Prev: The WC draw is a joke. Neither of JPN or PAR deserve to be in QF, but GER-ENG or ESP-POR must eliminate each other!
Next: World Cup games single thread - [R] after round of 16
From: Paul C on 29 Jun 2010 17:13
Gordon Smith watched the World Cup being plunged into farce when Frank
Lampard was denied a clear goal and shook his head in disbelief at FIFA's
refusal to allow technology to help the game.

The former SFA chief was aghast as TV pictures confirmed the England
midfielder's shot to be a yard over the line in the last-16 encounter with
Germany.

Referee Jorge Larrionda and assistant Mauricio Espinosa didn't have the aid
of footage to help them and denied a goal which would have squared the game
at 2-2 just before halftime in Bloemfontein. For Smith it was another kick
in the teeth after seeing his proposals to prevent such a scandal booted
into touch by FIFA just four months ago.

In one of his final acts in SFA office he led the charge to a meeting of the
International Football Association Board in Zurich bidding to bring the use
of goal-line technology into use.

He voted in favour along with his English counterparts but was thwar ted
when the Welsh and Northern Irish associations voted with FIFA to reject the
motion. FIFA subsequently explained the rejection of the proposal in terms
of maintaining the human element in the way that games are handled.

Sepp Blatter's statement included: "No matter which technology is applied at
the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This
being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to
someone else? Global "The application of modern technologies can be costly
and therefore not applicable on a global level. We've close to 900
preliminary matches for the World Cup and the same rules need to be applied
in all matches.

"If the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the
approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision would
soon be questioned. Football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in
order to review a decision."

Smith left the meeting in shock and could not help but glance a knowing eye
back as the latest rumpus kicked off and also wondered why money was wasted
in trying to develop a system which would never be used.

He said: "We voted as a body for goal-line technology but the argument from
Mr Blatter and FIFA was two-fold. First of all, they felt it was taking away
from the refereeing.

"I had to wonder why they'd experimented for years in testing goal-line
technology in the first place. They worked and worked on it and perfected
it, only for it to be rejected on the basis it did not fit in as it was too
technical and taking over football.

"To me, it wasn't taking over and Sunday proved it. The officials were not
in a position to make a judgment on the shot because they were not in line.
You cannot give a goal when you are not sure but is a referee ever going to
be sure when a ball bounces down from the bar in the way it did? "The only
method to get that right is technology. The second argument from FIFA was we
could not implement it right through the game. It is clear they like
everything to be right through the game at all different levels but I don't
agree.

"If that was the case, do we do away with floodlights? Not every ground has
them. Do we do away with the electronic subs board because you don't have
them at games on a Sunday morning?

"Cameras which showed the incident perfectly on Sunday and the other
technology worked on was the chip in the ball which sets off a buzzer to the
referee when it enters the goal. That was rejected on the basis it was not
accurate and not up to speed but it was proved to be accurate.

"It was tried, tested and proved to work.

"A lot of money was spent by a company and it was private money. They
invested a lot into the plan and lost out when FIFA decided they did not
want it.

"It kept going back to the human element. Not to take away from the referees
and assistants and not to undermine them. Ask yourself this, who is being
undermined in the aftermath of the England game? The referee and his
assistant, that's who."

Smith also had a response for Blatter's suggestions about the never-ending
nature of disputes and constant disruptions in the game.

He said: "The argument I had was a team could have been limited in their
chances to ask for a decision to be looked at. For example, in tennis, the
players get three chances per set to ask for a review. Perhaps an idea of
two technical reviews per game, per team would work. That means you know the
game cannot be halted on any more than four occasions. I put forward an idea
like this some time ago. It was also rejected.

"I also had an argument that the extra officials might have worked. If that
was going to be an alternative that would have been acceptable. Extra
officials were used in the Europa League.

"Had one of those officials been on the goalpost he would have been in
position to make the decision on Lampard. That would be an acceptable way
forward."

