Biggest Screwjob

[SaNtY]

Matzat, the goalkeeper does have to be protected, I 100% agree with that, but that basically means you can't challenge for a header in the 6 yard box if the goalkeeper is there, which is complete bullshit. Im a referee myself, I know what a tough job it can be and I know that you have to make split second decisions, HOWEVER disallowing the goal was a knee jerk reaction, it wasn't a considered thought. If Meier actually considered the decision I am almost certain he wouldn't of disallowed the goal. John Terry was stood on the line after challenging for a header, the goalkeeper could have made it to the ball but aswell as John Terry being there, there was also a Portugese defender blocking his route. It is ridiculous to disallow a goal for what was basically just a goal line scramble that you see in a lot of matches.

Also I would like you to show me the specific rule that states that goalkeepers have to be protected by refs in there 6/18 yard box, as that law does not exist.

Also to stereotype every English person like you did at the end is just as bad as how English people stereotype the Germans so don't gimme all the "English are ignorant blah blah" crap.

Edited June 28, 2004 by SaNtY

[naiwf]

Montreal. Why?

The game between England/Portugal only really mattered to people in those two countries, and Matzat .

The Montreal Screwjob mattered to wrestling fans around the world, caused catastrophic changes in the two largest wrestling promotions in North America and forever tainted men such that 7 years later people still hate them.

[Mishmow]

Other - The people of England because all they can hope for is Tim f'n Henman....

[Dogbert]

Calgary 2004.

[Herr Matzat]

Matzat, the goalkeeper does have to be protected, I 100% agree with that, but that basically means you can't challenge for a header in the 6 yard box if the goalkeeper is there,

←

Exactly (well ok, you can chalange for one because if the goaly dossent get there fast enough/stands there and dos nothing it is alowed, however, if his way to the ball is slowed down ANNYHOW by a player of the oposing team (wich happent) it is foul.)

which is complete bullshit. Im a referee myself

←

You might be one, but in england football just is alowed to be played a lot harder therfore your opinion as a smal english reffere is no were near an opinion of a world class reffery that has expirence from a shitload of international games.

I can only repeaed it 343 times, i saw this rule enforced SO OFTEN in the german league wen i was in the statium, wen it was showen on tv afterwarts and wen it was ruled in international games. There just is no Point that changes that this rule is aplyed that way international, becaus it just is always aplyed like that and dossent change becaus england is taking part in such an international game.

You cannot block the goaly in the goal area, intentional ore unententional, thats just how it is, how it was and how it most likly will be for a long time. End of story.

Edited June 29, 2004 by Michael Matzat

[therockbox]

I can only repeaed it 343 times, i saw this rule enforced SO OFTEN in the german league wen i was in the statium, wen it was showen on tv afterwarts and wen it was ruled in international games. There just is no Point that changes that this rule is aplyed that way international, becaus it just is always aplyed like that and dossent change becaus england is taking part in such an international game.

Thanks Matzat, you've just listed the biggest problem with football. It's a fucking pussy game now. "Oh, you touched the keeper. Here, have a free kick." What next, no contact? And, here's a thought. The rules enforced are the same in every country that plays, in this case, in Euro 2004 as they're all part of UEFA and FIFA, who make up the rules - so they have to be the same everywhere.

And, another question. If you're so sure it wasn't a goal - why did the linesman give it?

[Johnny Drama]

considering the linesman who was in a better posotion gave the goal it says it all

[Guest BigDirty]

The rules enforced are the same in every country that plays, in this case, in Euro 2004 as they're all part of UEFA and FIFA, who make up the rules - so they have to be the same everywhere.

No there are not the same everywhere. There are no big differences but there are differences.

And, another question.  If you're so sure it wasn't a goal - why did the linesman give it?

←

Why did Meier, Steinborn and several other refs after watching the replay say that it was a foul?

[fourstarfizzle]

Biggest screwjob? I'd say Wrestlemania 9, poor Yokozuna, Champion for about 5 minutes. Ah well, I'm a Hogan mark

As for England, stop whining, everytime we get knocked out of a tournament, we always find something or someone else to blame. We bitch about every mistake, and it just makes us look stupid. Take it on the chin, we got knocked out, lets look forward to the World Cup. Mind you, we'll probably get knocked out there and blame Germany, because we're in their country and they started the Second World War.

