Refereeing mistakes

[Malenko]

First of all... it's incredible how much of these comments are so biased.

I actually know what team most ewb'ers support from reading most sports bar threads, but even if i didn't i would find out by reading this. comments like "95% of man utd penaltys" , "dives from van nistelrooy, ronaldo and rooney" <- coincidence... all players from the same team. As if your team whatever it is doesn't have diving players.

As for that England-Portugal goal... i'm sorry to disappoint you but that was well disalowed. Why? Because since the early 90's a rule as been approved which says a goalie in his box (the small box -- i don't know how it is called in english.. sorry) can't be DISTURBED. You may say it's a rule for pussies or whatever you want, but the rules are there to be sentenced. He doesn't need to be blatantly pushed, kicked, tackled or whatever... as long as his move towards the ball is obstructed (when inside that box) the foul must be called. THAT'S the rule.

As for Porto being helped by referees all the time in our little (un)professional league. Yes... it's true, as it's true Sporting and Benfica are too, and believe me.. things are much better now. In the late 80's, early 90's all "small" teams defended the 0-0 for the whole 90 mins, cause if they tried pressing or tackling the "big teams" players, fouls would be called all the time. Everyone knew what was happening and everyone closed their eyes to avoid seeing it. The difference is, since the mid 90's we have tv shows everyday discussing the refferees mistakes.

The ball in the Porto-Benfica match may have crossed the line (i don't know cause i haven't seen a picture who proves it), but if it crossed it was for inches (cause as you probably know, the ball needs to cross the line in its entirety.. if there's one inch in the line, then it's not a goal). Comparing it to this man u - tottenham match is nonsense, because in this case there could be two extra balls between the original one and the line.

Now to name a few...

HUGE mistakes i've seen:

This one in the Man U - Tottenham match

In the France - Qatar (or other emir country) match of the world cup 86 (or is it 82), the sheik calling the referee saying he had to disallow the france goal otherwise his team would retire from the cup. Surprise of surprises... The goal was actually disallowed. It didn't matter in the end cause france won 4-1 (could have been 5). this is no fairy tale... this really happened.

South Korea being carried on the world cup 2002. Let's give the homeboy a push.

In the portuguese league, just to name two out of my head:

in a Porto-Braga match in the early 90's a braga player takes the ball in his STOMACH after a porto shot. The ref calls for the spot. Gladly for football truth, the penalty was missed.

Benfica - CUF (OLD Match) - Benfica needed a 7 goal difference in the last game to be champions. (the game lasts 103 mins until its stopped by some portuguese football federation authority)

What sickens me the most about the portuguese league is how the presidents of the 3 major clubs constantly argue on which of them is being hurt the most by referee decisions, while they are the 3 which are beneficted the most.

Maybe the same happens in other leagues, i don't know. I barely know who's the president of any foreign team except the more obvious ones.

[Guest Pirate Chasin' Booty]

You're speaking out of your arse.

That rule doesn't apply when the keeper can't get to the ball because a player is in his way scoring a goal.

Both players are going for the ball, Ricardo can't get to it, its not an obstruction, thus the rule you've mentioned has no significance to the goal. The referee said there was a push, there was no push, the referee was wrong, the goal should of standed.

You speak about bias and yet you're siding with Portugal because of your nationality and not because of facts.

[Malenko]

You're speaking out of your arse.

That rule doesn't apply when the keeper can't get to the ball because a player is in his way scoring a goal.

Both players are going for the ball, Ricardo can't get to it, its not an obstruction, thus the rule you've mentioned has no significance to the goal. The referee said there was a push, there was no push, the referee was wrong, the goal should of standed.

You speak about bias and yet you're siding with Portugal because of your nationality and not because of facts.