In the end FIFA accepted no proposals and Smith doesn't see the situation
changing under the current regime.

He said: "It's a big issue today because of the England match but if it
doesn't happen again in the tournament it wi l l be forgotten.

"It may even have been a bigger factor had the score finished 2-1 for
Germany. It would then have been a major factor. But the fact it finished
4-1 will help sweep it under the carpet.

"That is not right but that is the way it will be."



Daily Record

From: SHUSSBAR on 29 Jun 2010 17:43
On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, "Paul C" <p...(a)thersgb.net> wrote:
> Gordon Smith watched the World Cup being plunged into farce when Frank
> Lampard was denied a clear goal and shook his head in disbelief at FIFA's
> refusal to allow technology to help the game.
>
> The former SFA chief was aghast as TV pictures confirmed the England
> midfielder's shot to be a yard over the line in the last-16 encounter with
> Germany.
>
> Referee Jorge Larrionda and assistant Mauricio Espinosa didn't have the aid
> of footage to help them and denied a goal which would have squared the game
> at 2-2 just before halftime in Bloemfontein. For Smith it was another kick
> in the teeth after seeing his proposals to prevent such a scandal booted
> into touch by FIFA just four months ago.
>
> In one of his final acts in SFA office he led the charge to a meeting of the
> International Football Association Board in Zurich bidding to bring the use
> of goal-line technology into use.
>
> He voted in favour along with his English counterparts but was thwar ted
> when the Welsh and Northern Irish associations voted with FIFA to reject the
> motion. FIFA subsequently explained the rejection of the proposal in terms
> of maintaining the human element in the way that games are handled.
>
> Sepp Blatter's statement included: "No matter which technology is applied at
> the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This
> being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to
> someone else? Global "The application of modern technologies can be costly
> and therefore not applicable on a global level. We've close to 900
> preliminary matches for the World Cup and the same rules need to be applied
> in all matches.
>
> "If the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the
> approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision would
> soon be questioned. Football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in
> order to review a decision."
>
> Smith left the meeting in shock and could not help but glance a knowing eye
> back as the latest rumpus kicked off and also wondered why money was wasted
> in trying to develop a system which would never be used.
>
> He said: "We voted as a body for goal-line technology but the argument from
> Mr Blatter and FIFA was two-fold. First of all, they felt it was taking away
> from the refereeing.
>
> "I had to wonder why they'd experimented for years in testing goal-line
> technology in the first place. They worked and worked on it and perfected
> it, only for it to be rejected on the basis it did not fit in as it was too
> technical and taking over football.
>
> "To me, it wasn't taking over and Sunday proved it. The officials were not
> in a position to make a judgment on the shot because they were not in line.
> You cannot give a goal when you are not sure but is a referee ever going to
> be sure when a ball bounces down from the bar in the way it did? "The only
> method to get that right is technology. The second argument from FIFA was we
> could not implement it right through the game. It is clear they like
> everything to be right through the game at all different levels but I don't
> agree.
>
> "If that was the case, do we do away with floodlights? Not every ground has
> them. Do we do away with the electronic subs board because you don't have
> them at games on a Sunday morning?
>
> "Cameras which showed the incident perfectly on Sunday and the other
> technology worked on was the chip in the ball which sets off a buzzer to the
> referee when it enters the goal. That was rejected on the basis it was not
> accurate and not up to speed but it was proved to be accurate.
>
> "It was tried, tested and proved to work.
>
> "A lot of money was spent by a company and it was private money. They
> invested a lot into the plan and lost out when FIFA decided they did not
> want it.
>
> "It kept going back to the human element. Not to take away from the referees
> and assistants and not to undermine them. Ask yourself this, who is being
> undermined in the aftermath of the England game? The referee and his
> assistant, that's who."
>
> Smith also had a response for Blatter's suggestions about the never-ending
> nature of disputes and constant disruptions in the game.
>
> He said: "The argument I had was a team could have been limited in their
> chances to ask for a decision to be looked at. For example, in tennis, the
> players get three chances per set to ask for a review. Perhaps an idea of
> two technical reviews per game, per team would work. That means you know the
> game cannot be halted on any more than four occasions. I put forward an idea
> like this some time ago. It was also rejected.
>
> "I also had an argument that the extra officials might have worked. If that
> was going to be an alternative that would have been acceptable. Extra
> officials were used in the Europa League.
>
> "Had one of those officials been on the goalpost he would have been in
> position to make the decision on Lampard. That would be an acceptable way
> forward."
>
> In the end FIFA accepted no proposals and Smith doesn't see the situation
> changing under the current regime.
>
> He said: "It's a big issue today because of the England match but if it
> doesn't happen again in the tournament it wi l l be forgotten.
>
> "It may even have been a bigger factor had the score finished 2-1 for
> Germany. It would then have been a major factor. But the fact it finished
> 4-1 will help sweep it under the carpet.
>
> "That is not right but that is the way it will be."
>
> Daily Record

