Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sepp Blatter

On reading the newspapers today it would seem that England's old friend Sepp is on the backfoot after the latest ref blunder against Ukraine mind you again the silence from Platini is not a surprise after all he is apparently the heir apparent to Blatter. He was the man who we know is dead against Goal Line Technology and introduced the idea of additional officals behind the goal.

Sepp Blatter has called for goal-line technology a "necessity " at long last but only after England benefitted from a blunder, the match officals have now been sent home although to be honest the ref in the England game was not at fault the person to blame it was the offical on the line.

There is a belief that since england were denied a goal in the last world cup that FIFA have busted a gut to get GLT in but that is not true .

Platini is due to be attendance when France play Spain in their Quarter Final I wonder what he would have to say if france are denied a goal if the same thing happens to them against Spain. Even Cricket legend Ian Botham joined in yesterday by saying "So Blatter says GLT is a necessity-would that be because England benefitted"
«1

Comments

  • Goal line technology is already available at every major televised game. Just utilise the TV cameras and a slow motion replay. A quick call to a wired official would be all that's required.
  • GLT is fine but, would they go back to the start of the move and check to see if there was an offside ( a line decision?) prior to the 'goal' as in the case in the England game. The linesman had made an error and not flagged the guy who eventually scored when the ball was played through. In cricket they check to see if the bowler has oversteped the line first and thus if it was a no ball it negates any decision on whether in or out being made.
    In the England game the offside would have made the 'goal' decision irrelevant with England being awarded a free kick for the clearly missed offside.
  • Queensland Addick. The football governing bodies proably wouldn't allow this as it the cameras and software are controlled by the TV companies and would be open to manipulation. Any system would probably need to be operated by the FA, FIFA etc.
  • Queensland Addick. The football governing bodies proably wouldn't allow this as it the cameras and software are controlled by the TV companies and would be open to manipulation. Any system would probably need to be operated by the FA, FIFA etc.
    I see. But then FIFA could purchase their own TV camera and place it near the goal line. The point is, they are trialling all these different systems and make it sound like it's so difficult, when ordinary TV camera coverage always seems to give a very clear picture of whats happened and I'm sure that could even be enhanced with a better placement of the camera.

  • I've had an argument elsewhere about this exact thing, I am far from a Blatter supporter, I've read Foul by Andrew Jennings and after that there is no way you can like the man, however all this because it benefitted England is nonsense. After the last WC and Lampard's goal that wasn't given Blatter apologised to the FA and since then have changed their tune about GLT. Not really sure what the issue is, don't really have a problem with the extra officials, the experiment has shown that it isn't really working and now the only option left is to implement GLT which it seems is highly likely.
  • GLT is fine but, would they go back to the start of the move and check to see if there was an offside ( a line decision?) prior to the 'goal' as in the case in the England game. The linesman had made an error and not flagged the guy who eventually scored when the ball was played through. In cricket they check to see if the bowler has oversteped the line first and thus if it was a no ball it negates any decision on whether in or out being made.
    In the England game the offside would have made the 'goal' decision irrelevant with England being awarded a free kick for the clearly missed offside.
    No they wouldn't go back to check an offside as this is just human error that will always happen in football. Whether the ball crosses the line or not is a matter of fact.


  • GLT is fine but, would they go back to the start of the move and check to see if there was an offside ( a line decision?) prior to the 'goal' as in the case in the England game. The linesman had made an error and not flagged the guy who eventually scored when the ball was played through. In cricket they check to see if the bowler has oversteped the line first and thus if it was a no ball it negates any decision on whether in or out being made.
    In the England game the offside would have made the 'goal' decision irrelevant with England being awarded a free kick for the clearly missed offside.
    No they wouldn't go back to check an offside as this is just human error that will always happen in football. Whether the ball crosses the line or not is a matter of fact.


    Surely, an offside call is a matter of fact - it either is offside or it isn't. I don't see the difference, TBH.
  • It is all very well to say the goal would have been offside but the no england player appealed for offside so had the offical had seen the ball cross the line the goal would have been given ,even the proper linesman did not flag for offside
  • edited June 2012
    GLT is fine but, would they go back to the start of the move and check to see if there was an offside ( a line decision?) prior to the 'goal' as in the case in the England game. The linesman had made an error and not flagged the guy who eventually scored when the ball was played through. In cricket they check to see if the bowler has oversteped the line first and thus if it was a no ball it negates any decision on whether in or out being made.
    In the England game the offside would have made the 'goal' decision irrelevant with England being awarded a free kick for the clearly missed offside.
    No they wouldn't go back to check an offside as this is just human error that will always happen in football. Whether the ball crosses the line or not is a matter of fact.


    Surely, an offside call is a matter of fact - it either is offside or it isn't. I don't see the difference, TBH.
    If Terry hadn't managed to get near the ball and it hit the back of the net then a goal would have been given. The mistake by the linesman wouldn't have been taken into account because these sort of human mistakes will always happen by officials. If technology was going to be used to delve further back into a chain of events then it would open up a huge can of worms and the game would be ruined.
  • Sorry Frank I hadn't read your post and I've said pretty much same thing !
  • Sponsored links:


  • GLT is fine but, would they go back to the start of the move and check to see if there was an offside ( a line decision?) prior to the 'goal' as in the case in the England game. The linesman had made an error and not flagged the guy who eventually scored when the ball was played through. In cricket they check to see if the bowler has oversteped the line first and thus if it was a no ball it negates any decision on whether in or out being made.
    In the England game the offside would have made the 'goal' decision irrelevant with England being awarded a free kick for the clearly missed offside.
    I'm pretty sure in Ice Hockey if the puck goes over the line a light goes off to indicatethat. Not suggesting a light but perhaps the ref and linesmen could have a sound alarm go off in their earpiece if the ball crosses the line. If it doesn't go over the line play continues. Don't think it affects other parts of the game i.e. offsides etc, just a simple over the line or not.

