England’s Goal Which Wasn’t A Goal; Or: 1966 Karma?

1966 karma IMO

Jajaja, I couldn't stop laughing at the irony, even before the commentators brought it up.

Maybe video replay is not viable yet. But goal line technology is…

Yeah, the chants of “the referee's a ******” from the England fans may have been somewhat drowned out by the Vuvuzelas, but that didn't make them any less accurate!

Karma is a bitch!

video replay exists in every bush league hockey game in Canada. It is despicable that FIFA cannot implement video replay in the world's largest game!! Absolutely disgusting

All the gloaters can go on about karma all they like, but it was a disgraceful decision and an embarrassment to the sport – doesn't matter if it had happened to England or to Germany, for the ball to be so far over the line (uttterly different to 1966 so the comparisons are irrelevant) and not seen is pathetic.

Of course Sepp Blatter won't worry about it though can't have goal line technology “spoiling” the game can we.

What does it take to even just add 2 goal line referees like they did in the Europa League this season? No technology needed and they would have made the call.

Agreed, Francesco.

Jason Shaw, the reason video replay works in hockey is because there are constant stoppages in play and the clock stops when the whistle blows. I'm kind of sick of people that don't get the game demanding instant replay.

Payback is a bitch.

And is it karma for Mexico too? Have they just been paid back for an offside goal awarded against them in a huge World Cup match in the past, or is it only karma when an atrocious decision takes away a goal for England?

Whereas of course it's far better to have wrong decisions such as that one, and another that has just happened for Tevez' “goal” against Mexico is it???

Didn't say that, did I? (re-reading what I wrote…) Nope. There are ways that video replay could work, and there are ways using more officials could work. I'm just not convinced that, as I've heard it proposed so far, video replay won't detract from the game.

No you didn't say that, but you did say “I'm solidly convinced it wouldn't be a good thing for the game.”

Personally I think a brief disruption to a game is far preferable to horrendous decisions like those but that's just my opinion.

You mentioned Hockey which I'm no great expert on, but am I right in thinking that they do stop the play to review a goal line incident even if play would otherwise have continued? If a goal isn't given don't they just restart with a face off in the attacking zone? I could be totally wrong, not seeing much Ice Hockey though…

Ice Hockey does flow in a similar way to football – it does have more stoppages certainly, but not as many as tennis, cricket, American Football etc. So if Hockey can use it why not football?

I do agree that it's very difficult to specify exactly how it should work. Either have just goal-line technology only (such as a chip in the ball – but that wouldn't have helped Mexico tonight of course) or perhaps have a 3 challenges system like in tennis?

The most annoying thing though is that FIFA stated that the book is closed on it, and they won't entertain any more discussion about ideas which is ludicrous. there are flaws to such ideas, granted, but not allowing clear goals, or giving ones that blatantly shouldn't stand is worse.

Sepp Blatter was in Bloemfontein for the England – Germany match today…I hope he was squirming in his seat when he saw Lampard's “goal”.

In ice hockey (it's just hockey, though), the stoppages to check on goals can last minutes. The problem, other than that, is that it would be very difficult to decide what to review and what not to. Because football doesn't have clear plays, how do you decide what does and doesn't lead to a goal? Should an incorrect corner kick call be reviewed if it leads to a goal? Throw-ins? Fouls?

There are tons of normal stoppages in hockey which break up the flow, but maybe not anymore than free kicks in football. It's the commercial breaks that really kill the flow.

I'm not sure if they check back if play continues. According to the rules I saw, it sounds like they can review a goal anytime until the next stoppage in play.

There is a comparison between these two goals, though not with respect to whether the ball was indeed over the line or not. This ball was definitely over the line and in 1966 it was not.
The comparison:
In both cases the linesman (now assistant referee) was way out.
- In 1966, the decision was made by the linesman; a decision that should have never been made as the linesman from his position could have not been positive about the situation.
- In 2010, the assistant referee did not make the decision (he was correctly positioned with the next-to-last defender and you can't expect him to be as fast as the ball to chase down to the goalline). Though this time the ball was not even close, the assistant probably was correct in not making a decision as he didn't have the angle.
The referee? No way he could have been sure about whether the ball crossed the line from his (correct) position.
The answer? probably 2 additional officials at the goal/goalline.