←

Edited January 5, 2005 by Malenko

[Guest Pirate Chasin' Booty]

Well the goal was disallowed for a push anyway. The fact of the matter is, nobody is deliberately obstructing Ricardo, John Terry at one point has his arm entangled with Ricardo, but theres no intent, its just as much Ricardo's fault and both players are trying to score, getting behind the ball isn't an obstruction, its the equivalent of going past the keeper and then him claiming it an obstuction because the player is in his way of the ball.

[Liam]

I agree with Mudda on this one. Both players went for the ball, and it was the goalie placing his arm over Terry's shoulder which made it appaear as if Terry was jumping into the keeper, when in fact it was the other way around. Goalies are wrapped up in cotton wool, and it's pathetic.

I didn't see the Man U/Spurs match, but that was awful by the looks of the pictures...but I hate Spurs, so not too bothered really!

[Guest Pirate Chasin' Booty]

Another one is Paul Scholes blatant goal against Porto in the CL, the one which was ruled offside, I don't like Man Utd, and the decision doesn't haunt me, nor do I care, but it was a goal.

[Liam]

Yeah, I remember that one. Was pretty shocking decision, and when Porto then go on to win the tournament, it shows how far reaching those mistakes can be.

[Liam]

[lazy_arse]

lol, I was just about to post that but you beat me to it.

[Liam]

Conclusive proof that it actually wasn't a goal.....

[public enemy]

I’m gonna come right out and contradict myself here but that was such a mistake by the referee and the linesman last night. Pictures and reports tell one story but watching the match in its entirety, like I did, bring light to the subject. I was actually a more difficult call than the pictures show, Mendes shot from 40 yards out whilst Carrol was on the trace back, the linesman had to be in line with him and so he’s basing his view of the goal from 40 yards out – if he’s not sure he can’t call it. Granted it was a huge mistake, the photographs don’t seem to give him any credit. The referee was just as bad and really depended on the linesman Ray Lewis to make the decision.

All in all it was a disastrous catch for the keeper and a horrible mistake by the referee, no doubt about it. These decisions however come and go; sometimes you’re on the receiving end of it (i.e. The Porto match Mudda was referring to) or like last night, sometimes you tend to get away with it.

[lanky316]

I apologise, good call mr Linesman

[TMM]

I’m gonna come right out and contradict myself here but that was such a mistake by the referee and the linesman last night. Pictures and reports tell one story but watching the match in its entirety, like I did, bring light to the subject. I was actually a more difficult call than the pictures show, Mendes shot from 40 yards out whilst Carrol was on the trace back, the linesman had to be in line with him and so he’s basing his view of the goal from 40 yards out – if he’s not sure he can’t call it. Granted it was a huge mistake, the photographs don’t seem to give him any credit. The referee was just as bad and really depended on the linesman Ray Lewis to make the decision.

All in all it was a disastrous catch for the keeper and a horrible mistake by the referee, no doubt about it. These decisions however come and go; sometimes you’re on the receiving end of it (i.e. The Porto match Mudda was referring to) or like last night, sometimes you tend to get away with it.

←

It really, was not a difficult call. They've shown the replay about 1000 times on Sky Sports News today, and where the linesman ended up, it's damn clear that the ball crossed the line.

Now, granted he was out of position when the shot was taken, but by the time Carroll had dropped the ball, the linesman had a good enough view that anyone with the ability to see with their eyes should've seen it crossed the line.

Shitty positioning for all the officials.

[G-O-D]

Only if this happened in a final of the Champions League or some other major tournament, video technology will then be introduced to football.

Sadly, right now, I doubt that there is any intention from the authorities to use video technology to aid the refereeing.

[Sam]

The linesman didnt see the ball cross the line as you can see at the exact same time it crosses the line he has his head down as he is sprinting when he looks up Caroll has just scrambled it out.

[therockbox]

I think it was pretty obvious from Caroll's reaction alone it was in. He sat there with that look of "Fuck, I'm dropped" all over his face, looked up at the linesman, then quickly got up and ran out.

