an interesting discussion...

[ali benarbia's studs]

penalty fits the crime,


unless its a penalty without a goalie!

 

[DannyBoy2890]

i said the same thing.....

rugby have it spot on...


a penalty try would be given !

 

[mart]

Rugby League seems to be leading the way on fair play at the moment... they were first for the video ref and they have a system where they can award a penalty try. Shame we don't have penalty goal.

I've said this at work bout video refs or whatever you want to call them the way the game is played you cannot keep stopping the game to watch a replay , now regareding the lampard "goal" the 4th offical could have watched a reply within secs and he could have told the ref thought his earpiece that it had crossed the line but the ref did nothing wrong yesterday and why change stuff it sparks debate like this

 

[CBlue]

It wasn't a penalty because there was an offside before the handball. So the punishment didn't match the crime.

All you VT supporters would have been asking the ref to review the wrong incident - sums it up really.

 

[redmizzle]

No-one would have done any different. He had the chance to possibly save his team and he did.

Plus Ghana were diving all over the place for most of the game. And as for Paintsil calling him a cheat, well...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqubKdN46zg[/youtube]

Yep! that would have directly resulted in a goal. Fair enough if you think what happened with suarez wasn't cheating, but this clip definitey doesnt prove your point!

 

[BlueMooney]

The FIFA President Sepp Blatter has confirmed that the rules of football will not be under scrutiny after Uruguay’s victory over Ghana on Friday evening.

With seconds to play in extra time, Ghana were denied a certain goal when Luis Suarez intentionally handled the ball on the line.

Suarez was then sent off and a penalty was awarded, but it was missed by Asamoah Gyan. Uruguay went on to win the resulting penalty shoot-out, leaving both Ghana’s players and fans fuming.

But while many in the media have suggested that a red card and a penalty for the offence was a fair decision, large sections of the watching public have suggested that a goal should have been awarded by default because, without Suarez’s intervention, the ball would definitely have crossed the line.

Blatter, however, has dismissed the suggestion as “ridiculous.”

He said: “We can’t start awarding goals for when the ball doesn’t cross the line. Sometimes we have enough trouble awarding goals when the ball does cross the line, so I don’t see how it can work.

“Suarez broke the rules,” he continued. “And he was suitably punished. The rules were followed to the letter and it was right that the penalty was awarded.

“It is not unfair on Ghana because they had the chance to win the game with the penalty, but they failed to do it. That isn’t the fault of the rules, but the fault of the players.”

The incident has been compared to Thierry Henry’s handball that helped France beat the Republic of Ireland in their qualification playoff.

Former English World Cup and Premier League referee Graham Poll, however, dismissed the comparisons as “lazy.”

Speaking ahead of Spain’s World Cup Quarter Final with Paraguay, Poll told Sky Sports: “There is no comparison between the two handballs. Suarez was punished for his and Henry wasn’t.

“Both men did benefit from their handballs, but one was because he cheated and the referee didn’t see it, while the other was because the referee saw it, but the player got lucky.

“We can’t just be giving goals because the ball nearly went into the net,” he continued. “Soon we’ll be awarding goals for clearances off the line, or when the goalkeeper saves it, or when it goes just wide.

“It’s part of the fundamental rules of the game. A goal is given when the whole ball crosses the line, just as a game lasts for ninety minutes and two yellow cards equal a red.

“To change any of them would be totally crazy,” he added. “The rules are very clear. It’s just unfortunate that, in this instance, it’s the team that broke the rules that benefited. But that’s what makes football so exciting.”

Officials from the Ghanaian Football Association declined to comment.

The rules will stay the same: <a class="postlink" href="http://secondyellowcard.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://secondyellowcard.wordpress.com/</a>

 

[IrishMacca]

Rugby League seems to be leading the way on fair play at the moment... they were first for the video ref and they have a system where they can award a penalty try. Shame we don't have penalty goal.

I've said this at work bout video refs or whatever you want to call them the way the game is played you cannot keep stopping the game to watch a replay , now regareding the lampard "goal" the 4th offical could have watched a reply within secs and he could have told the ref thought his earpiece that it had crossed the line but the ref did nothing wrong yesterday and why change stuff it sparks debate like this

But it doesn't stop the game, it wouldn't. In rugby it might be used once in every two games at the top level. Sometimes more, but it's rare that it's ever really used more than once in a game, and for the large part it is a welcomed time delay, because the correct decision is likely to be made, and it impacts well on the game where you know the right decision is made, and there's no bad blood remaining from a stupid call. 99.9% of the time the TMO gets it right, and we see what he's watching on the telly.
Yes wrong decisions are still made, the game is still very much open to human error and individuals interpretations.

But the game flows as good as it ever does, and the video doesn't go back further than in the process of scoring a try. Not half way up the field, if a foul is commited half way up the field that the ref doesn't spot and that leads to a score than that's tough shit.

