a linesman at the byline would do fine.

___________________

• TRACKS FOR GRAPE PICKING
• TRACKS WHEN YOU HAVE GLITTER STUCK ALL OVER YOU

Indeed, Tottenham were clearly robbed. I have never seen a ball so clearly over the line and not given.

I have always been against using technology on the account that it will introduce an American style stop-gapness in the game (the very absence of which attracted me to football in the first place). When and where can the limit be? As soon as it is introduced, managers will demand it at every debatable tackle, penalty appeal, throw in, corner kick etc. So if they can devise a system that gives the ref absolute control about whether to refer to video technology or not than that should be implemented and such that the ref will not have to leave the field but refer to an earpiece or something on that line.

Just to calm any cries of favouritism by the officials, if you watch that goal again the ref is well over 50 yards away and the linesman is rushing back at full speed from 50 yards away as well. From the angle of ball, I am very sure Caroll's body blocked the linesman's view. It's not as if the linesman was level with the goal kick line.

Nevertheless, if I were a Tottenham fan I would be fuming right now (like those commentators ).

right click save

http://www.chaser2k4.footballclips....rollBlunder.wmv

edit: Just in! This image proves there was no cheating!

The ball was clearly over the time. I remember incidents when we have had the ball cross the line and it had not been given. Just the way things go. Complaining about it wont really do any good, and do you really want the chelsea peons to have their heads inflate anymore?

___________________
edited by Verndogs: sig exceeds max height

The way the video ref in rugby works and works quite well imo..basically the video ref is usually sitting in a studio within the grounds or in some cases outside the ground in a broadcast van..he and the match ref both have earpieces..but the video ref never interferes with the match unless asked by the match ref..and usually only for really tight situations where a guy may or may not have crossed the line for a legal try for instance.

Every premier match is televised anyway so the expense involved shouldnt be that much more and im sure the tv companys would only be to happy to talk to the FA about it..if it meant an extra few quid for them..and then the FA just have to set down very strict guidelines for its use and implementation.

but to have crucial decisions being fucked up every season year after year by this or that ref is rediculous.The same thing should thing should apply to international matches as well.

HeHE...like the new photo razmataz

quote:

Originally posted by razmataz I have always been against using technology on the account that it will introduce an American style stop-gapness in the game (the very absence of which attracted me to football in the first place). When and where can the limit be? As soon as it is introduced, managers will demand it at every debatable tackle, penalty appeal, throw in, corner kick etc. So if they can devise a system that gives the ref absolute control about whether to refer to video technology or not than that should be implemented and such that the ref will not have to leave the field but refer to an earpiece or something on that line. [/img]

lol you make the NFL replay sound like worst thing ever
In the NFL people dont mind the replay system because they want the right call to be made instead of after a bad call nothing happens and teams get screwed,fans call other teams cheaters bla bla bla.
In the NFL they DO have a limit of 2 replay challenges per team which of course arent always used unless its important to the game.Plus they have a little suspence to it.

As for how it will work with world football, if you guys are thinkin about using the replay system for anything other than the ball crossing the line than your not thinking realistically.Unlike the NFL , Football is a continous game that cannot be delayed to look at a let say an offside call, that just isnt gonna happen.When a person scores a goal but the ref dosnt see it it is ok to do replay because theres a stop in play after a player scores anyways to celebrate.It seems like only me and Evil Empire share this obvious view.
another way replay can work is when lets say the ref call an offside after the player has scored the goal, that could be reviewed as well.

quote:

Manchester Red Devils PLC Press Conference Latest - CARROLL "WAS PETTING LOVEABLE DOG" Manchester Red Devils Manager Sir Alex Ferguson tonight quashed speculation that a refereeing decision had been given in United's favour during their 0-0 draw with Tottenham. Speaking in a post match press conference, Ferguson claimed that reports that a late shot by Pedro Mendes had clearly crossed the line were "misjudged" and "gay". "What we clearly have seen tonight is a victory for the forces of evil", the ebullient Scot claimed. "Roy was doing nothing more than comforting a lost and confused animal. If any of you were put in a professional situation as a goalkeeper that demanded expert canine handling, I doubt that you would even be able to stay conscious, let alone act with the bravery and accuracy that Roy summoned. That the referee did not award us a penalty for his actions was astounding". Carroll affirmed his managers words, adding, "I didn't even see a shot. If there was one, it was done in pretty bad taste. That dog could have got hurt." United have long prided themselves on the clubs attitude to the animal kingdom, even awarding a position on the playing staff to champion flat runner Ruud Van Nistelrooy, a member of the equine race. In the end, United will reflect on an evening that, had it not been yet again for the disgraceful bias of Premiership officials against the Manchester Red Devils PLC, fans of the Trafford based franchise would have been rewarded with penalty based goals, fuelling their inexorable rise towards yet another richly deserved Premiership Pennant.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard

quote:

Old Trafford decision explained An FA spokesman after the game absolved the linesman of any responsibility for the apparently mistaken decision not to award a goal to Spurs after a shot from the halfway line crossed the goal line by at least a metre. "The shot came in from an unusual distance and as such caught the linesman out of position forcing him race back towards the goal as the play developed", explained the spokesman, "As he ran, the United scarf he was wearing under his shirt came loose and fluttered up into his face obscuring his view and preventing him from making the call. It was just one of those things."

That, strangely, looks a bit alike something that happened almost 3 months ago, on a Benfica - Porto. The supposedly "best keeper of the world", Vitor Baia, dropped a ball, and only took it off here:


Obviously(?) it was not awarded as goal, and we (Benfica) lost the game. So I perfectly understand your pain.

___________________


No, I'm not aplz.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard

Definatly the most plausable excuse yet..EVIL..great stuff..rofl

quote:

Originally posted by The Darklord That, strangely, looks a bit alike something that happened almost 3 months ago, on a Benfica - Porto.

That looks scarily similar!