Blatter Apologises to Mexico and England

Rowley Birkin QC

:eek:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2010/0629/1224273575641.html

Irish Times wrote:

World Cup: Fifa president Sepp Blatter today said he had apologised to the English FA over Frank Lampard’s disallowed ‘goal’ and revealed the governing body would look again at goal-line technology.

Lampard’s effort during England’s 4-1 defeat to Germany was ruled out even though the ball clearly crossed the line and has led to renewed calls for the introduction of technology.

Blatter told a media briefing in Johannesburg today: “It is obvious that after the experience so far in this World Cup it would be a nonsense to not reopen the file of technology at the business meeting of the International FA Board (IFAB) in July.

“Personally I deplore it when you see evident referee mistakes but it’s not the end of a competition or the end of football, this can happen.

“The only thing I can do is yesterday I have spoken to the two federations [England and Mexico] directly concerned by referees mistakes. I have expressed to them apologies and I understand they are not happy and that people are criticising.

“We will naturally take on board the discussion on technology and have first opportunity in July at the business meeting.”

Sunday night’s match between Argentina and Mexico had also thrown up a controversial incident, with Carlos Tevez scoring the opening goal from a blatantly offside position.

Fifa had blocked any further experiments with technology at a meeting of the International FA Board, the game’s rule-making body, in March.

Blatter said the IFAB would only look again at goal-line technology and not video replays. “The only principle we are going to bring back for discussion is goal-line technology,” he added..

“Football is a game that never stops and the moment there was a discussion if the ball was in or out, or there was a goal-scoring opportunity, do we give a possibility to a team to call for replays once or twice like in tennis?

“For situations like the Mexico game you don’t need technology.”

Unbelievable stuff. No mention of TMO being considered and no apology to the FAI. At least it's a step forward in the right direction though.

Minstrel27

Sepp Blatter is a ****. He says he will look into it but how much does he really want it to happen.

Paleface

I find it hard to believe that he's making all the calls on his own like some sort of dictator. There has to be some resistance from elsewhere...

gimmick

How would goal line technology have assisted the FAI? Not to mention they should not get an apology anyway after their 33rd team suggestion. Morons.

If this measure is to be brought in, it can only be for goal line, not for offsides, not for dodgy penalties, not for bad fouls.

baldbear

I wouldn't believe a word out of that dictators mouth. FIFA is such an unfair organisation. They laughed at Ireland. He's still refusing video replays but might consider goal line technology. That wouln't of helped Mexico or Ireland.

Diabhal Beag

What an ass. We don't want to see apologies we want to see him do something about it.

Rowley Birkin QC

gimmick wrote: »

How would goal line technology have assisted the FAI? Not to mention they should not get an apology anyway after their 33rd team suggestion. Morons.

If this measure is to be brought in, it can only be for goal line, not for offsides, not for dodgy penalties, not for bad fouls.

As in you would be opposed to the introduction of a TMO?!

LeeroyJones

Tennis have mastered challenging wrong decisions.

I just don't see why each team doesn't get a bout 1 challenge each per match. Where a challenge can only be exercised with regards rewarding or disallowing a goal-not a red card or penalty etc.

You don't need to stop play. In the case of Lampard's goal they could have played out the game until the ball next went out of play, then the captain or head coach just approaches the referee and tells him that they're challenging the decision. Look at a replay. If the referee was right to begin with, the team loses their right to challenge for the rest of the match.

Takes less than a minute.

If this was in place, we would have challenged France's goal, Mexico would have challenged and so would have England

gimmick

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

As in you would be opposed to the introduction of a TMO?!

Not sure what TMO is, but if it is video replays I would be 100% against it.

LeeroyJones wrote: »

You don't need to stop play. In the case of Lampard's goal they could have played out the game until the ball next went out of play, then the captain or head coach just approaches the referee and tells him that they're challenging the decision. Look at a replay. If the referee was right to begin with, the team loses their right to challenge for the rest of the match.

Takes less than a minute.

Well and good, but what if the other teams scores during the "play on"?

Shanotheslayer

gimmick wrote: »

Not sure what TMO is, but if it is video replays I would be 100% against it.

