England, France advance to Euro 2012 quarterfinals

Absolutely no controversy as England would have won the group even with a 1-1 draw. It may well have been a goal but where is the controversy? This has been happening for years and will continue to happen until someone gets rid of Blatter and Platini at FIFA. It's only controversial when a system is put in place to ensure these things are not missed. The only controversy is that a system was not implemented by FIFA YEARS ago.

True. The NFL use it, cricket uses it extensively, rugby league has used it for the past 16 years. Surely it's got to be introduced by FIFA soon.

And if the goal was allowed England would still of advanced top of the group and Ukraine would still be going home. No controversy tbh because it wouldn't of affected the final outcome for both sides. Because while Ukraine would of finished on equal points with France they didn't have a better goal difference.

Oh wait sorry I made a mistake in my post. Ukraine are already home.

A win is a win. Crying about it makes no difference. Now we have to listen to English fans blab for at least another week - that's the real tragedy here.

Hungarian referee Viktor Kassai allowed play to continue after being advised by his assistant standing directly beside the goal that the ball did not cross the line.

We'll still get the traditionalists blabbing on about how human mistakes like this make football "interesting" and are "part of the game".

It was blatantly over the line. I hope the assistant is never allowed to deal with a tournament game ever again.

Probie - Should they do that with every official that makes a mistake in a game though? If so, then you're not going to have many people officiating games as they'll all be banned.

Ball was over the line for sure, by at least the diameter of the ball, but a goal would/should have been disallowed because of offside.

Probie - Should they do that with every official that makes a mistake in a game though? If so, then you're not going to have many people officiating games as they'll all be banned.

They've done it many times when officials have made unbelievably bad decisions on goals.

To be perfectly honest the England - Ukraine game was pretty crap. I've been an england supporter for enough decades not to get over excited just yet. Unforunately, already the british tabloids are seriously talking about going all the way. This time next week they'll probably be say Roy Hodgson was a terible mistake and must go now.

I do think that they have a better than even chance against the Italians who impressed against Spain but not in the last two outings. If England beat Italy then the result in the semi against germany is a given: draw, extra time, England lose on penalties.

Way to go Roo! Hoping both England and Germany make it to the finals and Italy and France get booted out soon.

bad ref'ing decisions is what makes sports fun and interesting to watch!!! Though I love the NFL, it is almost unbearable to watch because of all the replays and the absolute ridiculousness of the coach's challenge. The games are played by people, not robots...

USNin japan - the way the draw works Germany and England cannot meet in the final. They can meet in the semis.

We'll still get the traditionalists blabbing on about how human mistakes like this make football "interesting" and are "part of the game".

See what I mean?

bad ref'ing decisions is what makes sports fun and interesting to watch!!! Though I love the NFL, it is almost unbearable to watch because of all the replays and the absolute ridiculousness of the coach's challenge. The games are played by people, not robots...

No. It doesn't make sport "fun and interesting to watch". Games should be decided on who scores the most points, and if someone scores one and it isn't counted, that's wrong. Comparing football to the NFL is silly. Without any replays American football games stop for 5 minutes every 10 seconds anyway. Replays in football would only be for goals and not the overkill that you get in the NFL.

SimondB

I know, what I meant was that I hope to see one of them in the finals and neither France nor Italy. Sorry bad wording. Thanks.

Oh wait sorry I made a mistake in my post. Ukraine are already home

Ouch.

Ball was over the line for sure, by at least the diameter of the ball, but a goal would/should have been disallowed because of offside.

Absolutely. There should be no controversy whatsoever as there was a clear and obvious offside in the build up to that incident. For once it does seem that two wrongs do indeed make a right.

Because while Ukraine would of finished on equal points with France they didn't have a better goal difference.

The first tie-breaker here is not goal-difference but head-to-head, but France already beat Ukraine 2-0, so Ukraine had to beat England regardless.

As for the non-goal, it was quick but there was a little bit of daylight between the goal-line and the surface of the ball, so it should be a goal. But the play started with a non-called offside anyways, so the non-calls canceled each other out. I guess sometimes 2 wrongs do make a right.

We'll still get the traditionalists blabbing on about how human mistakes like this make football "interesting" and are "part of the game".

I totally agree. Use the technology that you have to ensure a fair result. In rugby, if a try is unclear (did he have his foot in touch, etc.) the ask they TMO who reviews the replays. They showed the replays anyway and it showed that the ball went in.

a revival of football’s ongoing debate over the need for technology to help referees make accurate decisions.

