The sending off was an absolute howler, the Ivory coast player should have been sent off for diving and crimes against acting.
Overall the referee was shit, the second goal was a double handball. Look at the last 5 seconds-fucking joker:- YouTube
Regardless, Brazil had fantastic possesion and passsing sequences and the first goal was a classic.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
WHAT A FUCKING MORON REFEREE!! HOLY SHIT!!
why dont they look at the fucking INSTANT REPLAY WHICH IS ON A MASSIVE SCREEN ABOVE EACH END OF THE GOAL!
Stupid fucking bullshit.[/quote]
I agree but by FIFA rules I think its too late by then. Once the ref has ruled a goal and play has stopped the decision cannot be overturned.
The sending off was an absolute howler, the Ivory coast player should have been sent off for diving and crimes against acting.
Overall the referee was shit, the second goal was a double handball. Look at the last 5 seconds -fucking joker:
Regardless, Brazil had fantastic possesion and passsing sequences and the first goal was a classic.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
WHAT A FUCKING MORON REFEREE!! HOLY SHIT!!
why dont they look at the fucking INSTANT REPLAY WHICH IS ON A MASSIVE SCREEN ABOVE EACH END OF THE GOAL!
Stupid fucking bullshit.[/quote]
They are not allowed to by rule.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
WHAT A FUCKING MORON REFEREE!! HOLY SHIT!!
why dont they look at the fucking INSTANT REPLAY WHICH IS ON A MASSIVE SCREEN ABOVE EACH END OF THE GOAL!
Stupid fucking bullshit.[/quote]
They are not allowed to by rule.[/quote]
-sensible considering the cost of just the infrastructure development and staging of the tournament is only $3.7BILLION
eu nau sou Brasileiro mas forca Brasil!!!
[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:
eu nau sou Brasileiro mas forca Brasil!!![/quote]
Valeu!
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
WHAT A FUCKING MORON REFEREE!! HOLY SHIT!!
why dont they look at the fucking INSTANT REPLAY WHICH IS ON A MASSIVE SCREEN ABOVE EACH END OF THE GOAL!
Stupid fucking bullshit.[/quote]
They are not allowed to by rule.[/quote]
I know, it’s moronic.
France not training today in protest of Anelka being sent home.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
France not training today in protest of Anelka being sent home.
Karma’s a bitch. Getting into the World Cup on a hand ball? Ireland has to be laughing pretty hard right now watching the French implosion.
[quote]Cprimero wrote:
The sending off was an absolute howler, the Ivory coast player should have been sent off for diving and crimes against acting.[/quote]
That cheating was REALLY SHAMEFUL. Had Brazil or England done that I would have disowned them completely.[quote]
Overall the referee was shit, the second goal was a double handball.[/quote]
I did not see it when it happened ( too excited! ).
I have now watched this a few times. The first, yes, clearly a handball, though may I say *ball fell on hand" as I can’t see how he could have taken that arm out of the way there - nothing like an intentional manoeuvre to manipulate the ball into play.
The second one which led to the goal, it was at the shoulder, and the rules may consider that a “hand” but I think it would be reasonable to allow it for every one - that might mean more goals for us to watch.
I know I am biased but from previous posts you can see I am their worst critic. I just don’t think it was a criminal “shoulder” ball. Even the first one - the ball was dropping anyway; he didn’t control it with his hand. [quote]
to Look at the last 5 seconds -fucking joker: [/quote] It is true. The referee was a critical joke, like:
-“Did you use your hand?”
‘No! I used my chest.’
“Ah. ok.”
…
-“Did Kaka hit you on the face?”
-‘Yeah!’
Regardless, Brazil had fantastic possesion and passsing sequences and the first goal was a classic.[/quote]
It was indeed a pleasure to watch.
This is from the Brazilian press:
‘LuÃ?Âs Fabiano, que admitiu ter ajeitado a bola com a mÃ?£o. “Foi uma mÃ?£o involuntÃ?¡ria.”’