TMO is what they use in Rugby, so basically video replays.

LeeroyJones

gimmick wrote: »

Well and good, but what if the other teams scores during the "play on"?

The right to challenge still holds.

In tennis, say Federer-v-Nadal. If Federer is serving and is taking a 2nd serve and nadal thinks it's a double fault, if it's not called he plays on if he can and plays the point which could go into a long rally. If Federer 'wins' the rally, Nadal still can challenge. It works

Mitch Connor

LeeroyJones wrote: »

The right to challenge still holds.

In tennis, say Federer-v-Nadal. If Federer is serving and is taking a 2nd serve and nadal thinks it's a double fault, if it's not called he plays on if he can and plays the point which could go into a long rally. If Federer 'wins' the rally, Nadal still can challenge. It works

Nope - don't think so. I think if a player thinks the ball was out (and it was called in - or not called at all, as it were) they have to challenge immediately. they can't wait till the end of the point (if it continues)

Paul Tergat

Theres no point at all comparing it to the tennis challenge system. It can be nowhere near as clear cut as to how to restart.

helimachoptor

gimmick wrote: »

Not sure what TMO is, but if it is video replays I would be 100% against it.



Well and good, but what if the other teams scores during the "play on"?

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

TMO is what they use in Rugby, so basically video replays.

Television Match Official i think is what it stands for

greendom

Goal line technology wouldn't have helped Ireland but officials behind the goal line may well have. Is this to be scrapped now ? I think there is some mileage in this idea and it should be given a go. It may not have helped Mexico but England would have their 2nd goal and Henry's handball would have been spotted.

DazMarz

This is a hollow, meaningless apology from a deluded fool who unfortunately is head of the world's football association. He has no love for the game nor its fans and is nothing more than a soulless bureaucrat who should be pushing paper in a government agency, not running a Football Association.

These 'apologies' mean little to nothing to the nations who have suffered from the lack of response from FIFA. He would be better to say nothing and stand mute on the subject than to issue these hollow, useless statements that are only being used to fob off the protesting nations.

Walsh

How is the TMO going to work in the Eircom league? Oh wait it won't, this doesn't concern me so.

Optimalprimerib

A better idea would be an eye in the sky. Have an assistant referee in a studio being able to watch the replays and call foul. This way play would not have to stop. I dont agree with having one chance to contend. What if you make the wrong choice

tolosenc

In the NHL, if the referees aren't sure if it was a goal, they play on till the next stoppage in play and review it themselves. If it does turn out to be a goal, the clock is reset to the time of the goal, the goal chalked up, and play restarted, if not, play goes on as it would have after the stoppage.

That or managers could challenge, as in NFL, losing a substitution if they are wrong.

jv2000

Well I think a TMO is a fantastic idea for a number of reasons:

Adds to the excitment (as with Rugby when the crowd waits for a major decision)

Would see an end to crucial goals that should never have been (or should have been in Englands case)

Could completely cut-out diving for penalties - if this technology is only introduced in the major leagues at leat it will serve to set a good example to the younger viewers.... there is no room for diving in soccer.

parker kent

LeeroyJones wrote: »

Tennis have mastered challenging wrong decisions.

I just don't see why each team doesn't get a bout 1 challenge each per match. Where a challenge can only be exercised with regards rewarding or disallowing a goal-not a red card or penalty etc.

You don't need to stop play. In the case of Lampard's goal they could have played out the game until the ball next went out of play, then the captain or head coach just approaches the referee and tells him that they're challenging the decision. Look at a replay. If the referee was right to begin with, the team loses their right to challenge for the rest of the match.

Takes less than a minute.

If this was in place, we would have challenged France's goal, Mexico would have challenged and so would have England

That approach has too much faffing about. Better to just appoint a fifth official who is watching the game on TV and in constant contact with the others. 5 seconds after Lampard's shot he would have been able to tell that it was a goal.

They would have to establish ground rules as for how often the TMO can intervene, maybe just at the referee's discretion if he feels he needs a second opinion or in the case of a major game changing error (basically decisions affecting goals or maybe penalties if he notices and incorrectly awarded penalty). He could also make a note of diving as it would be easier for somebody with replays to assess.

