[Archived] Man Utd Vs Tottenham

[Eddie]

I'm quite happy, terrible decision, but then Spurs are a team that we might be able to catch this season, so as many things that go against them the better.

[Nate]

As soon as I seen it I knew it was a goal. Here is a replay:

Error

The linesman is not that far away at all.

Edited January 4, 2005 by DownUnderRover

[The Blunderer]

From the MOTD coverage, looked like the lino. was shuttling back and forward to check for offside (to keep Ferguson happy), and was probably a bit dizzy when the ball looped over and Carroll fumbled it over and beyond the line.

Still think their hand ball assisted goal for a point at Ewood would have been easier for the officials to spot though.

[emerton]

looks like the ref got it spot on....

[Scotty]

Completely agree with Tris (see I can do it!). What would have been a fairly run-of-the-mill Premiership evening has now become interesting and something I'm sure you'll all be discussing at some point tomorrow.

Take the human element out of the game and you'll take a lot of it's appeal with it.

[Philly Rover ®]

Good bleeding gawd! Are these chaps for real?

That looks a good foot over the line.

As the commentators said: "That's not an inch or a foot over the line... that's a yard."

In defense of the lineman, it was probably difficult to be in position to make a call on the play. That being said, he may have been the only one not to have seen it. The human error argument and all that is great, but I have to argue for the use of some type of replay system to check things like that. Not every injustice can be rooted out of the officiating, but the blatant ones surely must be.

Hopefully Carroll's gaffe means that he'll be dropped, and maybe Tim Howard will find himself back in favor--after all, he still could be the future for the U.S. national team in goal.

[bellamy11]

Hopefully Carroll's gaffe means that he'll be dropped, and maybe Tim Howard will find himself back in favor--after all, he still could be the future for the U.S. national team in goal.

I'd be more than a little worried for you if this is the case.

[seahawkdad]

Good bleeding gawd! Are these chaps for real?

That looks a good foot over the line.

More than that. What's Carroll, over 6' tall? I'm 6'3", and my shoulder to tip of finger length is 31". So what do you think...about a yard over the line?

And did no one on the officiating crew see him go into the goal to get the ball?

There are about seven pages of "you've got to be sh-tting me"about it on the BigSoccer boards.

Of course, the whole thing seems to have developed by a miscue clearance by Spector

[seahawkdad]

looks like the ref got it spot on....

You are brilliant!!

Oops...was that you or someone named Deadfingers who did the work???

Edited January 5, 2005 by seahawkdad

[FourLaneBlue]

Completely agree with Tris (see I can do it!). What would have been a fairly run-of-the-mill Premiership evening has now become interesting and something I'm sure you'll all be discussing at some point tomorrow.

Take the human element out of the game and you'll take a lot of it's appeal with it.

It's a rare occasion to be able to agree with both Tris AND Scotty but this is one of those.

In my opinion, football would much poorer with video technology. Personally I don't want exact decisions or the best team always winning. The controversy, disputes and arguments make football what it is. A game of passion and, at times, injustice. Many times I've been clutching my head in frustration at some idiot of a ref denying Rovers but football wouldn't be the same without it. No controversial goal line decisions? What'd be the point of that? Give me talking points and managers declaring "we was robbed" anytime.

[Nate]

Completely agree with Tris (see I can do it!).  What would have been a fairly run-of-the-mill Premiership evening has now become interesting and something I'm sure you'll all be discussing at some point tomorrow. 

Take the human element out of the game and you'll take a lot of it's appeal with it.

It's a rare occasion to be able to agree with both Tris AND Scotty but this is one of those.

In my opinion, football would much poorer with video technology. Personally I don't want exact decisions or the best team always winning. The controversy, disputes and arguments make football what it is. A game of passion and, at times, injustice. Many times I've been clutching my head in frustration at some idiot of a ref denying Rovers but football wouldn't be the same without it. No controversial goal line decisions? What'd be the point of that? Give me talking points and managers declaring "we was robbed" anytime.

Even if it costs a team a Championship/ Relegation/ Promotion? Long shot I know, but still....

