Funkii Munkii

Fingers crossed for the Irish

1-0 up in the 2nd leg, I'd love to see them there and if it means they knock the surrender monkeys out all the better !!
I have a meeting to go to and wont know the outcome until it's well and truly over

Aaron1978

iTrader: (12)

Russia are going out to Slovenia as it stands too.

scoobynutta555

Well, coming up for extra time now! Hopefully the Irish will kick some French ***. The Irish deserve to go through.

scoobynutta555

Offside and handled the ball twice in the box for the French goal, hmmmmmmm.

V5RLTD

iTrader: (5)

The cheating Henry has cost Ireland a place in SA, when will there be a video ref!?

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Henry had better get a 7 match ban. Still, no consolation for the Irish - shouldn't have gone to extra time though.

Such an injustice but there you go

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

It's getting time for video evidence to be used more and more. These super high def slo mo cameras mean it's so clear to see what happened that they can no longer hide behind the argument that it's not clear. Would I be happy if it was Rooney doing it to get England there... Yes. Would it be right, Not at all. The integrity of the game is being eroded.

scoobynutta555

I wouldn't be happy at all if England scraped through against a minnow team purely by cheating. If the French had any backbone at all they'd push for a rematch and gain their place fairly and take the high ground that comes with that decision.

Funkii Munkii

The argument is and always will be if you implement this rule the equipment will have to be available at all matches, cant see it happening at underhill for Barnet vs Grimsby, clubs that cant afford it will say those that do will have an unfair advantage..

But I agree it should be brought in at International / ECL / Europa / EPL / Xhampionship level, the money is there for it.

I see the Irish have lodged a formal complaint with FIFA and want a replay, cant see it being granted though can you, you know FIFA would rarther have France there.

scoobynutta555

Video evidence seems to work ok in cricket and rugby at the highest level without such technology available to the 'low grade' echelons.

Little Miss WRX

The goal was not offside, however it was an intentional handball for which the goal should not have been allowed.

Funkii Munkii

The ref has spoken

Hey LMW how's it going, long time no see in Sports. Enjoying the humidity tonight ? we need another storm to clear this up, i'm melting here, the Tooheys extra dry just isn't cooling me down

Turbo2

Anyone know if UEFA's Michel Platini has made any statement about this? He has been trying his hardest to rein in the dominance of the Premier League in the Champions League over recent years, so as to give the smaller club nations (i.e. France) a better chance.

Maybe now would be a good time for him to speak out in favour of the minnows once more? He could say that it was a disgrace that FIFA changed the rules at the last minute to allow nations like France to be seeded in the play-offs and that once this action had been taken, it was inexplicable why only France of these new seeds got second leg home advantage. He could then show us his moral fibre by cursing Thierry Henry for his actions and the incompetence of the officials and demand that the French FA either withdraw from the World Cup unilaterally or re-play the last 20 minutes (+ penalties if required) with France down to 10 men having Henry retrospectively sent off for two cases of deliberate handball.

Or he could just keep his mouth shut and laugh at how his nation cheated the Irish. I wonder which option he will take?

Little Miss WRX

Hey Funki, happy to chip in every now and then LOL.

Played golf on Sunday, was in the heat from 8am through to 4pm.......needless to say I nearly melted.

Back on topic with this......calls for technology I agree with some, but the trouble with rugby league over here is that it is soooooo stop start with constantly going to the video ref that it really draws out the game. Also it really doesn't look good with the refs not making final calls on things when some of them do look clear cut.

It would be good for the 4th official to quickly review a replay on something like an offside call, but anything over a few seconds and the flow of the game is taken away. The whole beauty of our game is the free-flowing play and quick decision making of the officials to keep it in free-flow.

I am not against use of video technology, however, I think it needs to be severely limited and not over-used otherwise the whole dynamics of the game will be changed and IMHO, ruined.

scoobynutta555

At least the right decision would be made and you'd have none of this farsical nonsense. It's quaint, but quite dated that technology such as this is not part of a game where decisions can cost teams millions or countries the opportunity to partake in the World Cup finals.

Football could also follow rugby with the timing of the game taken off of the referee which would also solve the problem of phantom extra time. Indeed why not stop the clock for deadball situations therby solving timewasting too. Fans would be watching 45 min of actual play.

If both cricket and rugby union can embrace technology I see no reason why football can't. Platini's big idea of using two additional referee assistants (or whatever they're called) on the field is quite stupid.

Little Miss WRX

I agree, two additional assistant referees would be a waste of time, utilisation of technology would be far better.

The issue that a lot of officials have is that it would start to chip away at the "referee's decision is final" - would technology become such that the referee's decision making would be questioned all of the time?

Even in league now (over here anyway), the spectators and TV watchers are now getting sick and tired of the referees constantly going to the video ref - to the point where they are asking whether or not the refs have enough ***** to call a try anymore. They are trialling a 2 ref system which is interesting to say the least, let us not get into that and I firmly believe that more officials on the field in football is not the answer.

Moving on, with goals, when play is stopped as the ball has crossed the goal line, there is an opportunity for the 4th official to run through replays within a very quick time and then give the referee that nothing has happened that they and their fellow officials have missed.
Maybe even have a sensor on the ball that can indicate when the whole of the ball has crossed the whole of the line so those sneaky bounce in goals aren't missed or awarded when they shouldn't be.

Little things like that I feel could add a lot of benefit to the game, however, remember that the atheletes in this game and the officials are playing out a minimum of 90 minutes fast play. This could get extended out to many minutes of added time. It would need to be monitored well.

To have replays of major incidents and such where the game would have stopped is fine. To quickly review whether a player was offside on a goal I feel is ok. But let us not get caught up in the technology is the answer to all this. There are some extremely good referees out there who should not be replaced with technology.
Taking all of the contraversy out of football is never a good thing, after all, isn't part of spectating abusing the referee and questioning their parentage?

scoobynutta555

As with anything there has to be a balance. Watching cricket and union on tv, they seem to have the right approach.