11/21/24
January 04, 2005
We wuz robbed!: Or, as SoccerNet phrased it, "Goal-line howler denies Spurs victory." Watching this afternoon I simply could not understand how Tottenham were not given the score as the ball was clearly visible touching the grass almost a yard inside the goalmouth after Carroll was way off his line and touched it back in himself. The last acknowledged quality ManU keeper, Peter Schmeichel, put the blame on Carroll. Will this get Timmy another chance or increase the odds on purchase of a keeper? What about video replays?
posted by billsaysthis to soccer at 08:28 PM - 41 comments
Ferguson, ever the competitor - 'Everyone's talking about this incident, but we should have had a penalty when Rio Ferdinand went down inside the box and was given outside the box' At least he conceding that the call coulda/shoulda gone the other way.
posted by gspm at 09:59 PM on January 04, 2005
I think SAF needs to look over the tapes better because Rio was not inside the box as the foul occured, though he did fall inside of it.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:16 PM on January 04, 2005
http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
posted by Brettski at 03:48 AM on January 05, 2005
"You are not authorised to view this page."
posted by Mr Bismarck at 04:30 AM on January 05, 2005
"Neither is JJ"
posted by JJ at 06:12 AM on January 05, 2005
I guess someone's bandwidth was being eaten up..... Try this.... Carol animated GIF
posted by Brettski at 07:58 AM on January 05, 2005
Both Ferguson and Jol are now saying they'd like to see video replays introduced for the referee. Personally I think that's a stupid idea. Think about it, when Carroll palms the ball back out - the game is still in play. When is the referee supposed to look at it? If he blows the whistle, and it turns out that it's not a goal, how is he going to restart the game? You could argue that the decision should be made after the phase of play has ended, but what happens if Carroll palms the ball to Giggs, who then runs the entire length of the pitch and scores? Do you disallow the Giggs goal and give the score to Tottenham?! There are too many possibilities, and football doesn't have natural breaks in play which would allow for video evidence. Besides, the controversies are what make the sport exciting, right? Referees make errors - they always have, always will.
posted by afx237vi at 08:15 AM on January 05, 2005
football doesn't have natural breaks in play which would allow for video evidence. it is the same in hockey that the play stops when the puck goes out of play, or there is a penalty or an offside. In the NHL the play would continue until the next whistle and if the ref has any doubt he can request a video review. if it is a goal the clock is reset to when the goal was scored and play continues with a faceoff at centre ice. Given that, FA mulls goal line technology. football can be polite (ie a team putting the ball out of play when a player on the other team is injured), what's wrong with a team calling for a goal and the defending team hoofing the ball upfield and out of bounds to give the ref time to check? given that might take 10 seconds the call could be ready (in an obvious case like this) with very little delay. sure, there is lots of what ifs, so what if Swansea City FC was playing at Stamford Bridge in the fifth round of the FA Cup and had that happen to them? given that goals in football are generally hard to come by it would be nice to award all that are fairly earned given that the technology is readily available. I mean just for did the ball cross the line or not. Leave other calls like shirt pulling and offisde in the hands of organic beings (if possible, can of worms, slippery slope, yadda yadda). Refs can choose "not to see" fouls or err on the side of caution when assessing disputed goal calls (or in this case, be half a field away from where the call was to be made) but I would think that the spirit of Law 10 would supercede any on field person. I think Tottenham beating Man U at Old Trafford for the first time since 1989 sounds pretty exciting.
posted by gspm at 10:31 AM on January 05, 2005
I don't see why simple sensors (RFID or similar) can't be embedded in the balls and their opposites in the goal posts. The referee wears a pager-ish device on his belt and when the ball goes through he gets a message. The cost would be trivial and involve no artificial interruption of play. If the system works out it could be expanded to monitor the boundary lines and possibly even offsides (sensors in each player's waistband). This is 2005, not 1889.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:53 AM on January 05, 2005
so what if Swansea City FC was playing at Stamford Bridge in the fifth round of the FA Cup and had that happen to them? Well it happened to Chesterfield a few years ago when they played Boro in the semi-final, and when they showed that "goal" on the news today I still couldn't tell whether it was over the line or not. Same goes for Geoff Hurst's 1966 goal... 38 years later and still no-one has a clue. With the obvious ones like last night's incident... then fair enough, I understand the outcry. But technology is not infallible and can often pose more questions than answers. How many times do you see a foul on TV from a dozen different angles... and half of the angles will point to a foul, while the other half will look totally harmless. Same goes with the over-the-line-or-not ones. The only thing I can see working is the microchip in the ball. If that's instant and the ref knows immediately, via a light or buzzer or whatever, then go for it. No-one can argue with that.
