Quickfire Poll: Did Lampard's disallowed goal materially affect the result Y/N?

Half Man Half Biscuit answer.

Terry and co might have bothered to stay back and defend the inevitable Lampard free kick rebound so they wouldn't have got their third as they did but there's no way this defence were going to last the match without conceding more.

No.

would've been nice to have had the opportunity to find out, i guess

It could've done, but after that second half I'm saying no.

patrice evra would prob tell you to replay it on yr playstation RS, but in an ideal world yeah we could live without those decisions

germany clearly had the key to the cheap, poorly constructed lock of the england defence. they would surely have scored again. england were actually pretty decent going forward, compared to their earlier play in the tournament certainly, but they still didn't get anywhere in the 2nd half.

if it was 3-1 when the kick happened i would've said yes, because i think it would be super demoralizing to miss out on an opportunity to bring it to within one from down two -- but at 2-1, especially right after scoring a nice goal to bring it to that score, i don't see how you can let even a call like that affect you so much that you end up losing 4-1

don't think this is sour grapes. 2-2 would have been a different second half. but this is not a decision that is going to affect the winner of the world cup.

^ j giles's point too ^

what caek and johnny giles said

2-1 or 2-2, i dont see how england had the wherewithal to attack with any precision tbh

not really no, barry would still have been on

No

it would have materially affected the result in the way that england would have scored 2 goals instead of 1. would it have stopped england from losing? no chance.

Um, at 2-2 the Germans would have been under even more pressure to score than they were now?

More proof that it didn't matter: England 2-3 Croatia

xp yeah, German team usually reacts to pressure to score by er... actually scoring goals. So in terms of today's result, the disallowed goal made no difference. At best England would have still lost 3-2.

i think the issue is why is soccer so behind the times? it really takes away from the enjoyment when things like a blatant goal isn't allowed. hockey has been using instant replay to great effect for years. and on top of that hockey officials, these days, if they feel like they missed a call, will confer with their co-officials to try and make the right call. that's the way to do it, IMO

noodle vague was against using technology earlier in the season, Jim have you changed your mind?

i also can't believe, if the soccer forces are so anti-tech, that they haven't just stuck a goal judge behind the net (as in old school hockey) to make the call

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/738/bretthullnogoal4572268.jpg

Basically true though. Top-level football and international games should also have two refs, NHL style.

xxp

using a dude's real name when england gets defeated

football has one ref, two assistant refs and a 4th official

Yes it does.

we always use first names. Friends do.

:)

and I know fine well he wont have changed his mind just to be stubborn hehe

excellent reference, danski

would have been 2-2 and then usual england scrappy defence would still exist, so final score 4-2 to germany imo.

don't think this is sour grapes. 2-2 would have been a different second half. but this is not a decision that is going to affect the winner of the world cup.
― caek

Pretty much OTM. Not going to vote in this poll because there isn't a "we'll never know" option. Was the England defence a bit shit? Yes. Were Germany the better team? Yes. Would Germany have won if England had equalised had seen their second goal stand? We really don't know. This isn't a league where over the course of a whole season the best team wins, it's a cup competition where luck plays a big part. It doesn't seem at all implausible to me that they could have won (despite being a bit shit).

It might affect the WC if Germany win it. Probably won't happen but you can't quite say that at this stage.

As for the question there should have been a 'not bothered' option

my point was germany are not going to win the world cup. they've had a couple of flattering scorelines but they're going to get found out soon.

I'd agree that Germany almost certainly won't win but its not a 100% certainty like you are phrasing. They have got to the last match in a couple of tournaments with less than this.

They won't get found out by this Argentina though.

Which team has looked unambiguously good, though? Spain looked great to me, but that was against Honduras. They lost to Switzerland and were outplayed by Chile for large parts of that match. Portugal smashed North Korea, but didn't win their other games. Argentina have looked alright, but I thought they looked much better in 2006 before heading out relatively early. Everyone assumes Brazil are going to suddenly turn it on at some point, but they might not. I'd say Germany have as good a chance as the others.

germany's defence was bad enough to let in two england goals, what do you think they'll do against pipita and co.? (not that i'm saying it's a foregone conclusion, argentina are also defensively weak - mertesacker and demichelis could have a competition for shittest defender in a major team)

that was an xpost.

brazil have looked the strongest team here. they didn't break down portugal, but then again they didn't need or particularly try to.

also while they have switched off a few times at the back they're generally fairly rock solid and hard to break down with the whole two holding midfielders set up and Juan, Lucio and Maicon at the back (M Bastos is the weak link imo).

as of winners of world cup - don't forget holland - which, along with argentina - won all their games

Holland have looked excellent if mostly unspectacular, and they have Robben back now. Brazil looked strong when switched on, but the Portugal game suggests worryingly dependent on Robinho and Kaka (not actually a terribly big worry, but you know what I mean), and the NK one suggests they aren't the irresistible force they might like to think.