The challenge idea sounds messy to me.

seadnamac

gimmick wrote: »

Not sure what TMO is, but if it is video replays I would be 100% against it.



Well and good, but what if the other teams scores during the "play on"?

In the case of the Lampard goal, if it found that his shot was not a goal, then the other teams goal stands. If it is found that his shot was a goal, then the other teams goal does not stand and they kick off. What's was wrong with that?

TheTosh

When is the fifa elections because Blatter has put himself up for re-election, lets hope the fat pr*ck doesn't get it

keano_afc

TMO is the perfect solution, but there's one flaw. Refs in rugby have the utmost respect of the players, something which is seriously lacking in football. I think TMO works so well in rugby because the players respect the official enough to know he will check out any dubious calls.

greendom

greendom wrote: »

Goal line technology wouldn't have helped Ireland but officials behind the goal line may well have. Is this to be scrapped now ? I think there is some mileage in this idea and it should be given a go. It may not have helped Mexico but England would have their 2nd goal and Henry's handball would have been spotted.

Blowing my own trumpet here but another advantage of additional officials rather than additional technology is that it will be much easier to adopt at all levels of the game. Eye in the sky and TMO will be far to expensive to implement at lower levels

noodler

Did we not already get an apology?

Leiva

Who needs Video Technology ?


Put another official behind the goal , give them powers to call on :

Suspected ball crossing the line.
Diving inside the box .
Suspected handball .
Interfering with play or not during offisde , not actual offside decisions .

The problem with the Technology is that it will still be up for debate if a ball has fully (all) crossed the line .
That could slow the game up , waiting for a debate .
Blatter still gets his "human" element to decisions .:rolleyes:

noodler

gimmick wrote: »

Not to mention they should not get an apology anyway after their 33rd team suggestion. Morons.

.

Of course they should.

gimmick

seadnamac wrote: »

In the case of the Lampard goal, if it found that his shot was not a goal, then the other teams goal stands. If it is found that his shot was a goal, then the other teams goal does not stand and they kick off. What's was wrong with that?

It would probably cause a frigging riot Id say.

I dunno, its a messy situation. Perhaps the tennis example of "eagle eye" on the goal line is something that can be looked at, but no more. Video ref would kill the game imo.

Ping Chow Chi

gimmick wrote: »

It would probably cause a frigging riot Id say.

I dunno, its a messy situation. Perhaps the tennis example of "eagle eye" on the goal line is something that can be looked at, but no more. Video ref would kill the game imo.

Yes but it would right TWO wrongs. Imagine if your team had scored a perfectly good goal only for the ref to miss it and the other team then did go up and score from the open play, that's getting double punishment for a bad call.

parker kent

mixednuts wrote: »

Who needs Video Technology ?


Put another official behind the goal , give them powers to call on :

Suspected ball crossing the line.
Diving inside the box .
Suspected handball .
Interfering with play or not during offisde , not actual offside decisions .

The problem with the Technology is that it will still be up for debate if a ball has fully (all) crossed the line .
That could slow the game up , waiting for a debate .
Blatter still gets his "human" element to decisions .:rolleyes:

The refs behind the goal in the Europa League still got decisions wrong. Same way that umpires do in the GAA. The human element is still there so mistakes will be made. Plus there is a cost element, that means 2 more officials at every game. They would also have to be sourced from somewhere (those 2 would previously have been reffing at another game) and that might mean incompetent/inexperienced referees moving up the ladder to fill the gaps. Perhaps retired referees would be suited to the being the assistant behind the goal.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with having the refs behind the goals, but technology can be implemented too. The very intrusive forms like challenges have no real future, but other methods like having a man watching a TV whilst in contact with the ref is doable at elite levels. It would just mean having another official for the referee to consult with, much like he can with the linesmen.

JerryHandbag

Thanks for apology Sepp.
Anyhoo, think I'll just watch this again and smile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJHuY_8yz0c

Rowley Birkin QC

I would be fully supportive of the implementation of a TMO system similar to that employed in rugby.