Basically Luis Fabiano admitted: “It was an involuntary hand.”
Which was what I thought.
Every World Cup it’s the same: the ref makes a call, and four seconds later, tens (or hundreds) of millions of people watch it on replay, and can see clearly that the call was crap, and often that crap has determined the game. They REALLY need to bring in instant replays.
Tomorrow I shall be rooting for Switzerland and Spain, and watching North Korea with interest.
Hopp Schwyz! Viva Espana!
[quote]nrt wrote:
Every World Cup it’s the same: the ref makes a call, and four seconds later, tens (or hundreds) of millions of people watch it on replay, and can see clearly that the call was crap, and often that crap has determined the game. They REALLY need to bring in instant replays.
Tomorrow I shall be rooting for Switzerland and Spain, and watching North Korea with interest.
Hopp Schwyz! Viva Espana![/quote]
I think they need to add more referees ON THE FIELD. The National Football League has 22 players on the field and uses 7 referees, the National Hockey League has 12 players on the field and uses 3 referees, the National Basketball Association has 10 players on the court and uses 3 referees.
What makes FIFA think 1 referee on the field can suffice, when a soccer field is one of the biggest fields in all of sports, you are dealing with multiple language barriers, and trying to pursue world class athletes?
The beautiful game could use a beautiful mind.
NZ drew with Italy despite the horrendously biased officiating against them. It is clear to me that NZ are going to be crowned World Champions.
Great to see New Zealand put a strong performance in. Did you know that their last substitute had to take time off from work (works at a bank) to come and play at the world cup?
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I think they need to add more referees ON THE FIELD. The National Football League has 22 players on the field and uses 7 referees, the National Hockey League has 12 players on the field and uses 3 referees, the National Basketball Association has 10 players on the court and uses 3 referees.
What makes FIFA think 1 referee on the field can suffice, when a soccer field is one of the biggest fields in all of sports, you are dealing with multiple language barriers, and trying to pursue world class athletes?
The beautiful game could use a beautiful mind.[/quote]
Huh. I’ve actually never really thought of this. Maybe because its seems second nature to have 1 ref, 2 linesmen. But you’re right, I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be apt to add another ref. Although, I’d hate to play with another ref on the pitch. They’re always in the way as it is.
I’m throwing my support behind New Zealand after accepting the fact the officials seem determined to cheat Australia out of progressing. That Ghana game was ridiculous.
[quote]Cimmerian wrote:
I’m throwing my support behind New Zealand after accepting the fact the officials seem determined to cheat Australia out of progressing. That Ghana game was ridiculous.[/quote]
You bastards dominate just about everything else that you try anyway. I think the world couldn’t bear it if you started doing the same with football. I for one am happy for every shit decision that goes against you in this world cup.
Lets hope the umpires do the same in December.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I think they need to add more referees ON THE FIELD. The National Football League has 22 players on the field and uses 7 referees, the National Hockey League has 12 players on the field and uses 3 referees, the National Basketball Association has 10 players on the court and uses 3 referees.
What makes FIFA think 1 referee on the field can suffice, when a soccer field is one of the biggest fields in all of sports, you are dealing with multiple language barriers, and trying to pursue world class athletes?
The beautiful game could use a beautiful mind.[/quote]
This post is so full of common sense it comes as a surprise no one has brought it up before.
I guess being raised in a football nation makes me accept the refereeing as is.
Maybe more referees would get in the way and interfere with the flow of the game, which is also what makes it beautiful, and that is why no one has thought of it as an option.
But can any one see why we can’t use technology to help the referee? I mean, we don’t tell the doctors in the operating room:
“You are not allowed to look at the camera images and see important, decisive details of the area where you are operating in this person because that is cheating.”
I really can’t see a reasonable reason why referees are not allowed to look at the giant evidence from the expensive technology available of tv images.