Anti-flop reply to your post. You don t have to thank me.
From: *skriptis, European Patriot on 29 Jun 2010 17:58

"Paul C" <paul(a)thersgb.net> wrote in message
news:88v60kFdr0U5(a)mid.individual.net...
> Gordon Smith watched the World Cup being plunged into farce when Frank
> Lampard was denied a clear goal and shook his head in disbelief at FIFA's
> refusal to allow technology to help the game.
>
> The former SFA chief was aghast as TV pictures confirmed the England
> midfielder's shot to be a yard over the line in the last-16 encounter with
> Germany.
>
> Referee Jorge Larrionda and assistant Mauricio Espinosa didn't have the
> aid of footage to help them and denied a goal which would have squared the
> game at 2-2 just before halftime in Bloemfontein. For Smith it was another
> kick in the teeth after seeing his proposals to prevent such a scandal
> booted into touch by FIFA just four months ago.
>
> In one of his final acts in SFA office he led the charge to a meeting of
> the International Football Association Board in Zurich bidding to bring
> the use of goal-line technology into use.
>
> He voted in favour along with his English counterparts but was thwar ted
> when the Welsh and Northern Irish associations voted with FIFA to reject
> the motion. FIFA subsequently explained the rejection of the proposal in
> terms of maintaining the human element in the way that games are handled.
>
> Sepp Blatter's statement included: "No matter which technology is applied
> at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being.
> This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to
> give it to someone else? Global "The application of modern technologies
> can be costly and therefore not applicable on a global level. We've close
> to 900 preliminary matches for the World Cup and the same rules need to be
> applied in all matches.
>
> "If the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the
> approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision would
> soon be questioned. Football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in
> order to review a decision."
>
> Smith left the meeting in shock and could not help but glance a knowing
> eye back as the latest rumpus kicked off and also wondered why money was
> wasted in trying to develop a system which would never be used.
>
> He said: "We voted as a body for goal-line technology but the argument
> from Mr Blatter and FIFA was two-fold. First of all, they felt it was
> taking away from the refereeing.
>
> "I had to wonder why they'd experimented for years in testing goal-line
> technology in the first place. They worked and worked on it and perfected
> it, only for it to be rejected on the basis it did not fit in as it was
> too technical and taking over football.
>
> "To me, it wasn't taking over and Sunday proved it. The officials were not
> in a position to make a judgment on the shot because they were not in
> line. You cannot give a goal when you are not sure but is a referee ever
> going to be sure when a ball bounces down from the bar in the way it did?
> "The only method to get that right is technology. The second argument from
> FIFA was we could not implement it right through the game. It is clear
> they like everything to be right through the game at all different levels
> but I don't agree.
>
> "If that was the case, do we do away with floodlights? Not every ground
> has them. Do we do away with the electronic subs board because you don't
> have them at games on a Sunday morning?
>
> "Cameras which showed the incident perfectly on Sunday and the other
> technology worked on was the chip in the ball which sets off a buzzer to
> the referee when it enters the goal. That was rejected on the basis it was
> not accurate and not up to speed but it was proved to be accurate.
>
> "It was tried, tested and proved to work.
>
> "A lot of money was spent by a company and it was private money. They
> invested a lot into the plan and lost out when FIFA decided they did not
> want it.
>
> "It kept going back to the human element. Not to take away from the
> referees and assistants and not to undermine them. Ask yourself this, who
> is being undermined in the aftermath of the England game? The referee and
> his assistant, that's who."
>
> Smith also had a response for Blatter's suggestions about the never-ending
> nature of disputes and constant disruptions in the game.
>
> He said: "The argument I had was a team could have been limited in their
> chances to ask for a decision to be looked at. For example, in tennis, the
> players get three chances per set to ask for a review. Perhaps an idea of
> two technical reviews per game, per team would work. That means you know
> the game cannot be halted on any more than four occasions. I put forward
> an idea like this some time ago. It was also rejected.
>
> "I also had an argument that the extra officials might have worked. If
> that was going to be an alternative that would have been acceptable. Extra
> officials were used in the Europa League.
>
> "Had one of those officials been on the goalpost he would have been in
> position to make the decision on Lampard. That would be an acceptable way
> forward."
>
> In the end FIFA accepted no proposals and Smith doesn't see the situation
> changing under the current regime.
>
> He said: "It's a big issue today because of the England match but if it
> doesn't happen again in the tournament it wi l l be forgotten.
>
> "It may even have been a bigger factor had the score finished 2-1 for
> Germany. It would then have been a major factor. But the fact it finished
> 4-1 will help sweep it under the carpet.
>
> "That is not right but that is the way it will be."