[fineintent]

According to Sky Sports news, that Ray Lewis guy is against video evidence - he believes it should be left up to the ref and linesman,

How can one man be soooooo wrong? We could have finally beaten United at Old Trafford, and a once in a lifetime decision fucks Spurs over.

And Sam, why was the linesman's head down? He should have been looking at the fucking ball - you know, doing his job?

Edited January 5, 2005 by fineintent

[The Third Dukes]

Shut up, English whingers.

You wanna talk about getting screwed? There is only one ultimate example of it. Jester called it -- 1972, USA v USSR.

Now, since just about everyone here (myself included) hadn't been BORN yet, let me call up this book called the Sports Hall of Shame and paraphrase their explanation.

Okay, so it's USA down 49-48 to the USSR with time running out. There's a loose ball at midcourt, and Doug Collins gets it, ready to go untouched for the winning hoop. Only he's fouled. No problem; the refs call it. He makes both shots, and the US is up 50-49 with :03 to play. Which is where the trouble starts.

The Soviets try the full-court pass, but it's deflected out of bounds with 1 second left, and fans storm the court, thinking they've witnessed an instant classic. Meanwhile, the USSR coaches are demanding a timeout, and the Brazilian referees are trying to clear the court.

Enter the president of FIBA, who is most definitely not an Olympic official. He orders the referees to grant the Soviets their timeout. Which they get with 1 second on the clock. No, of course he had no right to do this, but the man was an iron-fisted FIBA ruler, and the referees feared for their jobs.

So, one more try, right? Inbounds, last-second shot, off the iron no good and the Americans win. Only here comes the FIBA president again, saying the timeout should have been granted with three seconds on the clock. Again, he is not an official of the Olympics, nor is he wearing the referee's outfit. He's basically nullifying the referee's decision here. So the Soviets will get the ball from their baseline FOR THE THIRD TIME, and with three seconds left. He then talks to the officials about the rules of the game.

Now, stop and think for a moment. Can you imagine the uproar if David James or Richard Wright or whoever the English keeper is saved the Cup-winning penalty against Argentina and Sepp Blatter ordered a retake? Twice? That's essentially what happened here. Then what if Blatter called aside Hugh Dallas or K.M. Nielsen and told them what was and wasn't a foul? You'd want Blatter fired -- or shot.

Anyway, back to 1972: Tom McMillan goes to defend Ivan Yedeshko's inbound pass the same way anyone does. Only this time, the referee whistles him for delay of game and orders him to back up. When McMillan does, Yedeshko hurls it the length of the court -- well, sort of. See, Yedeshko's foot was on the line, which is a violation that should have been a turnover. The referee is looking right at Yedeshko and "somehow" misses the call.

Meanwhile, at the other end, Aleksander Belov is camped in the paint -- wait, that's another violation. See, in international play at the time, the 3-second count started when the ball was given to the player out of bounds. Belov waited for almost 5 seconds and no call was made.

So Belov goes up to get the pass, surrounded by Kevin Joyce and James Forbes of Team USA. Belov shoves both men to the ground before going up to get the ball. Again, anyone watching the action at this end -- including the referee -- would have called it a foul. Except the referee didn't call it a foul. (Gee, wonder why.) With no defense, Belov coasted in for a layup to win the game 51-50.

The US protested the result of the game, and rightly so. But the five-man IOC Protest Committee denied it 3-2. The three nations voting in favor of the Soviets were Poland, Hungary, and Cuba. The Commies stuck together.

The US had to settle for the sliver medal -- but to this day, not one member of that team has claimed his medal. They all feel they did not earn silver; they earned gold. If you read about it and watch it, it's hard to disagree.

Top THAT, footy fans.

[Summers]

Would a good way to top it be the Euro 2004 incident, already mentioned? I think so.

Thanks.

[Liam]

It's one of those "if the sport was actually worthwhile, people might actually care" kinda things.

I don't care...