posted by afx237vi at 10:56 AM on January 05, 2005
billsaysthis's solution above is the only one I would even remotely (no pun) get behind. No stopping the game, and no "not-so-instant" replay.
posted by scully at 11:18 AM on January 05, 2005
would it be possible to add 2 officials, one to monitor each goal? maybe they can turn on a light and buzzer like in hockey.
posted by goddam at 11:55 AM on January 05, 2005
Fifa doesn't like to watch videos but they do like chips.
posted by gspm at 12:05 PM on January 05, 2005
My god. That animated GIF shows the ball not just crossing the line but BOUNCING well inside the goal, before Carroll even touched it. wtf. I'm really against the video replays in any case. This is a very isolated , freakish, incident. Just award the goal after the match (I mean, they can penalize a player for violence days or weeks after a game, based on a video replay, even tho the player didn't get a card) and reverse the result of the game or just leave it alone. If the video replay gets added in as a result of one accident like this (as much as I want Man U to have lost -- hey, I had Mendes on my fantasy team, too!), the real long-term result is it's going to cause overall degradation of matchplay, and increased contention of calls.
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:46 PM on January 05, 2005
just award the goal after the match You haven't properly thought this through have you?
posted by salmacis at 01:45 PM on January 05, 2005
Video replays for soccer is the absolute stupidest fucking idea i have ever heard...
posted by StarFucker at 02:15 PM on January 05, 2005
i'm pretty sure the idea of solving the problem by reversing the call after the game rests on a logical fallacy that somebody can identify. if tottenham had been awarded the goal there is nothing to suggest that the remainder of the game would have unrolled the way it did. fix the problems on the field. If the video replay gets added in as a result of one accident like this... it'd be hard to make a list of the world's worst refereeing decisions with only one accident. You know, there was at least one I recall back in worldcup2002.
posted by gspm at 02:16 PM on January 05, 2005
so we'll put SF in the NO column. but, do you acknowledge that the call was blown, it changed the outcome of the game and, like bill said, this is 2005, not 1889. Why should fans have to just accept stuff like that just because that is the way it is? do you have any solution? i can accept linesmen blowing close offside calls, but the ball crossing the line? c'mon, that is only the whole point of the freakin' game. you'd think they at least do what they can to get that right.
posted by gspm at 02:20 PM on January 05, 2005
Thats just the way it is... Thats the way it was... And thats the way it fucking should be... Replays are for fags... And yes, that was a bad call...but whatever, that shit happens! Its part of the adventure, romance, passion that is football. Hand Of God would never be a part of our lives!!
posted by StarFucker at 04:24 PM on January 05, 2005
I'm with the Fooker. And I did say they could award the goal post-match or _leave it alone_. Either of those (while not ideal) would be a better alternative to a video replay or "goal-line tech". There's always some injustice in a match. But how far do we want to go to make sure there is no injustice in a match? Do we need to have RFIDs on every player's boots as well as implanted in the pitch so we can catch all offsides, too? (Hmmm.) Or should all players wear fullbody suits with RFID so we can track if a handball actually occurred? We could also track if the player who was sent flying into the box was even touched by any other player. Just because we have the tech, doesn't mean we should use it. There are other consequences that need to be considered.
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:53 PM on January 05, 2005
so while replays are for fags, as enlightened as that sounds, are you also discounting the use of technology (as per bills suggestion or as per FIFA's idea in a link i provided) to provide an instant solution? i mean it hardly matters to me what you think and it hardly matters to the FA what I think and i know football is resistant to change (justifiably so with some of seth blatter's ideas) but is getting the right answer something to be avoided? Just because we have the tech, doesn't mean we should use it. evolution not revolution. it should be tried somewhere. maybe it won't work but maybe fears about its influence are unjustified.
posted by gspm at 04:57 PM on January 05, 2005
Oh, StarFuck'off. (And less of the 'fag' bullshit, too.) Fourth official. Monitor. Replay. No brainer. Every professional match has at least a couple of cameras these days. The ref has a radio earpiece. And goal-line decisions are the closest thing to an up-down as you'll get in the game. Benefit of the doubt going to the defending side.
