By Les Tan/Red Sports
If England’s second goal by Frank Lampard had stood and the score became 2-2, would it have made a difference?
Who knows, but since Germany so comprehensively beat the English, complaints should be few. (Unless you are English.)
Some — probably punters — will curse and swear about the officials but in truth, there would have been no way either the assistant referee or the match referee could have seen it.
For sure, the match referee, given his position nearer the centre of the pitch will not see it.
That leaves us with the assistant referee. Is it possible for him to see it? He had no choice but to stay in line with the last German defender to ensure that he gets any offside calls correctly.
From his position, he probably had no way to see where the ball landed exactly unless he was 3m tall.
And don’t forget — referees do not have 30 cameras from every imaginable angle to see what happened.
Given the speed of the action, it is not the fault of the match officials.
So why doesn’t FIFA, the world governing body, approve video technology? If the NBA uses it, why can’t FIFA?
FIFA, that autocratic institution that just told the French government not to interfere with the French Football Federation like it was a democratically elected government itself, should reconsider their position.
More News
Sepp Blatter performs U-turn over goalline technology
New York Times: FIFA president apologizes for referring errors
Guardian Online: Would Blatter be right to bin the offside rule?
Guardian Online: Cameras in nets can help FIFA see bigger picture
Times Online: Fifa may get into line with dropping offside
YouTube: John Cleese on offside rule
All sports should use video tech!
Shagir, none of us here is English or German as far as I know. Personally, I think there are always reasons not to be 100% satisfied. There are always things that can be disputed, tackles that could have gone either way, tactics that were fortunately not exposed, etc.
Many other things would have happened on the pitch, not caught by any camera, that would have been important in some other combination. You can’t dispute them all, and to reduce it to a problem of who’s got more/better cameras is not addressing the issue on the pitch.
Football, like life, is imperfect and it’s normal to have doubts about events in the game. I think players should know that, especially at that level. So I don’t think it’s a big issue for any of the players involved. Those who played well know what they did and the English know they didn’t, no matter what is said to the media.
Me, I would have liked for the Germans to win 4-2 because it would have perfectly exorcised the ghosts of 1966. But that’s beside the point.
Sure, 2-2 would have given the English a huge psychological boost. But whether it was enough to give them a third goal is now purely a matter of speculation. It would definitely have changed the complexion of the game and I’m sure some Germans feel the English should have got their goal.
If England had won playing the way they did, would it have been a fair match? To me, they would have been brutally exposed by either Argentina or Mexico in the next round and the better team would have been denied their result. As it is, I feel that despite the unfair decision the final result correctly reflected the difference in class between the two sides.
(Now using Argentina and Mexico to make your case might be better, but I didn’t watch that match in its entirety like I did the earlier one, so I couldn’t really agree or disagree.)
It’s not always about technology making the game more fair or giving teams a chance. It has the ability to do so, I agree, but turning to technology to cover up one’s weaknesses isn’t what I would like to see in sports. Besides, how would you propose making the game completely fair?
I don’t work at FIFA, but to me what they seem to be doing is maintaining the human aspect to the game, and I like that. I do hope England do better next time though.
I am not English nor German. If the second goal whould have been awarded thr would have been a huge Psychological advantage to the English team which might have given them the much needed boost to score the third goal.
If it would have been 2-2, the probability would have been 50-50.
If it would have been 4-2, I would have taken this one as a fair match. Though German won the match thr would always be the sense of false victory as the opposite team wasn’t awarded a goal. Even the German team would have liked a Victory over a score of 2-2. However, now the German Team will be satisfied but not 100% satisfied, sameways as the English team will always blame their loss on that one misjudged goal.
And About the referee, to be honest I dun wanna comment..but why is he a referee ?
Someone might say its hard for the referee to see the ball from distance, it can’t be done, no video monitors, etc etc..Grow up man, THIS IS WORLD CUP, not a match played at yor backyard. If you can’t have provisions to organise a fair match, thn don’t have any match at all !!!
I agree, it is interesting how FIFA seems to be trying to ignore or downplay the matter. But on the flip side, you can also say they are focusing on the positive side of the game.
Even with video technology in use, there will still be people who feel they’ve been robbed. Let’s not attribute too much to it, after all, it’s still humans who have to check the video evidence. In the end, it will become a race to see which stadium has the best cameras or the most angles.
Though there may be times where I might feel video evidence might just have prevented such and such tragedy from happening, I think outsourcing the ability to deal with defeat to a pair of goal-line cameras is going to weaken the game in the long run.
However, Les, you are right. It is probably a matter of time before FIFA faces even more pressure to use video referees. For me, this is most likely to come from the US because they have more sports that already use video tech.
To MJ: agreed, there would have been a morale boost had it been allowed, and the match result would have been closer, but like you said, the Germans were the better team. Then it might have been them who would have felt robbed, because it didn’t look like England was capable of posing a threat to Germany’s admittedly less-than-secure defence – it might have led to needless extra time and/or penalties.
I have to say I was hoping England would draw 3-3 and win on penalties because of the annoying German press harping on England’s spotkick prowess, but that’s for another thread.
At one point in the first half, I thought it was going to be 3-3! I think if the Lampard goal went in, it would have shaken the Germans somewhat.
FIFA officials didn’t want to use the video playback technology because they say this is where the excitement of the game is. Maybe they would want to reconsider 🙂
There will always be excitement in a game regardless of whether video technology is used.
The question is: what kind of excitement do you want? The “I was robbed”, negative kind, or the “Justice was done” positive kind?
Commercial interests will one day force the hand of FIFA to introduce video technology.
Interesting that the official FIFA.com site does not show the controversial goal.
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/highlights/video/video=1261437/index.html
Neither did the play by play on the site mention the controversy.
Sticking their heads in the sand will not make it go away.
I think it is unfair to discount the morale boost if the 2nd goal had stood. Just maybe. The morale boost would be enough to give England the self-confidence they so greatly lack. But of course, ifs are just fantasies. Germany played well on the counter and truly deserved their victory.
I’m against video technology… injustice and drama is part of the game, or on the flip side, a bit of “luck” for the teams who “get away”.
Goals come much less often than points do in. basketball or touchdowns in American football. Disputing them and getting over the trauma is one way to make the match more interesting, I feel. It’s also going to make goals that much more treasured.
And the game is slow enough without having to stop every now and then to refer to video evidence. Football needs to be played with continuity, allowing challenges will only break the flow of the game more.
It could give false hope to teams that can’t win on the pitch, challenging calls to break the rhythm of the superior team, or for winning teams to prevent comebacks.
It definitely won’t reduce play-acting, just improve the quality and increase its frequency.
Let the human referees call the game. Refereeing is an art, not a science. Let’s keep it that way.