FIFA, don't ignore the Blunder in Bloemfontein

Great article. This writer nailed the argument on all counts.

Simply shameful that FIFA would have such a chokehold an international sport in which a vast majority of fans and players alike would like to see changes regarding instant replay made. Seriously, who the hell are FIFA that they can hold this world sport hostage to outdated, purely obstinate views?

Of course the instant-replay technology is available, and used in many sports at an international level. Fifa, however, seem to enjoy the controversy of bad referee calls, as these are often the most famous scenes in football. For one example, "the hand of God" - an incident that has probably been analysed in more detail than JFK's assassination.

It would be pretty difficult to use replays with football, as there is a tendency for players to appeal for fouls for the slightest thing ; at any point there will be at least one of them writhing in agony, only to miraculously heal once a decision has been made, or the referee has ignored them. Matches would last for days !!

It is a subjective sport. With all the body contact where do you draw the line? Well, goals at least, Iguess.

Drawing the line at something as concrete as whether a ball breaks the barrier of the goal would be a reasonable use of replay technology.

All the other stuff -- like fouls -- is subjective, really, and largely a lot of overacting. No need for replays there.

FIFA is a corrupt organisation run by criminals. If you don't believe me, look into the backgrounds of those in charge.

FIFA isn't interested in the use of technology as it would make it harder for referees to fix matches. I'm not saying that the England - Germany match was fixed: the result was pretty much as expected, but the refereeing in some of the other matches has left a lot to be desired with many dubious decisions. The receipt of bribes is one way to explain those decisions.

Fixed??? Sorry mate, get over it. I will agree that the goal should have been given but fixed? Sore loser. England played badly. Germany didn't.

Sepp Blatter hates England anyway so I doubt this will even sway him. If it was the other way round, I'm sure he'd be at least thinking about it. The sooner he goes and a new person, who isn't as corrupt and biggoted as he is is in charge the better.

England played badly, as they always do on the big stage. They have a history of disappointing their fans for decades.

There is a theory that the real reason for the refusal to use technology is the idea that a sense of injustice breeds passion in people, and so more bums in seats and eyes on the tube in the future. In other words, it is for business reasons. Pretty cynical, but makes more sense than the official reasons.

honestly, technology would do the game good. have a 5th ref watching replays while the game keeps going to determine if goals are good, offsides actually occurred, or if fouls have taken place. it'd certainly make the game less frustrating, and definitely reduce the need for players to act like their leg is broken every time they've been touched just to get the ref to pay attention to them and make the call.

The beautiful game would be damaged by tech. Those that propose such an idea do not understand the game at all.

The pitch is filled with errors, think of the drama of a goalie error in the Eng;USA match. Or the missed goals when strikers are past the defenders but miss their shot on goal. These errors define the game by the players, the same is true of the refs when they show that they too are human and make mistakes.

There is no fairness in sport. When ManU plays a bottom of the table team, its unfair before the game starts. No TV will fix that. Adding tech would make the WC more precise but the soul of the sport would be lost. Unfortunately the sore losers and first time WC fans do not understand this.

Did anyone see the replays of the diving Dane that resulted in the PK goal against Japan? They were entirely different from what Fifa shows on their website. Live tv replays showed barely any contact whereas the Fifa video shows what looks like decent grounds for a PK. In fact the players also look different. It really makes you wonder about how honest Fifa is. I wouldn't go so far as to say match fixing, but then again, something is definitely messed up.

Easy way for FIFA to fix this mess.

Fire all their refs and bring in NBA officials :o)

I agree - this was a well written article. Fifa have a lot to answer for & the sooner that crazy old dinosaur Blatter gets the boot the better.

Sorry, Zurc, but you’re way off base here.

"Those that propose such an idea do not understand the game at all."