But if the ref isn't 100% sure if a try had been scored or not he goes to the TMO and he comes back quickly with a decision and a recomendation. It could work in football, but so many people, like FIFA are living in the dark ages afraid of the next obvious step.

A few seconds at best and a few minutes at worst - is a small price to pay for the integrity of the sport, and justice in decisions. Mistakes are still made from the TMO, very rarely, but at the end of the day, in a tricky call it is still a person sitting in the van making a decision.
But I can see most of those decisions being easily made in football, they don't have rucks, they don't have bodies lying everywhere and have to try and spot the ball being grounded, from underneath a maul or a tackled player..etc. it's a lot harder in rugby when it comes to that, in many occasions when we're trying to see whether a try was scored, sometimes it's to be a played from a few angles on tv before anyone to see, but in football it rarely takes more than one or two angles to figure out what happened.

It's commons sense for them to bring in modern technology to football when it works so well in other sports, and with blatant errors being made on the highest of stages for everyone of us to see. It's ridiculous. We can all see the problem, but FIFA on the other hand appear happy to fly in the face of common sense on this issue and as a result will continue to be dogged by needless controversy until they join the 21st Century.

 

[Balti]

just been speaking to a friend of mine about the Ghana Uruguay match

he thinks the situation that led to the penalty at the end of extra time was a 'farce' and that a rule change should be made to allow a goal to be given when the ball is deliberately prevented from going in by a handball on the line

i can see where he is coming from, not that i agree with him, and we have had a long and heated discussion about why this rule change would be bad/good and why it should/should not be implemented

i was just wondering what the rest of you thought?

I agree that the ref should be allowed to award a penalty goal where a player has clearly cheated and the ball would clearly have been in the back of the net if not. Cheating should not be clearly able to change the result of such an important match. Awarding a penalty only serves to encourage others to cheat in the same way.

Iffy decisions might be possible but once again a 4th ref with video technology could quickly and easily make that ruling.

 

[Bigga]

...“We can’t just be giving goals because the ball nearly went into the net,” he continued. “Soon we’ll be awarding goals for clearances off the line, or when the goalkeeper saves it, or when it goes just wide.

“It’s part of the fundamental rules of the game. A goal is given when the whole ball crosses the line, just as a game lasts for ninety minutes and two yellow cards equal a red.

“To change any of them would be totally crazy,” he added. “The rules are very clear. It’s just unfortunate that, in this instance, it’s the team that broke the rules that benefited. But that’s what makes football so exciting.”

Do you want to ask Tottyhum and the England squad about this bit? To become dismissive of a suggestion about 'penalty goals' when your own law about goals isn't 100% together smacks of pure stupidity!

Do they not think that this decision is not going to be flouted a bit more regular with players "willing to take one for the team"? Football will be spoiled as a spectacle.

Blatter, however, has dismissed the suggestion as “ridiculous.”

He said: “We can’t start awarding goals for when the ball doesn’t cross the line. Sometimes we have enough trouble awarding goals when the ball does cross the line, so I don’t see how it can work..."

...Poll told Sky Sports: “We can’t just be giving goals because the ball nearly went into the net,” he continued. “Soon we’ll be awarding goals for clearances off the line, or when the goalkeeper saves it, or when it goes just wide.

“It’s part of the fundamental rules of the game. A goal is given when the whole ball crosses the line, just as a game lasts for ninety minutes and two yellow cards equal a red.

“To change any of them would be totally crazy,” he added. “The rules are very clear. It’s just unfortunate that, in this instance, it’s the team that broke the rules that benefited. But that’s what makes football so exciting.”

Poll doing his best to sound like Blatter in his stupidity! We've SEEN 'goal line clearances' that were GOALS before now (re-refer to Spuds vs Scum) and not given. Where were your precious rules then?

A game lasts for 90 mins or 97 in some parts of the world.

Oh and not all reds are the sum of two yellow cards, eh, Mr. Poll...?

 

[IrishMacca]

just been speaking to a friend of mine about the Ghana Uruguay match

he thinks the situation that led to the penalty at the end of extra time was a 'farce' and that a rule change should be made to allow a goal to be given when the ball is deliberately prevented from going in by a handball on the line

i can see where he is coming from, not that i agree with him, and we have had a long and heated discussion about why this rule change would be bad/good and why it should/should not be implemented

i was just wondering what the rest of you thought?

I agree that the ref should be allowed to award a penalty goal where a player has clearly cheated and the ball would clearly have been in the back of the net if not. Cheating should not be clearly able to change the result of such an important match. Awarding a penalty only serves to encourage others to cheat in the same way.

Iffy decisions might be possible but once again a 4th ref with video technology could quickly and easily make that ruling.

Football really has become a sport of cheats. No other sport is it viewed acceptable to dive to get a free, to dive and cheat to try and get another player sent off, no other sport do players go down with the slightest touch or any tackle. There is no need for it. And it makes the sport look ridiculous.