Stolen by the Ref

[John Howarth]

Come on John. You should have seen enough football to realise that Terry was motionless and looking away from the keeper whilst the keeper was scrambling about trying to shove him out of the way to get to the ball (which by the way he had no chance of reaching before Sol C).

Yes. I have seen enough football to understand exactly why the referee gave a free kick and not a goal. The contact by the flailing arm of Terry against the keeper was enough for the referee.

You may well argue that goalkeepers get too much protection but any infringement against the keeper in his own 6 yard box, usually warrants a free kick against the opposition.

It was disappointing, but a foul is a foul

[Manchester Blue]

John it's not a case of the keeper having to much protection. The keeper jumped into Terry not the other way round. You haven't explained why that is a foul.

[John Howarth]

Manchester Blue Posted on Jun 27 2004, 20:28

John it's not a case of the keeper having to much protection. The keeper jumped into Terry not the other way round. You haven't explained why that is a foul.

Unfortunately, that was not the way I saw it or presumably the referee. The infringement I saw was the arm of Terry blocking the keeper.

Refereeing is all about opinions and in the eyes of the referee on the night, he gave exactly what he saw, and that was a foul by an English player against the Portugeese keeper.

No doubt the argument will linger on for a couple of years, just as many other incidents in football will always do

[Eddie]

I very much doubt that John. By the end of the tournament no one will care anymore, it's rare to see individual decisions that are talked about for years on end, only very special ones such as the "hand of god" last many years. Does anyone still talk about Campbells disallowed goal in the '98 world cup? Didn't think so.

Also...never become a fifa spokesmen. You would have had yourself ripped apart if you stood up and said "refereeing is all about opinions". The laws of the game should be clear, and though there will always be wrong decisions, and there will always be sides that feel agrieved as a result of them, I think this case has highlighted a major grey area in the rulebooks.

[FourLaneBlue]

I very much doubt that John. By the end of the tournament no one will care anymore,

End of the tournament? I don't care now! Enough of this international football stuff already... bring on the Premiership.

For a week or so I got all wrapped up in England, but that's just glory stuff of Championships. Give me a long, nine month league season which goes from late summer to late spring. Just not a season like last year....

Euro04 or no Euro04....a summer without Rovers is still a very dull time!

[herbergeehh]

Nuf said !

[Eddie]

Nuf said !

You're only saying that because all of the Vikings are out now. So much for the Sweden/Denmark final that are Scandinavian members talked up. Neither of them came close to deserving to win their match.

[waggy]

saying that the atmosphere was the best,i have ever witnessed at a football match,our section was 60/40 in port-u-gal favour,and not a hint off crowd trouble.it is time now that the english fa,makes tickets available to ALL ENGLAND FANS,not just the wet behind the ears ENGLAND FANS CLUB,the 6k empty seats against croatia was a disgrace,when lads were paying 2-300 pounds for tickets.

Isn't that a somewhat contradictory statement waggy? I bow to your superior knowledge of travelling with England but do you not think that the 'excellent atmosphere' without 'a hint of crowd trouble' fully and unequivocably justifies the FA's ticket allocation policies which they were undeniably forced to implement by events of the past?

Whatever they are doing they seem to be doing right.

out of the 4 england games i went too,there were 13k england fans at the croatia and france games,and 6k at the portugal and swiss games,my approximate amount of england fans at the above games,were 45k at the france game40k at the croatia game,23k at the swiss,and 35k at the portugal game,were i noticed the england fans section emptied as soon as the final whistle went,whilst the undesirables stayed and cheered both the winners and loser's.i am sick and tired off the fa,saying tickets will only be available for england fans members,all this does is make certian fans very rich,as they sell there prized tickets for vast amounts on the black market.

[DaveyB]

Also...never become a fifa spokesmen. You would have had yourself ripped apart if you stood up and said "refereeing is all about opinions". The laws of the game should be clear, and though there will always be wrong decisions, and there will always be sides that feel agrieved as a result of them, I think this case has highlighted a major grey area in the rulebooks.