Makes no sense to involve technology, especially reviews.

Blatter said it, in the end, someone would have to decide what's wrong and
what's not and decide in real time.....that would kill football.


From: Paul C on 29 Jun 2010 18:22
"*skriptis, European Patriot" <skriptis(a)post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
news:i0dq9c$15g$1(a)ss408.t-com.hr...

>
> Makes no sense to involve technology, especially reviews.
>
> Blatter said it, in the end, someone would have to decide what's wrong and
> what's not and decide in real time.....that would kill football.
>

How would it ruin football? Goal line technology might be referred to once
every twenty matches.

From: Insane Ranter on 29 Jun 2010 18:32
On Jun 29, 5:58 pm, "*skriptis, European Patriot" <skrip...(a)post.t-
com.hr> wrote:
> "Paul C" <p...(a)thersgb.net> wrote in message
>
> news:88v60kFdr0U5(a)mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Gordon Smith watched the World Cup being plunged into farce when Frank
> > Lampard was denied a clear goal and shook his head in disbelief at FIFA's
> > refusal to allow technology to help the game.
>
> > The former SFA chief was aghast as TV pictures confirmed the England
> > midfielder's shot to be a yard over the line in the last-16 encounter with
> > Germany.
>
> > Referee Jorge Larrionda and assistant Mauricio Espinosa didn't have the
> > aid of footage to help them and denied a goal which would have squared the
> > game at 2-2 just before halftime in Bloemfontein. For Smith it was another
> > kick in the teeth after seeing his proposals to prevent such a scandal
> > booted into touch by FIFA just four months ago.
>
> > In one of his final acts in SFA office he led the charge to a meeting of
> > the International Football Association Board in Zurich bidding to bring
> > the use of goal-line technology into use.
>
> > He voted in favour along with his English counterparts but was thwar ted
> > when the Welsh and Northern Irish associations voted with FIFA to reject
> > the motion. FIFA subsequently explained the rejection of the proposal in
> > terms of maintaining the human element in the way that games are handled.
>
> > Sepp Blatter's statement included: "No matter which technology is applied
> > at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being..
> > This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to
> > give it to someone else? Global "The application of modern technologies
> > can be costly and therefore not applicable on a global level. We've close
> > to 900 preliminary matches for the World Cup and the same rules need to be
> > applied in all matches.
>
> > "If the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the
> > approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision would
> > soon be questioned. Football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in
> > order to review a decision."
>
> > Smith left the meeting in shock and could not help but glance a knowing
> > eye back as the latest rumpus kicked off and also wondered why money was
> > wasted in trying to develop a system which would never be used.
>
> > He said: "We voted as a body for goal-line technology but the argument
> > from Mr Blatter and FIFA was two-fold. First of all, they felt it was
> > taking away from the refereeing.
>
> > "I had to wonder why they'd experimented for years in testing goal-line
> > technology in the first place. They worked and worked on it and perfected
> > it, only for it to be rejected on the basis it did not fit in as it was