Any complaints about stoppages ruining the flow of a game pale in the face of complaints about a wrong decision which costs one team a victory.

Anyway look at how long we spend waiting around for one of these overpaid nancy boys to receive "treatment" after rolling around on the ground following an opponent's arm/head/leg being within 2 feet of him. The benefits far outweigh the negatives in my opinion.

Ferris_Bueller

Can't say I agree with video replays, too many potential flaws with it for what it's worth. The main argument is if it were Lampards goal the other day, when does the referee check the replay? He can't let Germany run down the other end, score a goal and then say "er, actually Lampard did score, Germany your goal doesn't count", personally I think that would take so much away from the sport.
Plus, I know I wouldn't find games as exciting if you had to wait for the referee to check a replay before the fans celebrated if it were a goal or not. And where would it be implemented? Where is the line drawn? Not particularly fair if it's only the major leagues around the world, and I can't imagine the LoI for example forking out on this too willingly, impossible to use this in schoolboy football also. Just too many holes for my liking.

A possible solution for did the ball cross the line or not, would possibly be to put a chip in every fifa approved ball which sends a beep to the refs ear if it crosses the line, although some of my initial points would still stick, it wouldn't delay much time.

But the only thing I can see working, is what they have done in the Europa League with the goal line officials, this could be used at every level (if necessary) and would be the least expensive probably, although I'm sure we would still face the odd debatable goal.

wardie101

Spain had a similar goal not given against Brazil back in the 1986 World cup and then lost 1-0...Ball landed about a foot behind the line

24 years on and nothing changes and not likely to change any time soon

parker kent

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Can't say I agree with video replays, too many potential flaws with it for what it's worth. The main argument is if it were Lampards goal the other day, when does the referee check the replay? He can't let Germany run down the other end, score a goal and then say "er, actually Lampard did score, Germany your goal doesn't count", personally I think that would take so much away from the sport.
Plus, I know I wouldn't find games as exciting if you had to wait for the referee to check a replay before the fans celebrated if it were a goal or not. And where would it be implemented? Where is the line drawn? Not particularly fair if it's only the major leagues around the world, and I can't imagine the LoI for example forking out on this too willingly, impossible to use this in schoolboy football also. Just too many holes for my liking.

A possible solution for did the ball cross the line or not, would possibly be to put a chip in every fifa approved ball which sends a beep to the refs ear if it crosses the line, although some of my initial points would still stick, it wouldn't delay much time.

But the only thing I can see working, is what they have done in the Europa League with the goal line officials, this could be used at every level (if necessary) and would be the least expensive probably, although I'm sure we would still face the odd debatable goal.

An extra official watching a replay would have told him within 10 seconds of the ball bouncing over the line, he does not have to check anything personally.

Hawkeye would be another good system to use. It has proven it works in other sports. Again there is the issue of not being able to implement it at every level, but I am happy to watch Bray at the Carlisle Grounds with a technology free game and then watch Ireland at Euro 2012 with technology being used. It is a nice idea to keep all levels of football the same, but the reality is that there are already differences between what happens at elite level and LoI level.

Leiva

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

A possible solution for did the ball cross the line or not, would possibly be to put a chip in every fifa approved ball which sends a beep to the refs ear if it crosses the line, although some of my initial points would still stick, it wouldn't delay much time.

.

Surley this is the only way this Technology can work No ?

If it was reliant on video replays then what would happen say on a header from a corner that hit the cross bar , but the goal line is packed with defenders ?
Or a big scramble in a packed box and the ball goes in or not ?

Its not like Tennis were the line in question is never congested .

If close decisions go to a Video Ref then they need to be pretty instantaneous with responses .
I dont believe that it will make it less exciting (kinda like the suspense in Rugby for close trys) but this is soccer that needs a flow to the game .

MisterAnarchy

TheTosh wrote: »

When is the fifa elections because Blatter has put himself up for re-election, lets hope the fat pr*ck doesn't get it

Well if he doesnt get it then some other gangster will take his place .

DazMarz

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Well if he doesnt get it then some other gangster will take his place .

