have as fair a match as possible.
Why not use the opportunities at hand? Why not help the referees to be better? Why not create a more fair game?
It would be for the best of the most beautiful game on the planet. FIFA's apparent intransigence on this is a hindrance to a better game.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Tottenham-Chelsea: change the rules!
After Tottenham was stolen of a great triumph against Chelsea, the discussion has again emerged on the use of TV to assist the referees.
I have always found that football (soccer) is the most old-fashioned sport in the world regarding this, as near-dictatorial powers of the referee, gives him an unprecedented influence in the outcome of way too many matches.
Some people say that TV assitance would break the flow of the match. Nonsense. I am not arguing that TV should be used to clarify every small offense. Instead, it should be used when there is a clear and controversial goal-giving situation. Take for instance Maradona's famous hand-goal against England in 1986. In the time English players used protesting to the referee, the whole world saw the incident in slow-motion 4-5 times, and nobody but the referee was in doubt that Maradona had used his hand.
The same was the case with Pedro Mendes' clear goal for Tottenham against Chelsea. Only ones who did not see the ball over the line were the referee and the linesmen. And as so many famous coaches are now arguing, they would favour the use of TV in such situations.
This is just common sense. But I am most surprised about the lack of comments from referees. I have before heard Pierluigi Colina, undoubtfully the best referee in the world, say he is against the use of TV aid in matches. Are they not interested in improving the quality of refereeing!?
An alternative could be to have a 'goal-linesman'. That is, a linesman behind each goal, who could have the final word on such situations, as well as assist the referee in corner-kick situations, penalty-kicks, and other situations where the linesman is (more than too often) a bit too far away.
In times where commercialisation has made the stakes in football so high, and when the possibilities of improving the quality of refereering are so many, it is deplorable not to do anything.
I have always found that football (soccer) is the most old-fashioned sport in the world regarding this, as near-dictatorial powers of the referee, gives him an unprecedented influence in the outcome of way too many matches.
Some people say that TV assitance would break the flow of the match. Nonsense. I am not arguing that TV should be used to clarify every small offense. Instead, it should be used when there is a clear and controversial goal-giving situation. Take for instance Maradona's famous hand-goal against England in 1986. In the time English players used protesting to the referee, the whole world saw the incident in slow-motion 4-5 times, and nobody but the referee was in doubt that Maradona had used his hand.
The same was the case with Pedro Mendes' clear goal for Tottenham against Chelsea. Only ones who did not see the ball over the line were the referee and the linesmen. And as so many famous coaches are now arguing, they would favour the use of TV in such situations.
This is just common sense. But I am most surprised about the lack of comments from referees. I have before heard Pierluigi Colina, undoubtfully the best referee in the world, say he is against the use of TV aid in matches. Are they not interested in improving the quality of refereeing!?
An alternative could be to have a 'goal-linesman'. That is, a linesman behind each goal, who could have the final word on such situations, as well as assist the referee in corner-kick situations, penalty-kicks, and other situations where the linesman is (more than too often) a bit too far away.
In times where commercialisation has made the stakes in football so high, and when the possibilities of improving the quality of refereering are so many, it is deplorable not to do anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)