> > too technical and taking over football.
>
> > "To me, it wasn't taking over and Sunday proved it. The officials were not
> > in a position to make a judgment on the shot because they were not in
> > line. You cannot give a goal when you are not sure but is a referee ever
> > going to be sure when a ball bounces down from the bar in the way it did?
> > "The only method to get that right is technology. The second argument from
> > FIFA was we could not implement it right through the game. It is clear
> > they like everything to be right through the game at all different levels
> > but I don't agree.
>
> > "If that was the case, do we do away with floodlights? Not every ground
> > has them. Do we do away with the electronic subs board because you don't
> > have them at games on a Sunday morning?
>
> > "Cameras which showed the incident perfectly on Sunday and the other
> > technology worked on was the chip in the ball which sets off a buzzer to
> > the referee when it enters the goal. That was rejected on the basis it was
> > not accurate and not up to speed but it was proved to be accurate.
>
> > "It was tried, tested and proved to work.
>
> > "A lot of money was spent by a company and it was private money. They
> > invested a lot into the plan and lost out when FIFA decided they did not
> > want it.
>
> > "It kept going back to the human element. Not to take away from the
> > referees and assistants and not to undermine them. Ask yourself this, who
> > is being undermined in the aftermath of the England game? The referee and
> > his assistant, that's who."
>
> > Smith also had a response for Blatter's suggestions about the never-ending
> > nature of disputes and constant disruptions in the game.
>
> > He said: "The argument I had was a team could have been limited in their
> > chances to ask for a decision to be looked at. For example, in tennis, the
> > players get three chances per set to ask for a review. Perhaps an idea of
> > two technical reviews per game, per team would work. That means you know
> > the game cannot be halted on any more than four occasions. I put forward
> > an idea like this some time ago. It was also rejected.
>
> > "I also had an argument that the extra officials might have worked. If
> > that was going to be an alternative that would have been acceptable. Extra
> > officials were used in the Europa League.
>
> > "Had one of those officials been on the goalpost he would have been in
> > position to make the decision on Lampard. That would be an acceptable way
> > forward."
>
> > In the end FIFA accepted no proposals and Smith doesn't see the situation
> > changing under the current regime.
>
> > He said: "It's a big issue today because of the England match but if it
> > doesn't happen again in the tournament it wi l l be forgotten.
>
> > "It may even have been a bigger factor had the score finished 2-1 for
> > Germany. It would then have been a major factor. But the fact it finished
> > 4-1 will help sweep it under the carpet.
>
> > "That is not right but that is the way it will be."
>
> Makes no sense to involve technology, especially reviews.
>
> Blatter said it, in the end, someone would have to decide what's wrong and
> what's not and decide in real time.....that would kill football.

Someone in the end would still decide.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: The WC draw is a joke. Neither of JPN or PAR deserve to be in QF, but GER-ENG or ESP-POR must eliminate each other!
Next: World Cup games single thread - [R] after round of 16