I'm a qualified ref too, although I gave up due to the amount, and personal nature, of abuse I was receiving (and this was in kids football btw!) and the laws of the game usually begin with the phrase "If in the opinion of the referee..." - so it really is all about opinions, which is one argument against the introduction of a 4th referee who has access to video replays - his opinion of certain incidents may be different to those of the man to the middle. Video replays can only really be used to help with matters of fact - like the disgraceful dive by Jesper Gronkjaer last night.

The facts concerning Campbell's 'goal' are that Terry's arm was across the keeper's shoulders. The opinion part comes in as to whether or not it impeded the keeper. Personally my opinion is that it did impede the keeper and so I would have given a foul - most other people on here have a different opinion, but in the end the only person's opinion that really counts is the referee's and in his opinion it was a foul. End of story.

(Surely all of us have watched football for long enough to know that Goalkeepers usually get the benefit of any doubt in these type of incidents as well.)

I find it really distasteful the way we are making out that the ref cheated. He made an honest decision based on his view and opinion of the incident, and I really think it shows us up to be extremely bad and ungracious losers to have this constant abusing of the ref. Fantasy Football last night was terrible, in the worst possible taste and extremely offensive about a man who was just doing his job.

Let's put this behind us and move on - ultimately we were beaten by the better side on the night.

Edited June 28, 2004 by DaveyB

[78]

I'm a qualified ref too, although I gave up due to the amount, and personal nature, of abuse I was receiving (and this was in kids football btw!) and the laws of the game usually begin with the phrase "If in the opinion of the referee..." - so it really is all about opinions, which is one argument against the introduction of a 4th referee who has access to video replays - his opinion of certain incidents may be different to those of the man to the middle. Video replays can only really be used to help with matters of fact - like the disgraceful dive by Jesper Gronkjaer last night.

The facts concerning Campbell's 'goal' are that Terry's arm was across the keeper's shoulders. The opinion part comes in as to whether or not it impeded the keeper. Personally my opinion is that it did impede the keeper and so I would have given a foul - most other people on here have a different opinion, but in the end the only person's opinion that really counts is the referee's and in his opinion it was a foul. End of story.

(Surely all of us have watched football for long enough to know that Goalkeepers usually get the benefit of any doubt in these type of incidents as well.)

I find it really distasteful the way we are making out that the ref cheated. He made an honest decision based on his view and opinion of the incident, and I really think it shows us up to be extremely bad and ungracious losers to have this constant abusing of the ref. Fantasy Football last night was terrible, in the worst possible taste and extremely offensive about a man who was just doing his job.

Let's put this behind us and move on - ultimately we were beaten by the better side on the night.

Well said!

[greggyk]

The fact is that the keeper jumped into Terrys arm!!!! It was no foul.

[bellamy11]

The fact is that the keeper jumped into Terrys arm!!!! It was no foul.

If it had been at the other end and a goal was given you'd have been absolutely furious.

These things happen. I wish it'd have been a goal, and think it should have been, but we just have to get on with it. The treatment the ref has got since has been out of order, really.

[FourLaneBlue]

Are people still going on about that goal/foul?

I mean it's soooooo last week.

Now the hype has died down we should all have moved on by now. England; great while they lasted but Rovers, well...they're a constant not just flashes in the pan.

[greggyk]

I really cant get excited about rovers during June.

[blue phil]

Are people still going on about that goal/foul?

Yes , but the door is open if you're not happy about it , FLB.... see you in August

Personally I think that 99% of all referees are ba£tard$ and the motivation of this Kraut type in not giving an obvious goal owes more to massaging his ego than any sense of fair play . That's why he's a ref....

[Manchester Blue]

The fact is that the keeper jumped into Terrys arm!!!! It was no foul.

If it had been at the other end and a goal was given you'd have been absolutely furious.

These things happen. I wish it'd have been a goal, and think it should have been, but we just have to get on with it. The treatment the ref has got since has been out of order, really.