[Manchester Blue]

Completely agree with Tris (see I can do it!).  What would have been a fairly run-of-the-mill Premiership evening has now become interesting and something I'm sure you'll all be discussing at some point tomorrow. 

Take the human element out of the game and you'll take a lot of it's appeal with it.

It's a rare occasion to be able to agree with both Tris AND Scotty but this is one of those.

In my opinion, football would much poorer with video technology. Personally I don't want exact decisions or the best team always winning. The controversy, disputes and arguments make football what it is. A game of passion and, at times, injustice. Many times I've been clutching my head in frustration at some idiot of a ref denying Rovers but football wouldn't be the same without it. No controversial goal line decisions? What'd be the point of that? Give me talking points and managers declaring "we was robbed" anytime.

I completely agree with the point about video technology but my fear is now because of one man who is either incompetent or a cheat (not crass or unfair just fact) we will almost inevitably go towards it. My fear with use of video is that it is said that it would be used only for incidents like this but how often do you get one of those. If so much money would be invested in it then inevitably it will get used for other incidents and then what are you left with.

On the subject of the linesman I think Percy mentioned that at normal speed it would have been difficult. Not so on this occasion, you knew straight away from any angle, on further replays you can even see all the fans with heads in hands. People say that the official has to be sure but lets be honest how many times have you seen an incident and been convinced only to see it again and be wrong. It's human error and what makes the game good and worth talking about. Last night wasn't about human error but some gutless wonder who either didn't want to make a decision or so incompetent he should be sacked it's that simple.

That is what irritates more than anything is an official who simply refuses to do his job at all, not take the risk. I give refs plenty of stick but if they give something that is wrong but then come on and admit it I think they should be praised to the hilt. It's tossers like Riley who lie to cover up for their own inadequacies that annoy me more than anything.

So to cut a long story short no I don't video technology either but you can bet your life we'll get it soon and it'll be even sooner thanks to gimps like that linesman last night.

[Manchester Blue]

And tonight, in a situation where the ball moved dozens of yards in either direction within seconds, a linesman who will surely be described as "rotund" in tomorrows papers put his head down and legged it (after 90 minutes of legging it) towards the United goal line.

And missed the moment - clearly. To accuse him of cheating is crass and unfair. The failure - IMO - is not that individual - it's the whole team of match officials. There are four of them at pitch level, and the number of times they fail to use each other is ridiculous.

At Premiership level, there is also a ref assessor at every game in the stands. Rather than turn to solutions which overrule human error, I think there is a case to force all the 5 officials at games to work together to minimise the chance of mistakes.

Tonight, probably at least 3 of the 5 saw that Spurs scored a goal. But the rules / protocol don't allow them to contribute, if - as tonight - the ref has trusted the judgement of the official closest to the incident.

It's a team game, and the match officials at games have to start acting as a team. Tonight's incident has highlighted it, but the number of times a linesman fails to help a ref is inexcusable.

But my main objection to technology is because it can never be replicated at lower levels. At the level I play, you accept the decision of the referee. Sometimes there are linesmen, sometimes not.

There will never be cameras and microchips. There will always be human error. And the day you introduce different rules depending on the level of competition is the day football falls to bits.

You can either defend him or you can't, who the teams playing are

irrelevant. It doesn't making defending the indefencible any easier. The

ball wasn't just over the line Spurs could have parked their bus in between

the gap between ball and line it was that bad.

As for the technology comments which I agree on to an extent you say the

game has survived without yet you propose to change the rules to allow some

random bloke in the stands to make a decision. On which incidents? Any or

all? If so what happens when he's wrong as we are undoubtedlty from time to

time.

Agree completely about the last bit but still can't understand how you can

excuse Stevie Wonders brother for his performance as linesman. What

irritates me most is I was only talking about Man U the other day as Fergie

was praising them for being the cleanest team in the league.

In the first half last night if a Spurs player recieved ball to feet he was

either clattered or barged in the back yet every free kick was greeted with

howls from the crowd and slowly the ref stopped giving them. 2nd half Spuds

youngster Marney gets clattered by Keane but gets nothing so he loses his

head for a minute and runs around, nothing to bad but leaves his leg in on

Scholes and gets booked.

