World cup officiating incompetent -- 1966 in reverse as England not awarded goal

[Elmore Furth]

With the disallowed goals by the US in both Algerian and Slovenian games highlight the incompetence of the FIFA officiating approach. And now that the English have been jobbed in the Germany game, it rubs salt into the wounds. The diving just adds insult to injury.

FIFA is bringing in referees from third world countries just to have a representation from all over the world. These are not the most experienced or highly qualified referees. It shows.

(AP) – 14 minutes ago

BLOEMFONTEIN, South Africa — England midfielder Frank Lampard had a shot cross the goal line Sunday in a World Cup match against Germany, but referee Jorge Larrionda of Uruguay did not award a goal.

With England trailing 2-1 in the first half of the round of 16 game, Lampard's shot from just outside the area hit the crossbar and bounced down. Replays showed the ball had crossed the goal line. After landing inside the goal, the ball spun back to the goalkeeper.

The moment recalled a famously controversial goal from the 1966 World Cup final between England and Germany.



1966 in reverse as England not awarded goal

[trumad]

1. I guess what comes around goes around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. The 1966 goal was an inch or 2 either way; this was over a foot over the line

The 1966 decision was understandable; this one was incompetent.

[Fuzz]

4. True. I don't think it would have mattered in the long run.

It's bad for the sport though.

[malaise]

13. +1,000

England was not beating this German side today.

[rockymountaindem]

3. This is the last time I'm going to watch the world cup

I got into it from being in Europe during the '06 edition and I tried to keep the ball rolling this time, but if they can't even run the game properly, then there's no point in watching. I know there are bad calls in every sport, but at least in other sports scoring opportunities are more plentiful so if one gets blown by a bad call, it's only one of many instead of one of just a handful. Plus, momentum is so important here that a bad call can really deflate a team and make them perform poorly.

The other thing is that the announcers on ESPN basically waived off that bad call by saying the referee's assistant was too far away to be able to see that ball. That sounds like bad officiating by design and not by accident which is even more inexcusable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. They played the Europa Cup (2nd level pan-European game) with extra goal-line officials this year

because some people blocked the idea of using video evidence, but they wanted to do something about controversial decisions. This would have been exactly the kind of decision that official could have made, if FIFA had bothered to organise the game properly.

Ah well, England played badly enough to deserve to lose anyway.

[HipChick]

6. It would not have mattered...English team played horrible..

[KeepItReal]

8. That blown call cost England a goal, a tied score, and momentum.

Playing from behind vs. playing with an even score makes a difference.

Maybe England would have still collapsed in the second half, but at least they would only have themselves to blame fully and not be able to put partial blame on FIFA officiating.

[jannyk]

11. Agreed. We played like a bunch of wankers!

:shrug:

[edbermac]

7. FIFA should take a look at instant replay.

A world class event being diluted by half-assed officiating.

[KeepItReal]

9. Agreed.

eom

[edbermac]

14. Just happened again in Argentina-Mexico.

Scored with a man offside.

[jannyk]

10. Uruguay a Third World Country?!?

Not when it comes to Football mate.

They've won the World Cup twice (4 times if you count the 2 Olympic venues prior to the first WC), and come 4th twice since the first WC in 1930. Compare that to the USA's only entry into the top 4 - in 1930 when they came 3rd and tell me Uruguay doesn't know its Football! It's the national passion there and they know their stuff. All Linesmen/Refs make mistakes and this was a doozy (I'm English and it sucked), but that's the game and you win some, you lose some. But to claim Uruguay is a 'third world nation' included by FIFA as some sort of PC gesture is absolute rot and shows complete ignorance of the sport and its history.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup


"...With Uruguay now two-time official football world champions (as 1924 was the start of FIFA's professional era) and to celebrate their centenary of independence in 1930, FIFA named Uruguay as the host country of the inaugural World Cup tournament."
"In the final, Uruguay defeated Argentina 4–2 in front of a crowd of 93,000 people in Montevideo, and in doing so became the first nation to win the World Cup"

"The 1950 World Cup, held in Brazil, was the first to include British participants. British teams withdrew from FIFA in 1920, partly out of unwillingness to play against the countries they had been at war with, and partly as a protest against foreign influence on football,<12> but rejoined in 1946 following FIFA's invitation.<13> The tournament also saw the return of 1930 champions Uruguay, who had boycotted the previous two World Cups. Uruguay won the tournament again by defeating the host nation Brazil..."

[Elmore Furth]

16. No offense intended, look at the map in wikipedia.

"The term 'Third World' arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned or not moving at all with either capitalism and NATO (which along with its allies represented the First World) or communism and the Soviet Union (which along with its allies represented the Second World)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

[aikoaiko]

12. These things happen.

:shrug:

[KamaAina]

15. The ref who blew the Tevez offside call is Italian

so much for that "Third World" theory.