Horse puckey. Tell that to the England fans watching the match on TV in disbelief as the goal was disallowed. If by "understand the game," you mean docilely accept blatant unfairness, then yeah, maybe I don't understand the game the way you do. But I was raised to believe that our ability to adhere to the rules of games is what brings out the best in us as competitors, thus making the games we play worthwhile.

Without rules, and without a mechanism in place to ensure the rules are followed (because, just as you said, referees can and do make mistakes), sports, even one as revered as “futbol” are worth less than the gum I peeled off the sole of my shoe yesterday.

And I think people want and expect a little more from their sports than a willy-nilly, rules-be-damned attitude where the fun is in not knowing if the refs are actually going to do their jobs well or not. Most sports are a contest between two parties, one team pitting its ability (honed in accordance to the rules of the game) against another. It’s not a contest between three parties, Team A, Team B, and Team Ref.

"There is no fairness in sport. When ManU plays a bottom of the table team, its unfair before the game starts."

Yes, there is. It’s more commonly referred to as “The Rules.” You don’t get to score by running off-sides. You don’t get to use your hand to knock a ball into the goal. And you don’t discount a ball that clearly entered the goal area. Rules aren’t just incidental window dressing to make sports look prettier. Regardless of the ability level of any team, the foundation of how a game is played – The Rules – is paramount. Besides, the unfairness of a team being outmatched by a superior opponent is in no way comparable to the unfairness of a ref who chooses to ignore fundamental rules of a game.

To paraphrase your absolutism, anyone who can’t understand this basic principal of sport clearly has never played any.

“Unfortunately the sore losers and first time WC fans do not understand this.

Regardless of this being the third World Cup I’ve had the pleasure to watch, a sore loser implies a fan contesting the loss of a legitimate contest. The outcome of the England-Germany contest was hardly a legitimate one, tainted by a stolen goal that would have most certainly changed the entire tempo of the remainder of the game. While there is no doubt that Germany played a far superior game to England, there is also little doubt the stolen goal effectively destroyed any momentum England had. That disallowed goal ruined what should have been a far more exciting game, and as someone who wasn’t particularly rooting for either team, that irritates me.

We have had this technology in Rugby league for over a decade. FIFA is so behind the times it is the laughing stock of world sport.

it is a little strange comparing FIFA to Rugby League. I mean Rugby League is a minor sport and it is always easier to introduce things in sports that most people dont care about. I am sure if they introduced it in Football there would be quite a lot of debate.

Why is it strange? If a "minor sport" can introduce technology relatively effectively - why cannot the "McDonalds of world sport" - soccer - do the same? It is not as if they don't have the cash to do it.

I am sure if they introduced it in Football there would be quite a lot of debate.

I'm sure if they don't introduce it in soccer there will be quite a lot of debate. I can assure you, if you ask a pom or Irishman anyway - they will likely argue for the introduction of video replays in soccer! Learn from other sports - and adapt. Once Blatter is ousted - video replays will come in - make no mistake about that.

The main difference is that Football is a flowing sport where the action happens quickly. On the other hand Rugby is a stop-start sport which has only the one direction of play

I do see your point there, ihavearrived. Video replays can't be used for everything - the game would then stretch out to NFL proportions! As in the rugby codes - where they use replays for only the last play before a try (if it is in some dispute) - why cannot replays be called upon for decisions in the box (if unclear)? It would likely only be called upon once or twice a game - and would save so much controversy.

NFL Games run three hours, tops. Soccer matches two. Considering how infrequent scoring is in soccer, the extra minute or two to confirm or deny a questionable goal would be negligible.

The NBA introduced instant replay to the game in 2002. Actually, pro basketball is probably the best comparison in the sports world to soccer, being just as fast moving and free flowing. Yet the NBA has not been appreciably crippled by the use of instant replay.

Like any new change in rules to a game, there have to be tweaks and adjustments. But when it comes to making every possible effort to ensure the game is one where two teams compete against each other, rather than two teams competing against a field ref, introducing instant replay would produce far more benefits than negatives.