Don't disagree too much with that but what irritates me is this refusal by certain parties to consider the fact that the keeper jumped into Terry. According to them the fact is that Terry's arm was across the keeper and the rest is interpretation.

For me other 'facts' are Terry never looks at anything other than the ball. The keeper can't get above Terry but instead jumps into him. The rest is open to interpretation but they are facts and ones which these 'referees' seem keen to ingore.

[broadsword]

Thank you Phil, I was beginning to tire of this "the ref got it right" nonsense about the laws of the game.

I still genuinely think it was a goal and we were stuffed because Johnny Foreigner didn't want us to win.

Only another 2 years and we can have another crack.

[jim mk2]

Thank you Phil, I was beginning to tire of this "the ref got it right" nonsense about the laws of the game.

I still genuinely think it was a goal and we were stuffed because Johnny Foreigner didn't want us to win.

Only another 2 years and we can have another crack. 

Yup, it's everyone else's but fault but our own.

And in case there is any doubt, blame the poor old ref.

Nothing to do with England's poor finishing, poor penalty taking, poor tactics, poor defending or (in certain cases) poor players then?

[broadsword]

Nope, not at all.

It was some Swiss chocolate-munching cuckoo-shagging git with a fanny for a chin that did it.

[FourLaneBlue]

Are people still going on about that goal/foul?

Yes , but the door is open if you're not happy about it , FLB.... see you in August

Hey! Don't take it out on me if you've had a tough monday back at work ...

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

It was some Swiss chocolate-munching cuckoo-shagging git with a fanny for a chin that did it.

Nice one Bryan.

Gary Lineker, incidentally, seems to agree with Jim.

In an interview today with one of those beastly red-top rags, the former England striker has launched an attack on the tactics employed by Eriksson. Some fairly strong words of criticism from the normally mild-mannered Lineker...

Link Below:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002390...4292180,00.html

Edited June 28, 2004 by Anti Euro Smiths Fan

[CAPT KAYOS]

It was some Swiss chocolate-munching cuckoo-shagging git with a fanny for a chin that did it.

Nice one Bryan.

Gary Lineker, incidentally, seems to agree with Jim.

In an interview today with one of those beastly red-top rags, the former England striker has launched an attack on the tactics employed by Eriksson. Some fairly strong words of criticism from the normally mild-mannered Lineker...

Link Below:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002390...4292180,00.html

And deserves every ounce of it - or does he??

I said before the tournament started I was not happy with Professor Yaffel in charge -but is it his fault - or the bungling pricks at the FA who appointed him?

It was quite obvious before the tournament started what problems we have and that PY did not have a clue how to rectify it, and neither do the FA who should have instantly sacked him or asked him (quitely) to stand down soon after the Portugal game.

With him in charge we can forget about Germany.

[broadsword]

He doesn't want to go, we can't afford to sack him (he's on a very lucrative contract), therefore he stays.

Not a damn thing you can do about it!

And I think with the style of football he has England playing in, we won't play badly enough that his position becomes untenable. He'll certainly do enough to make sure he's fairly secure, but we'll still win s0d all!

Depressing, innit?

[greggyk]

Thank you Phil, I was beginning to tire of this "the ref got it right" nonsense about the laws of the game.

I still genuinely think it was a goal and we were stuffed because Johnny Foreigner didn't want us to win.

Only another 2 years and we can have another crack. 

Yup, it's everyone else's but fault but our own.

And in case there is any doubt, blame the poor old ref.

Nothing to do with England's poor finishing, poor penalty taking, poor tactics, poor defending or (in certain cases) poor players then?

OMG!! You were one of the first people on here to say it was a clear goal!!!

what a muppet you really are!

[Eddie]

I think the point is, that even if it was a poor decision or not, England, as the far better team going into the game, should not have put themselves in a situation where the referee's decisions would affect the outcome. Obviously this is impossibly to a certain extent, but I think everyone can see what I'm getting at.