But at least it might be a younger, more technologically minded gangster who would bring in better technology to the game.

I don't care what they're like, once this situation improves. I don't care if it's Satan himself, once technology of some sort is brought in, all the better.

Kiwi_knock

I think extra officials behind the goal has been ruled out by the FA because they know they will not have the numbers to implement the scheme. They would have to use it in every league game and there are simply not the number there to make it work.

With regard to a TMO, I think it could work but not with teams allowed to challenge instead it should be the discretion of the ref. If the ref/asst ref are not sure of a decision they can go upstairs to the TMO, however for this to work players crowding the ref needs to end. Only the captains should be allowed talk to the ref and any other player who talks to the ref should be given an automatic yellow card.

The system will be dodgy at first as the refs will become too reliant on it but when they get used to it the number of times a TMO is used will be cut down.

101001

Is it just me or do other people just not care? The goal crossed the line, referee didnt see it, sh*t happens! Why the need for goal line technology? These are the parameters of the game you play. Sure it might piss you off but 'it's all in the game yo'

DazMarz

Soccer is one of the (if not THE) richest game in the world. Millions upon millions upon millions of pounds/euro/dollar/etc. are pumped into the game from all quarters.

The amount of money that can be earned/gained or lost on the back of one goal sometimes beggars belief.

In rugby, a game where the amount of money bandied about is a fraction of that in soccer, they use the most up-to-date video technology to ensure that scores are correct and that everything is done fairly.

In soccer, where one score or one decision can mean millions being won/lost, they do not use technology but rely on flawed/easily-influenced/bribe-able/unfit/etc. people to keep an eye on things. These flawed officials also have no technological back up, so are relying on one view and one viewing of an incident.

This has to change. It would not cost that much to implement and would be better for the game as a whole.

namloc1980

Goal line reviews should be relatively easy to implement. But the question is where do you draw the line?? People are screaming for video reviews after the Lampard and Tevez incidents. But if you bring it in for the Tevez type incident then must you bring it in for all offside decisions? Where do you draw the line? Do we want football to turn into American Football where we have managers throwing challenge flags onto the pitch?

Personally I think the TMO in rugby takes away hugely from the spontaneity and excitement of the game. I just want to know where the line is drawn? Goal line incidents only? Or make every decision reviewable?

Yakult

They have the technology already to do it. Think of all the cameras around the pitch/goals and then the big screens at the stadiums. Surely they can show a replay on that and then make the final decision.

And then the simplicity of a lines man behind each goal. Common sense.

Life is so hard for Fifa.

v3ttel

namloc1980 wrote: »

Personally I think the TMO in rugby takes away hugely from the spontaneity and excitement of the game.

I have the opposite opinion about the TMO. You get the excitement of watching the event at the time, and then they suspense of the "oh sh!t, did he get it? Was he in control of it?" moments while the decision is made.

I don't buy this argument that they can't introduce technology because they can't implement it at grassroots level either. Arguably, there aren't enough referees to make the "extra officials behind the goal" idea work.

I don't understand why football has to be years behind every other sport. All that "FIFA fair play" stuff, but yet you see teams getting screwed over in front of an audience of millions. What an absolute joke. Top level games are being decided by which major decisions the referees got wrong. That just can't be right.

podge018

DazMarz wrote: »

Soccer is one of the (if not THE) richest game in the world. Millions upon millions upon millions of pounds/euro/dollar/etc. are pumped into the game from all quarters.

The amount of money that can be earned/gained or lost on the back of one goal sometimes beggars belief.

In rugby, a game where the amount of money bandied about is a fraction of that in soccer, they use the most up-to-date video technology to ensure that scores are correct and that everything is done fairly.

In soccer, where one score or one decision can mean millions being won/lost, they do not use technology but rely on flawed/easily-influenced/bribe-able/unfit/etc. people to keep an eye on things. These flawed officials also have no technological back up, so are relying on one view and one viewing of an incident.

This has to change. It would not cost that much to implement and would be better for the game as a whole.

who gives a ****e about the money, neither the players or the fans make/lose money on the back of bad decisions. They're who count.