Harsh maybe but when you see the uglier Neville take out Ziegler after he

makes him look a clown for the umpteenth time in the game and escape you

begin to see the pattern. No matter because the half-wit that is Neville

just clatters him again not a minute later and the ref has to book him.

Later on Keane trips said youngster again and leaves his foot in and gives

him a friendly kick to the head, just a little reminder of who's boss you

could say. Nothing given. Oh and don't forget Heinze or Hintze if you

prefer, the man with no control of his arms apparently. 5 times in the

Christmas period he has caught someone in the face and last time it was

Keane's turn (Robbie not Roy). Yet strangely his manager who has a bit of a

thing about flailing arms(only when it's Vieira maybe) is silent probably

still seething about Rooeny's disgraceful ban for nothing.

So my point is that if I genuinely felt that the Man U cheats are treated

like the rest then maybe I wouldn't be so annoyed but some teams are just

more equal than others in the officials eye's.

[philipl]

If you read the rule change thread, you will see that the Coca Cola Cup Final will be experimenting with a microchipped football and sensors all round the goal frames.

[Paul]

There is no reason whatever to introduce video technology to the game. The ONLY instance where it can have value is in the cut and dried decision of "did it cross the line" for a goal, to employ video replays for offside, penalties etc. where a judgement is required is clearly ludicrous. The question therefore has to be how often do we get a "did the ball cross the line" incident. I can't recall a single game involving Rovers, which means it has never occured in a live game at which I have been present in 30 years or so. Hardly worth the investment for a once ina blue moon event.

If the powers that be want to introduce technology to improve the refereeing standards this shoud follow rugby's lead. Wire up the officicals so we can understand the reasoning behind their decisions during the game.

[AussieinUk]

I am 100% against the use of "technology" to eliminate this sort of farce - and, granted, it is a farce tonight.

But my main objection to technology is because it can never be replicated at lower levels.  At the level I play, you accept the decision of the referee.  Sometimes there are linesmen, sometimes not.

There will never be cameras and microchips.  There will always be human error.  And the day you introduce different rules depending on the level of competition is the day football falls to bits.

Tris,

Not having a go at your well thought-out arguement, but consider the advent of tecnology within the sphere of professional cricket. Vast amounts of technonlgy are at there disposal of umpires and the ICC and are used to enhnace the fairness in the game itself (at a state an international level), but this tecnology is not used at "grass roots" level, yet roughly 10 years on it has been praised by its succcess for the game.

There also has been many good examples of tecnology in sport. (Rugby league) and I think Union has followed the example of league. Tennis has used back court line buzzers to determine faults on service serve's to helps umpires with the correct call for years now.

I totally agree that human error is apart of the game, but as you said it "was a total farce"..

Edited January 5, 2005 by AussieinUk

[Tris]

As for the technology comments which I agree on to an extent you say the

game has survived without yet you propose to change the rules to allow some

random bloke in the stands to make a decision. On which incidents? Any or

all? If so what happens when he's wrong as we are undoubtedlty from time to

time.

I'm not proposing any rule change, my point is simply that there is a team of five (supposedly competent) officials at this level of football. (Ref, 2 x lino, 4th official and asssessor).

It is inconceivable that all five at OT missed last nights goal, yet there is no mechanism for one of them to get the correct message to the referee.

I also agree with Paul that refs should be "wired for sound" - I am often amazed how competent and clear refs are in both codes of rugby where the rules are much more complex. There is no good reason why professional referees at the top level of football should escape such exposure and scrutiny.

If all five officials were wired for sound and able to communicate instantly between themselves it could also actually assist the referee far more than two blokes waving coloured flags.

[Cheshireblue]

I'm not a fan of introducing technology into football - wire up the officials to each other (which they effectively already have done - the linesmen have buzzers in their flags connected to the ref to get his attention).

If they can use video evidence to charge Rooney with violent conduct, surely they can do the same to Carroll and charge him with unsportsmanlike conduct? He knew it was a goal and deliberately cheated.