It works like this and it is quite simple. One man (Blatter) runs world football and is unopposed in it's voting system. Any nation that challenges this one-man power is dealt a poor hand in the sport. FIFA referees are appointed and promoted by FIFA (ie.Blatter). Any referee who wants to progress in that career has to dance to Blatter's tune by doing what they are told and promoting his idealogy on rules. Video technology will therefore weaken FIFA's control of imporant games because the truth will be shown and we do away with human decisions. Blatter hates that idea. Otherwise why wasn't video technology introduced years ago just like rugby and cricket? Blatter wishes to keep human control through his own appointed match officials. Football is one of, if not the, richest sports in the world and clubs such as Barcelona, Germany, Milan, Real, Argentina etc are worth a huge fortune to Blatter and to those clubs themselves. As soon as truthful video technology comes in then other clubs will be able to win things.

Probie... yes, but where does it end? First you bring in replays for dubious goals.. then it moves on to see if a player was offside, then it used to see if a player used his hand.. then used to check if "he got the ball first"

Granted if its ONLY used to check goals AND it doesn't stop the game (for longer than a minute) then I'm ok with that. Once you start adding on to it.. it will become no better than the NFL

oh.. and let's not forget that during the buildup to the "goal", a ukrainian was offside. So if the technology was in place, the goal would have been awarded... a goal that was offside. So hypothetically, if the goal was allowed, now we have england complaining about how technology screwed them over because it only allows one portion of the play to be reviewed. Now we have a situation where we have to check offisides AND goal decisions. What are we to do?

Way to go Roo! Hoping both England and Germany make it to the finals...

God no... I can see "The Sun" with a photo of Shrek... I mean Rooney with a WW2 helmet on like they used to do with Gazza when Engerland played Germany in some tournament or other.

As cracaphat says, just the same as in cricket, a team would have 3 chances to refer with a video referee. And that is max 3 for any decision (goal line, red card, penalties etc) The referee would also have unlimited power to review by video referee, but if a team challenged the referee to do so, they would use up 1 of their 'lives'.

Platini is using the excuse of 'if you use video for goal line referrals then every decision would have to have video calls' but Platini is such an idiot he hasn't worked out that the cricket style of 3 referalls per team would solve that issue and keep the game flowing.

It works like this and it is quite simple. One man (Blatter) runs world football and is unopposed in it's voting system. Any nation that challenges this one-man power is dealt a poor hand in the sport. FIFA referees are appointed and promoted by FIFA (ie.Blatter). Any referee who wants to progress in that career has to dance to Blatter's tune by doing what they are told and promoting his idealogy on rules. Video technology will therefore weaken FIFA's control of imporant games because the truth will be shown and we do away with human decisions. Blatter hates that idea. Otherwise why wasn't video technology introduced years ago just like rugby and cricket? Blatter wishes to keep human control through his own appointed match officials. Football is one of, if not the, richest sports in the world and clubs such as Barcelona, Germany, Milan, Real, Argentina etc are worth a huge fortune to Blatter and to those clubs themselves. As soon as truthful video technology comes in then other clubs will be able to win things.

This is how corrupt FIFA are. They won't allow video technology to confirm whether an incorrect decision was made, but they will use video to review a player for discipline reasons. In fact, FIFA even instruct broadcasters not to replay potential incorrect decisions!

napoleancomplex

Probie... yes, but where does it end? First you bring in replays for dubious goals.. then it moves on to see if a player was offside, then it used to see if a player used his hand.. then used to check if "he got the ball first". Granted if its ONLY used to check goals AND it doesn't stop the game (for longer than a minute) then I'm ok with that. Once you start adding on to it.. it will become no better than the NFL

I think you'll agree that in all those situations you mentioned, play is always stopped anyway, sometimes for more than a minute, by the players crowding the ref.

As cracaphat says, just the same as in cricket, a team would have 3 chances to refer with a video referee. And that is max 3 for any decision (goal line, red card, penalties etc) The referee would also have unlimited power to review by video referee, but if a team challenged the referee to do so, they would use up 1 of their 'lives'.

I think what you suggest would be a good solution for dubious offside calls etc. For goals, most are not contentious (unlike tries in rugby), but for contentious ones, they should be able to be reviewed without using up a 'life'. The reason being is that they are rare and the game has stopped anyway.

So in this case the goal would be reviewed, but they England could use a 'life' to have the offside reviewed as well.