posted by etagloh at 05:10 PM on January 05, 2005
Using any kind of technology for football now seems as desperate as having Ashlee Simspon sing at halftime shows to bring in more dorks that don't know anything about the game. Did you see the interview with Mendes after the game? He was laughing. They showed him the replay and he was like, "oh my...that was a goal". But he was laughing about it. He understands just like most of us do. The goal didn't count, it was a bad call. It happens all the time and it balances out in the long run. It gives you something to talk about, it gives you something to rant and rave about. It gets you talking in the bars, cafes...with parents, relatives, friends, chatrooms, SPORTSFILTER. It makes the game HUMAN... How much fucking fun is it for Helmetball fans to sit there and wait while the ref watches tv for 5 minutes to decide whether the players ass touched the turf before he dropped the ball?! I'd rather eat my own barf! This game is as good as it gets...it beats any sport, I don't care what anyone says. I have seen more people switch over to football (I know i am using soccer/football interchangeably) than the other way around. I have personally seen some people actually get converted to football because of its action/speed/intensity. It will win over in the end here in the US. I don't care what anyone says. But not if you change it. Its the most perfect recipe right now and i don't want anyone to fuck with it.
posted by StarFucker at 05:13 PM on January 05, 2005
One more time...i don't care what anyone says! I should have proofread a bit better.
posted by StarFucker at 05:20 PM on January 05, 2005
All opinions aside, here's what Mendes, the goalscorer, is quoted as saying: "It was a very nice goal, it was clearly over the line - I've never seen one so over the line and not given in my career ... It's really, really over. What can you do but laugh about it? It's a nice goal and one to keep in my memory even though it didn't count. ... It's not every game you score from the halfway line." Nice. He should get extra fantasy points just for that happy-go-lucky attitude. I'm just saying.
posted by worldcup2002 at 06:20 PM on January 05, 2005
Wow, I just realized the logical fallacy in my earlier argument. My mind is going (but I hope my heart is still in the right place). What can I say, aside from ... "It was a very nice fallacy, it was clearly over the line - I've never seen one so over the line and not given in my career ... It's really, really over. What can you do but laugh about it? It's a nice fallacy and one to keep in my memory even though it didn't count. ... It's not every post you score such a whopper."
posted by worldcup2002 at 06:40 PM on January 05, 2005
Personally I had Carroll as the goalscorer. I can't see the chip in the ball working either when the whole of the ball has to be over the line. It's football. Shit like this happens. SF's right, it's the stuff you talk about in the office. Leave it be.
posted by squealy at 06:59 PM on January 05, 2005
for every bad citation of technology ruining things - how about cricket? if i am not mistaken all those barely perceptable ticks of ball against bat certainly get called and relayed to the relevant official without interrupting the game. (mind, this example proves nothing about the implementation of technology in football and is as relevant to the discussion as negative statements about video replay in american football). aside from the non-technology debate - given the number of goals that are scored from such distance (not all that many, but still) and the manner of chipping or lofting it over the keeper (delicately placed in that the one in question was nigh ideally positioned from dozens of yards away) do players at all practice such shots from such distance?
posted by gspm at 07:01 PM on January 05, 2005
i was in goal once where the ball sailed over the net and rolled down the back of it. the ref called it a goal because all he saw was the net moving. he didn't care that i had to go behind the damn goal to get the ball. but this was in staten island. so i wouldn't be surprised if there was corruption amongst the referees of girls' soccer games.
posted by goddam at 08:09 PM on January 05, 2005
do players at all practice such shots from such distance? There's a segment on the saturday morning TV show "Soccer AM" called the Crossbar Challenge. Each week a different team places the ball on the centre spot and the players try and hit the crossbar with it. Judging by the number of shots that drift thirty yards wide, I'd say that not many practise from that distance. Very, very few players have managed to hit the bar.
posted by afx237vi at 08:18 AM on January 06, 2005
gspm: The instant replays in cricket are only used in run-outs. If a batsman gets a faint edge to a fielder, the umpire has to make a call right there and then.
posted by afx237vi at 08:21 AM on January 06, 2005
I should have proofread a bit better. No, you should have left the "fag" comment in the preview pane in your previous comment, and not posted it here. Here's an online Thesarus if you are having trouble with synonyms for ignorant, SF. As for the topic at hand, I have changed my opinion, and now agree with those who suggest a linesman for the goal line. It is the simplest solution, doesn't involve technology, and should appeal to purists.