  • GLT is fine but, would they go back to the start of the move and check to see if there was an offside ( a line decision?) prior to the 'goal' as in the case in the England game. The linesman had made an error and not flagged the guy who eventually scored when the ball was played through. In cricket they check to see if the bowler has oversteped the line first and thus if it was a no ball it negates any decision on whether in or out being made.
    In the England game the offside would have made the 'goal' decision irrelevant with England being awarded a free kick for the clearly missed offside.
    I'm pretty sure in Ice Hockey if the puck goes over the line a light goes off to indicatethat. Not suggesting a light but perhaps the ref and linesmen could have a sound alarm go off in their earpiece if the ball crosses the line. If it doesn't go over the line play continues. Don't think it affects other parts of the game i.e. offsides etc, just a simple over the line or not.

    Actually in hockey there is a man that sits behind the net and he presses the button for the light to go off once he see's the puck pass the line.

    For conversation sake you could add an 'offside line' at say the 30 yard mark, kinda line a blue line in hockey that way those lazy linesmen can just stand there and there would be no playing someone onside, if your infront of the line but behind the last defender it would be onside, not crazy about the idea but its an avenue.

    Alternatively, go the NFL style and have a challenge, if you think you have been wronged by either the ball going over the line or the player was offside then use your challenge, very simple, officials go review the footage and its settled right then and there. Ofcourse they would have to be some kind of penalty against using it if you were wrong, that way teams wouldnt use it just to get a break, say your down to 10 men for 2 mins.
  • football. 65 years (and counting) behind horse racing.
  • just get rid of the offside rule completely.
  • Get rid of goals as the means of deciding the result.

    Have a panel of judges who give points for artistic impression, quality of tricks and flicks as well as kit design and crowd passion.
  • You wanna get us relegated?
  • The technology currently exists to accurately show offsides and balls crossing the line. It is expensive so the issues are more around the difficulties in implementing a universal system. For a major tournament or league it shouldn't be a problem.

    The solution is to approve a system then allow any affiliated club to use it. Leagues can decide whether they make it compulsary for all clubs or not so for instance- the Premiership may chose to do so, but League One may not. If a League One club wanted to unilateraly use the system they could.

    Simples!

  • edited June 2012
    Can't we just enjoy the fact that we were spared a goal that should have counted against us, without the need to go bleating on about technology again?

    Here's a little suggestion for all of you who obsess about every decision being correct; why not just play computer football? You can completely eliminate the human element and enjoy the feast of fun as little pixelated men perfom miracles with their little pixelated balls. And the bit you'll love most of all is that because the referee is made by Intel or AMD or some other huge multinational, you can rest assured that there'll never be a wrong decision again.
  • I have seen quite a few dodgy ref decsions on FIFA!
  • Sepp Blatter is overrated.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Good ol' Sepp is standing for a fifth term as FIFA President. It's always nice to see fresh ideas brought to the table...

    He's 78 now, if he lives to be a centurion he could manage 10 terms, and maybe we'll get to see those matches split into quarters, women in shorter shorts, and racism solved with a hand shake.
  • Good ol' Sepp is standing for a fifth term as FIFA President. It's always nice to see fresh ideas brought to the table...

    He's 78 now, if he lives to be a centurion he could manage 10 terms, and maybe we'll get to see those matches split into quarters, women in shorter shorts, and racism solved with a hand shake.

    and i'm sure the voting process well be fair and above board....
  • edited May 2014
    FIFA are a joke. Theres less corruption in the North Korean government....
  • Good ol' Sepp is standing for a fifth term as FIFA President. It's always nice to see fresh ideas brought to the table...

    He's 78 now, if he lives to be a centurion he could manage 10 terms, and maybe we'll get to see those matches split into quarters, women in shorter shorts, and racism solved with a hand shake.

    and i'm sure the voting process well be fair and above board....
    Anything to keep that Platini out! ;-)
  • edited May 2014
    Naturally he has to keep going - the day before he steps down will be the day when FIFA's shredder runs red-hot. Unless, of course, his successor is an insider, carefully selected and groomed, and a safe pair of hands. Anyway, regardless of what happens those FIFA boys will ensure that for themselves at least it will always be business as usual.
  • edited May 2014


    The decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was a "mistake", according to Fifa President Sepp Blatter.

    He was asked in an interview with the Swiss television channel RTS if it was an error to choose the country because of its hot temperatures in the summer.

    Mr Blatter replied: "Yes, of course.

    "You know, everyone makes mistakes in life."

    Temperatures in the Arab state can reach 50C.

    Fifa shocked many when it awarded the tournament to Qatar following a vote in December 2010 in which it beat the likes of the US and South Korea.



  • The decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was a "mistake", according to Fifa President Sepp Blatter.

    Translation: "The cheque bounced"


  • The decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was a "mistake", according to Fifa President Sepp Blatter.

    He was asked in an interview with the Swiss television channel RTS if it was an error to choose the country because of its hot temperatures in the summer.

    Mr Blatter replied: "Yes, of course.

    "You know, everyone makes mistakes in life."

    Temperatures in the Arab state can reach 50C.

    Fifa shocked many when it awarded the tournament to Qatar following a vote in December 2010 in which it beat the likes of the US and South Korea.

    "Everybody makes mistakes"...

    Yes, but usually if the mistake involves hundreds of millions of pounds they tend to get fired.

    I accidentally put milk in someones coffee the other day who takes it black. That's the kind of situation you can use the phrase "everybody makes mistakes", not the biggest sporting competition in the world...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!