[Mishmow]

Just a thought...Why even put Montreal in the poll?

Sports screwjobs are talked about by everyone, while in reality, wrestling is completely irrelevant.

[Jonny D]

Why did Meier, Steinborn and several other refs after watching the replay say that it was a foul?

Many other German referees. There have been many English referees saying that it wasn't a foul.

[Guest BigDirty]

Many other German referees.  There have been many English referees saying that it wasn't a foul.

←

I only mentioned one german ref but it's ok. So who could be more neutral judging a situation in a Portugal - ENGLAND match, an ENGLISH ref or ref from a country that doesn't belong to the UK or Portugal?

Edited June 29, 2004 by BigDirty

[Johnny Latino Heat]

Uefa have launched an attack on sections of the English press for their treatment of Swiss official Urs Meier.

Meier was vilified in sections of the English media for disallowing Sol Campbell's 'goal' in the quarter final defeat at the hands of Portugal.

The Swiss deemed that John Terry had jumped into Portugal goalkeeper Ricardo, which allowed Campbell an uncontested path to the ball.

Meier was the subject of adverse press coverage and Uefa felt it went too far.

"We are disappointed with the behaviour of some of your colleagues, especially in the case of Urs Meier," committee president Volker Roth said at a press conference on Monday.

"As president of the German football federation I am used to handling the press, even the yellow (tabloid) press, but the way some of the English press have blamed Urs Meier for a correct decision is completely unacceptable.

"They have gone into his private life, given details of his home, his car, his wife and this is unacceptable.

"For four years, the referees and Uefa have been open with the press, but if the press act in this way in the future the situation may have to be reviewed."

Source: www.skysports.com

Even UEFA admits it's been a foul. Now can we please move on? As I was watching the game and the ball went in, I didn't even move because it was a foul. It may not be a foul according to England's rules, but apparently it's a foul everywhere else, including here (I myself have seen many goals disallowed because of fouls like those). I'm sorry, but this is getting rather annoying. It's done with, let it be.

[therockbox]

Where did they say it was a foul? They said Meier was being treated in a totally unacceptable way (which he is), not that it was/not a foul.

[Herr Matzat]

Where did they say it was a foul?  They said Meier was being treated in a totally unacceptable way (which he is), not that it was/not a foul.

←

you seem to drop the part "correct decision" wich is funny becaus he even put it in bold

Edited June 29, 2004 by Michael Matzat

[therockbox]

you seem to drop the part "correct decision" wich is funny becaus he even put it in bold

←

I only read the first 3 or 4 words, so OK, they said it was the 'correct' decision. Of course they would, UEFA won't publically say that he's in the wrong. However, the fact that before the game he was favourite to referee the final but now it looks like he won't kinda suggests different, don't you think?

Edited June 29, 2004 by Agent_Sm1th

[Guest BigDirty]

I only read the first 3 or 4 words, so OK, they said it was the 'correct' decision.  Of course they would, UEFA won't publically say that he's in the wrong.  However, the fact that before the game he was favourite to referee the final but now it looks like he won't kinda suggests different, don't you think?

←

Where did you read that again? The sun? Merk was always the favourite because he was supposed to ref in the World Cup final but he couldn't because Germany played in it. It was the correct decision, you lost, get over it.

[therockbox]

Where did you read that again? The sun? Merk was always the favourite because he was supposed to ref in the World Cup final but he couldn't because Germany played in it. It was the correct decision, you lost, get over it.

←

BBC.co.uk, SkySports.com, a load of reliable papers (Gaurdian, Independant, Times etc).

[Herr Matzat]

BBC.co.uk, SkySports.com, a load of reliable papers (Gaurdian, Independant, Times etc).

←

quaterfinal refs never get th final . . .

[therockbox]

quaterfinal refs never get th final . . .

←

It was listed as a 'tradition' for QF referees to get the final as a high-point to their career.