DazMarz

podge018 wrote: »

who gives a ****e about the money, neither the players or the fans make/lose money on the back of bad decisions. They're who count.

Players can lose huge win bonuses/appearance money.

Fans can lose bets etc.

Money talks really.

But I can take your point on, but my point was also that with the amount of money backing the game has, surely technology has to come into it at this stage!

Superbus

While I would be all for TMOs in soccer, or some element like that, it's awkward to compare it to the equivalent system in rugby. In rugby, the ball is pretty much certain to be out of play even if the try is debatable, i.e. there's been a knock-on/offside/some other infraction, and there's then an easy opportunity for the ref to call on the TMO.

In football, as we've seen with Lampard, play can continue after the potential goal. That's the awkward thing that'd have to be factored in. I know it's already been said many times, but I just felt that the comparisons to rugby were a little irrelevant since the games are so different.

Overheal

gizmodo has a nice write up for how to increment technology into the game,

http://deadspin.com/5575854/goal+line-tech-expert-how-fifa-can-kick-bad-calls-in-3-easy-steps

Guy:Incognito

101001 wrote: »

Is it just me or do other people just not care? The goal crossed the line, referee didnt see it, sh*t happens! Why the need for goal line technology? These are the parameters of the game you play. Sure it might piss you off but 'it's all in the game yo'

100 years ago the parameters of the game involved tape for a cross bar, no subs etc. By your logic, thats the way it should still be, never moving on.

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

impossible to use this in schoolboy football also. Just too many holes for my liking.
.

So then should schoolboy football be done away with because they dont usually have official linesmen either?

mixednuts wrote: »

Who needs Video Technology ?


Put another official behind the goal , give them powers to call on :

Suspected ball crossing the line.
Diving inside the box .
Suspected handball .
Interfering with play or not during offisde , not actual offside decisions .

The problem with the Technology is that it will still be up for debate if a ball has fully (all) crossed the line .
That could slow the game up , waiting for a debate .
Blatter still gets his "human" element to decisions .:rolleyes:

How would looking at a camera for a reply still leave debate but haveing more humans lookign at it only in real time eliminate that

greendom wrote: »

Blowing my own trumpet here but another advantage of additional officials rather than additional technology is that it will be much easier to adopt at all levels of the game. Eye in the sky and TMO will be far to expensive to implement at lower levels

Again. At the lower reaches of football , teams are lucky to have a ref turn up every week, they dont have official linesmen. Yet you somehow think theres a big line of people sitting in the headquarters of fa's around the world ready to be deployed in 5 man teams to every game at every level of football

MisterAnarchy

Superbus wrote: »

In football, as we've seen with Lampard, play can continue after the potential goal. That's the awkward thing that'd have to be factored in. I know it's already been said many times, but I just felt that the comparisons to rugby were a little irrelevant since the games are so different.

The ball was in the goalies hands after rebounding off the underside of the crossbar .The referee could have stopped it there and then ,no problem at all.
FIFA are just making excuses ,trying to justify their inept and flawed methodology.
Technology has to be brought in and asap.
Goaline technology should be the first thing to be brought in ,it could be used solely in big tournaments initially,the cameras are already there .
Hawk eye only needs a minimum of 4 cameras to work for tennis,cricket and rugby ,nearly every televised soccer match has 4 camera positions.
It could then be introduced for penalty decisions and possible red cards for last man back offences.
Video technology would reduce the pressure on referees so they could be more relaxed in their duties and not get upset/anxious/flustered about making bad decisions.
The publicised notion that technology will slow down the game and lead to stoppages is nonsense itself.The ball is out of play for over 1/3 of most matches anyway ,sometimes 2/5 .
Also technology doesnt need to be introduced at lower levels ,why are people saying that it needs to be introduced at schoolboy level,local parks wtf ? Thats hogwash.
I dont need hawk eye playing tennis at my club .
We are talking about important matches ,professional .
If high scoring sports like cricket ,tennis and rugby deem it necessary to have technology to review decisions how can a sport where there is often only a single score in a match ,sometimes no score shun technology ?
Its farcical and sickening.