[Radagast]

The thing is, the refs are in some cases wired up to the technical area already, and the fourth official has a TV set in the dugout. In an instance like this it would have taken a matter of seconds for him to say yes or no.

The whole idea is still pretty iffy though - there are occasions when contested 'goals' still look no clearer after five different replays.

[northernrover]

Both good arguments , but dont you think the game would be slowed down drastically and all momentum and flow taken out of the game at crucial points??

Yeah fair enough, with cricket and tennis its fine as it doesnt disrupt the flow of the game, but i'm dead against it in games where tempo can be key.

Cricket - Its that slow a game, you could paint a wall between balls so a quick diversion to the big screen for a run out decision is no major deal. No disruption.

Tennis - Now they have probably got it right. A simple buzz triggered by light sensors in the ball crossing / not crossing 'the line' and the umpires decision is made with no interruption.

I think this advancement is as much as is needed to be introduced into football at the moment, and reportedly, the principal is to be used in the league cup final with sensors in the ball and goalposts & crossbars.

A buzz or bleep to confirm when the ball has crossed the line is sufficient.

We don't want the beautiful game turning into the farce of a game known as American Football or Rugby League.

[Shaddy]

We don't want the beautiful game turning into the farce of a game known as American Football or Rugby League.

The former I agree with, the latter... bite your tongue. It might not be your flavour, but it's unfair to compare it with Gridiron.

[DaveyB]

I can understand the argument that Tris and others are making, but time and again it's the same clubs that benefit from these wrong decisions. If it truely were the case that 'these things even themselves out over the course of the season' then it'd be ok, but we all know that Man Ure are highly unlikely to get a really bad decision given against them, probably only when playing against Chelski anyway.

And football has become such a big business that bad decisions could cost clubs their very existance.

Take our game against Man Ure for example. Two points could be the difference between survivial and relegation for us, and relegation could well put us into debt and maybe administration (I know this is unlikely as by all accounts Rovers are a very well run club, but for other clubs this could well be true). And I think that the time has come to use video technology to help referees, as it's totally unfair for one person to have such a big say in the future of clubs.

My idea, for what it's worth, would be to have the 4th official as a kind of 3rd referee's assistant, but sat watching a monitor. If he spots something that he thinks the referee has missed i.e. a ball crossing the line, a blatant dive in the penalty area for which the ref has awarded a penalty, a blatant handball, a sly punch etc. he can buzz the ref and call him over. The ref can then watch the replay and make the decision from that. It wouldn't slow the game down too much (it's only the same as if a linesman sees something and the ref goes over to have a word with him) and it would still be the ref making all the decisions.

Just my opinion, but I think it would work.

[SouthAussieRover]

It wasn't even a fraction across the line it was a bloody yard.

There weren't even defenders blocking the view.

Surely technology could have use for such decisions?

[northernrover]

We don't want the beautiful game turning into the farce of a game known as American Football or Rugby League.

The former I agree with, the latter... bite your tongue. It might not be your flavour, but it's unfair to compare it with Gridiron.

But the commercialisation (nice Bushism) of it is sending it down the same route.

Cheerleaders between halves.......... and there'll soon be 4 halves just like NFL......... (well not 4 halves, but you know what I mean) ??

20 mins per 1/4 seperated by 30 minute intermissions

Whatever next........... bellydancers, fire eaters and sword swallowers (of the truly entertaining variety ) as half time entertainment ????

No thanks

Sorry, maybe I should have pointed it out more clearly that this is the path RL is taking, or at least appears to be.

Dont you agree?!

[northernrover]

If he spots something that he thinks the referee has missed i.e. a ball crossing the line, a blatant dive in the penalty area for which the ref has awarded a penalty, a blatant handball, a sly punch etc. he can buzz the ref and call him over. The ref can then watch the replay and make the decision from that. It wouldn't slow the game down too much (it's only the same as if a linesman sees something and the ref goes over to have a word with him)

Thats the linesmans job anyway.

Might aswell just go back to the other idea of having 2 linesmen per line