posted by scully at 09:17 AM on January 06, 2005
But that's not very efficient, is it? Two linesmen watching to see whether the ball goes over the line at every game, when this kind of dispute only ever happens about once a year? How about... and here's a radical idea... encouraging players to be more honest and tell the referee when a goal has been scored? Every single person in the entire stadium saw it was a goal... except for the three people who are paid to see it. Why couldn't Carroll have just said "yeah, it was in, I'm crap and I admit it, good luck Tim."
posted by afx237vi at 09:48 AM on January 06, 2005
How much fucking fun is it for Helmetball fans to sit there and wait while the ref watches tv for 5 minutes to decide whether the players ass touched the turf before he dropped the ball?! I'd rather eat my own barf! Here's your plate, SF. As a diehard football fan, I MUCH prefer knowing the call was made correctly to just chalking it up to "people make mistakes". While I agree that video replay not belong in soccer because of the way the game flows, just having a couple cameras set up on the insides of the posts would easily solve this situation. And on the rare occasion a game has to be stopped to get it right, you can take that five minutes and go look up another word besides "fag".
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:56 AM on January 06, 2005
HA!! You guys are all better than me cause you are all so enlightened! I'll just sit here in my cave, bashing my women over the head with a club.
posted by StarFucker at 12:10 PM on January 06, 2005
To afx23yvi's point about people being honest, I say "Hear, hear." I was just thinking that as I drove home from work yesterday. I can faintly remember past EPL (or maybe 1st Div pre-EPL matches) where players, usually the captain, would go up to the referee to ask them to reverse a decision so that it would benefit their opponent. It's rare but I've seen it. I just don't think it would happen today (even kicking a ball out so injured opponents can be treated appears to becoming less frequent ... but with all the play-acting, I can't say that's bad ... anyway, different topic). It would've been cool if Carroll had talked to Keano, and Keano had just asked the ref to give the goal. That would've done no end of good for Man U PR and set a new standard for sportsmanship. But Keano would probably have been excoriated by Ferguson later (as well as the board). I'm not saying it's realistic in today's high-stakes, must win, football is really business competition played out on grass, winner take all, world, but, boy, that would have been the gentlemanly thing to do.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:26 PM on January 06, 2005
afx237vi: i admit to not knowing enough about what I am watching when I've seen cricket to make the technology in faint edge calls a studio enhancement of the watching experience rather than a play influencing replay. i'll defer to your knowledge of instant replay as applied to cricket. i guess when i've seen it i have confused the use of the technology as something supporting the officials rather than an "oooh, on such quick and scant evidence we can see he made the right call". i think the people being honest fantasy, while a nice thought, is as realistic as the "chips in every shirt and every shoe and every blade of grass" technohorror. i think the high-stakes business world of football a technologial solution, of some sort, will come. I mean hey, the bookies paid out on the Tottenham non-goal. if there are two things that have driven innovation on the net, people suggest, those two things are gambling and porn.
posted by gspm at 02:07 PM on January 06, 2005
How about... and here's a radical idea... encouraging players to be more honest and tell the referee when a goal has been scored? It'd be lovely, but it won't happen in a sport in which deceiving the referee is a basic player skill.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 02:23 PM on January 06, 2005
gspm, so you're saying the bookies are more honest than the players. I like those odds!
posted by worldcup2002 at 03:42 PM on January 06, 2005
I watched this game on Sunday not knowing what had transpired a few days before. Incredible. I have to ask, though, isn't there a history of doing replays when this kind of thing or something similar happens, or is that just for cup matches? I seem to recall a cup match a few years ago where (I think one of the teams was Man U but I cannot be sure), when a Team A player went down with an injury, Team B kicked the ball out of bounds as a courtesy. Rather then customarily intentionally throwing in the ball to a Team B player, the Team A throw was aggressive and immediately led to a goal, that decided the game. After some reflection, I think they agreed to replay the match, as it was decided by unsportsmanlike play. As an American, I was stunned and impressed by that, but why wouldn't the same be possible here? Does it differ for a league match, or don't poor referee decisions factor in, or is it on the winning manager to concede the win and offer a replay?
posted by psmealey at 12:47 PM on January 11, 2005
For non-USians, "We wuz robbed" is an American cliche pulled out (mostly by fans) whenever an official's decision costs a team a victory.