Occasionally a striker gets lucky - his misplaced shot hits the bar/post but the ball rebounds kindly and lands behind the goal-line (and thats a goal obviously)
This one, er, didnt....
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/19012010/58/...ompetition.html
Full Version: officials' epic fail
Incredible... unfortunately, even if the Duisburg manager stated in post-match interviews that it definitely was not a goal - fifa would fine him for speaking against the official.
Soccer's rule banning instant replays is archaic and detrimental to the sport:
What gives with soccer?
Unfortunately it seems to be the deficiency of a conservative "old Europe" mentality that wants to hang on to tradition, in some small way, in a world of change - similar to our love affair with guns and death penalties.
It is an ironic contradiction to European culture which has grasped political, social, economic ,and even technological, change with a vengeance elsewhere - since the overthrow of monarchies.
Things like Thierry Henry's "hand goal" could not possibly happen in the real world where video replay is used. But until it is, it is ridiculous to call what he did "cheating". He simply played by the rules, just as the refs did.
QUOTE
The 1970 meeting of the International Football Association Board "agreed to request the television authorities to refrain from any slow-motion play-back which reflected, or might reflect, adversely on any decision of the referee".
And FIFA general secretary Urs Linsi was living in a fantasy world when he said:QUOTE
What you see after the fact on video simply doesn't come into it; that's the "second match", if you like.
Every other major sport has found a way to incorporate instant replay into the game.What gives with soccer?
Unfortunately it seems to be the deficiency of a conservative "old Europe" mentality that wants to hang on to tradition, in some small way, in a world of change - similar to our love affair with guns and death penalties.
It is an ironic contradiction to European culture which has grasped political, social, economic ,and even technological, change with a vengeance elsewhere - since the overthrow of monarchies.
Things like Thierry Henry's "hand goal" could not possibly happen in the real world where video replay is used. But until it is, it is ridiculous to call what he did "cheating". He simply played by the rules, just as the refs did.
I have mixed feelings on it, SP
I agree in one way its completely ridiculous not to use available technology, ie video replays, to get the correct decision
BUT... the thing is this particular bit of new technology will change the character of the sport so much. Soccer is continuous and for me that is one of its main attractions. Its not a stop-start game like rugby or tennis - the ball pings around continuously which is what makes it hard to play and fun to watch. If you allow the principle of the match being stopped while somebody adjudicates on a video replay for this type of incident then before long they wil be stopping play for other decisions too - was it offside?, was it a foul?, was the goalkeeper impeded? and within a couple of years every match will be being stopped ten or twenty times.
The decisions will be accurate but at a price of losing the spontaneity. For example, coaches will use the stoppage to reorganise their team tactics, whereas now one of the joys of soccer is that the coach is basically impotent once the clock is running - even if his pre-match tactics were perfect, who actually wins the match is down to how the players improvise on the hoof.
The other anti argument which I think has some merit is that soccer is one of the cheapest, most accessible games in the world. Although we all moan about FIFA they do have an excellent record in fostering the grassroots game and one of their guiding principles has always been that the amateur playing football in London or Lesotho is playing the real game, not a soccer-lite, exactly the same as the professional game he watches on TV. The rules are exactly the same. That seems to me a principle worth defending - even tho it means no video replays in the multi-million Euro Bundesliga because "amateur leagues in Lesotho cant afford the technology" lol.
I agree in one way its completely ridiculous not to use available technology, ie video replays, to get the correct decision
BUT... the thing is this particular bit of new technology will change the character of the sport so much. Soccer is continuous and for me that is one of its main attractions. Its not a stop-start game like rugby or tennis - the ball pings around continuously which is what makes it hard to play and fun to watch. If you allow the principle of the match being stopped while somebody adjudicates on a video replay for this type of incident then before long they wil be stopping play for other decisions too - was it offside?, was it a foul?, was the goalkeeper impeded? and within a couple of years every match will be being stopped ten or twenty times.
The decisions will be accurate but at a price of losing the spontaneity. For example, coaches will use the stoppage to reorganise their team tactics, whereas now one of the joys of soccer is that the coach is basically impotent once the clock is running - even if his pre-match tactics were perfect, who actually wins the match is down to how the players improvise on the hoof.
The other anti argument which I think has some merit is that soccer is one of the cheapest, most accessible games in the world. Although we all moan about FIFA they do have an excellent record in fostering the grassroots game and one of their guiding principles has always been that the amateur playing football in London or Lesotho is playing the real game, not a soccer-lite, exactly the same as the professional game he watches on TV. The rules are exactly the same. That seems to me a principle worth defending - even tho it means no video replays in the multi-million Euro Bundesliga because "amateur leagues in Lesotho cant afford the technology" lol.
I like the spontaneity and universality of soccer as well. But the action is hardly continuous given the ref can stop the play, if not the clock, for virtually any reason he likes.
And having only three officials for the size of the pitch makes it impracticle to see many violations, especially those off the ball.
It might interrupt the game more at first but - like traffic violations - there might eventually be fewer as players got use to being more carefully scrutinized.
And having only three officials for the size of the pitch makes it impracticle to see many violations, especially those off the ball.
It might interrupt the game more at first but - like traffic violations - there might eventually be fewer as players got use to being more carefully scrutinized.
True - I guess Im just being an old romantic 
A man after my own heart. 
Maybe if you're in Philadelphia we can catch a Union game.
We may have 0 years of tradition behind us (actually negative since they have yet to play a game) but at the very least a few of them should still be quite soothing to the eye come April.
Maybe if you're in Philadelphia we can catch a Union game.
We may have 0 years of tradition behind us (actually negative since they have yet to play a game) but at the very least a few of them should still be quite soothing to the eye come April.
Keep your eye on the ball, laddie 
Looks good. Glad to see they havent gone down the "one over-hyped foreign star" route
Looks good. Glad to see they havent gone down the "one over-hyped foreign star" route
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.