h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Absolutely Effers. I think the Uruguay incident is more 'profound' because of its timing (last shot of the game) and circumstance (Ghana would have reached the semi-finals); and timing is also the reason why Terry Henry was villified for his handball goal that got France to the finals at the expense of Ireland.

I was watching a thing on BBC 3 about controversial football incidents the other night when the subject turned to footballers cheating. I think it was Jimmy Greaves who said that if given the chance, all footballers will take the opportunity to bend the rules

<>

Suarez by his cheating has put the player Gyan, who missed the subsequent penalty, in a position which is going to have a profound effect on the rest of his life. In fact in some ways what Suarez has indirectly done to Gyan borders on the criminal. In a sense he has stolen something from the whole nation of Ghana - their deserved place in the World Cup semi final - and consigned Gyan to a life of ruefulness and 'what might have been'.

Oh well, it's only a game I guess.

I think you have to separate the handball in yesterday's match and the non-England goal. The handball was cheating and the ref and his assistants should have seen it. They didn't and it's one reason why they have to use the same tech they use in Rugby matches.

The England goal... of course the goalie scooped it out of the net. That's what goalies do - and as with offsides and other rule infractions it only counts if the ref blows up for it. The fact that some refs are apparently Tommy-line in their deaf dumb and blindness is something FIFA need to work on.

Surounding the ref and trying to get people sent off - I think that's actually down to two things. First it has to stop being acceptable by managers team owners coaches and other players. The fans should also boo to let the players know it's unacceptable.

The second is the referees themselves. The FA and FIFA have their respect campaigns, but they don't back it up with anything. The individual referees have to make it clear that they won't accept being surrounded (and touched! how is that allowed?) being shouted at or whatever. They have the power to do that and they should or they get walked all over, as we see.

Has crowding on the ref ever led to the ref changing his mind? But maybe it is not so much about the current decision, but about future decisions. As in "let's put so much pressure on the ref that he thinks he ows us..."

But yes, crowding is ugly, as is acting. Just that upset look that so many player shoot at the ref as soon as they ave been fouled against (or think they have been fouled against, or want the world to think they have been fouled against), that first look of "Daaaaaady! Look, they been bad to me. Do something, daaaaaady" really urinates me off (no matter who does it).

Y.

that's a good point - has a ref ever changed his mind?

Also - are refereeing decisions (and refereeing generally) scrutinised after a match? Is there any way for a team to complain about wrong decisions? (the England non-goal, the handball in the area, that kind of thing)

<>


First of all, how do you know that the whole of the ball didn't cross the line at some point on its journey from the cross bar to the ground, taking into account that it will have moved in the air, the effect of the ball "squashing" horizontally in flight and vertically on landing, and the fact that it must have been spinning a lot to have landed mostly over the line at still bounce backwards out of the goal?

And if we are going to rake over every goal decision, the freekick leading to Germany's second goal should never have been awarded. So the game would have finished 2-1 to England, who were the stronger team on the day.

The FA, FIFA, they can at any time make an effort to explain the laws, how they will enforce them and make it clear what behaviour is expected. Alongside instructing/training referees to maintain good order among the players on the pitch.

Just telling the teams, the players, the refs or any one group wont work. You have to tell everyone that behaviours such as x, y and z will no longer be tolerated at any level and will be met with all the warnings and sanctions available to the referee on the day.

And then they have to do it.

Wont happen.

<>

Nobody bar a half-blind Communist extra from Dr Zhivago with a well-dodgy moustache said it did. I haven't seen anyone, anywhere ever prove that the ball crossed the line. 44 years and nearly half a million views on youtube later and it still doesn't look like it did - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__MJV11nRqU

And as Alan of Hansen would say, that defence was simply shocking. Geoff Hurst could have posted that shot.

If we are going to deem it a refereeing error and rescind England's third goal, then Germany's second goal should also be rescinded as the freekick that led to it was due to a refereeing error and shouldn't have been awarded, making the final score 2-1 to England.

I also feel that blaming one footballer for potentially ruining another's career is a bit strong.

Every man on that pitch should be able to take a penalty and take responsibility for it, win or lose.

In the circumstances, I dont believe a referee could have been certain whether or not the ball would have been stopped by the bodies if it had not hit hands deliberately put in it's way.

If you give the goal, then you accept the ball went over the line in which case the handball didn't occur as the ball was out of play, the goal had been scored. If you give the red card and penalty you cant give the goal. It's that simple.

I disagree with video ref. What happens in a situation when play doesn't stop (i.e. ball bounces out of the goal, whistle doesn't go and play continues?)? Do you stop the game artificially? When? Before the next goal is scored?

IMO an extra official who's responsibility is the goal line (one at each end) is plenty.

That and overhauling refereeing. In terms of the expected behaviour on the pitch, a more involved, rugby style of reffing etc... (apparently this was tried before but it confused people... How is it confusing?)

>Nobody bar a half-blind Communist extra from Dr Zhivago with a well-dodgy moustache said it did.<

Oh I don't know the Uraguayian officials in the England v. Germany match this time apparently suddenly misplaced their spectacles. And does anyone know the nationality of the officials who missed the hand of god?

But joking aside. Football is, and always will be a grey area. Human error, theatre, drama, legends. That's one of the reason I love it

(I've been thinking about the poor old bloke who may potentially be stuck watching the goal line, if they brought that in..hundreds of games might go past without him being brought into action..I can see some retiring and still be, 'did it/didn't it cross the line' virgins )

Football could do a lot of things to improve its situation without major changes.

1) only allow captains to talk to the referee.

2) move free kicks 5 yards back at any sign of dissent or infringement.

3) instead of video technology, use more officials.
- One referee in each half
- four linesmen - one on each side of the pitch / each half.
- officials behind goal to check for balls crossing the line, any penalty area infringements.

Ok ... it could do three things ... they wouldn't be rocket science ... there'd still be human error with multiple officials ... but it would be better than the current situation ...

> move free kicks 5 yards back at any sign of dissent or infringement.<

Do you really think that will happen in the real world? Crikey they can't even enforce the players encroaching into the penalty area at penalties apart from once in a blue moon like the other night..and even then the players still encroached. Goalies *always* move before they should at penalties.

The ref might do it once..but I bet you no ref will have the balls to keep on doing it to the letter of the law.

It comes back to the point I made earlier. It's a different culture. It isn't rugby.

And do you honestly think a ref will keep on booking and then sending players off if they talk to him and not just the captain.

It's as much to do with what fans demand and expect. It would probably cause a riot in a football ground. Football is the sport that is most close to a 'religion'.

But maybe 4 linesmen is a good idea that would work well.

Something ocurred to my flatmate and I while watching today's game: given their colonial history, how likely are the South African's to support Holland, especially in the absence of anyone from their continent? My flatmate suggested it may well be split down racial lines, which makes a certain amount of historical sense, but I thought I'd try for a first-hand answer here...

Those looking for a racial split might be disappointed with the Holland squad - http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Scotland+v+Netherlands+FIFA2010+World+Cup+0zhrfhb5Nxfl.jpg

In fact it could be that the Dutch would be a great example for white South Africans.

One thing that was noteable; and that picture highlights this nicely, was the impressive togetherness of the Netherlands team last night.

They seem to pull for each other in much the same way - although to a lesser extent - as the French obviously and English apparently did.

IS there a telephone number that I can ring to ask them to put the final on at about 3pmBST on Sunday rather than 6.30pm. I'll be travelling at about 3pm so should empty the roads a bit...

The problem with the smiley is that it's too long and people can't spell it.

<>

South Africa was described by D.Tutu as "the rainbow nation", yet only one of the S.African 23-man squad was white, compared to 8 black players in the England squad.