"Holland have looked excellent if mostly unspectacular"

it brought Italy the world cup 4 years ago so anything can happen

Still against video technology yes. Can't be arsed leaping into the debate about it, but tbh it wd be a pretty poor belief if I changed it just cos of an incident like today's. As far as I know nobody who's anti-technology is against it cos mistakes never happen.

i can see the argument against video technology: that it would encroach and expand from simply being a technology used to judge whether the ball crossed the line, the player was onside or not, the penalty was a foul or not to be an overused nuisance, stopping the game every two minutes when a shy was contested etc. but i dunno, just can't see past it, although of course, two bad, and i would say quite untypical, oversights from linesmen today aren't really the irrefutable argument for its establishment imo.

how about giving each team two video ref calls per match?

And a Joker! And when they play the Joker they could have a 10 minute power play where you can't be offside but only if you play an inside forward who shares a star sign with your holding midfielder. If not, you get a free kick from the edge of the centre circle but it has to be taken with the wrong foot and one eye shut. Then the klaxon goes off and the penalty areas are showered with pink bubble bath.

And the results of the video replay are announced on the big screen by a guy riding a camel sponsored by Carling Black Label.

tbh it wd be a pretty poor belief if I changed it just cos of an incident like today's

If you did you would share this volte-face with the universally respected Alan Hansen,and if that doesn't sway you then yr a man of steel iirc

Alternatively, not worry too much about making the system perfect, and just use it when it's available to make this shambles better than it is

i haven't even decided which angle imma try for myself tonight, tbrr, what with herself having a dirty sassenach mother n all

the point is whether it's worth making an effort to eradicate obvious howlers from the game. platini's officials behind each goal is at least such an effort, though it has its problems. one challenge per half is another excellent method, since obvious howlers are rare. there should be some recourse for sanity to prevail! even if u don't like that suggestion, it doesn't merit a stream of reactionary b.s.

I've said it before tho, you reach a point where you think "fuck it bring on the cameras" just to see how hilarious the outcome will be.

― Mertesacker Emptiness (Noodle Vague), Sunday, June 27, 2010

prob sadly true that even if FIFA bring in VT, which they show no signs of doing, they'll spend a couple of major competitions fucking up its implementation in bizarre ways.

i haven't even decided which angle imma try for myself tonight

POLL

i been low, i been on hard times in the past x no of ilx years, but i aint yet polled them on my lovelife and it's a good rock to build on, is that

the point is whether it's worth making an effort to eradicate obvious howlers from the big money games

yeh, i understand sometimes schoolboys play with their coaches for linesmen, imagine that, what a mockery etc.

Okay, so I don't seem merely snarky: because video technology is not about removing howling errors from football itself, even at professional level.

the argument about 'the same facilities/technology at every level of the game' is the type of shit that someone came up with on the spot and they now all look slightly embarrassed when trundling out but feel they have to stick with it. they use video technology to retroactively try players for offences after the fact, for a start.

xpost but i'm saying, there are already inconsistencies due to budget at various levels. yet u would rather have needless game-changing errors in a world cup to satisfy some notion that shocking unchangeable decisions are common to all levels of the game?

It's not especially like I wd want to side with FIFA on an issue because, y'know, lol FIFA. But somebody ought to produce a seriously decent cost-benefit analysis in terms of the structure of the game before we just break out the cameras.

The "same laws at every level of the game" isn't my main objection tbh. I'm more bothered by difficulties in consistent implementation, damage to the flow of the game and potential creeping over-use, adding yet another tier of possible wrong decisions, and spending time on implementing this before sorting out the other eminently more fixable problems with refereeing.

I'm fairly amenable to a lot of after-game uses of video.

the cameras are already at the grounds. there's no cost at all.

where they don't exist, then they're not available. send all the good linesmen there, that's where they're needed, obviously.

this isn't really a thing imo.

By cost I'm talking about the potential cost to the integrity of the game, not the dollar cost.

Two or three crap decisions in a season that could maybe be corrected isn't really a thing imo

consistent implementation- imo video replays would make it a lot harder for inconsistencies to exist- it gives refs time and authority where atm they have none.

damage to the flow of the game- football doesn't flow all that much, and there's ways to work it so that the ref is notified without any serious delay anyway.

fuck that was some strike from tevex btw

creeping over-use- i dunno, that's no objection to it afaic. if it works then it'll certainly be widened with time- good. i'm more concerned about good decisions than i am about these objections really. i think long term it'd sort out a lot of what's wrong in terms of offside/last man/over the line and with more use and scope it could help with diving and reckless tackles too- all things i hate about the game atm

hernandez' goal a beauty too!

two-three decisions over a season?

naaaah, carragher, vidic, terry for last man/reckless tackles; gerrard, rooney, drogba diving- cold eyed unbiased 4th official could use this technology to great effect two or three times a match for lolbig4 cheating cunts

I think you could use video technology to deal with diving now by punishing obvious offenders after the fact - review and ban for a couple of games and see how many try diving next weekend. Majority of incidents would probably be too unclear to call, still. Same mostly applies to reckless tackles etc. I think the bigger offender here at the moment is the FA's or FIFA's unwillingness to criticise any decision a ref makes after the match.

As for offside, or policing all that other stuff in game, I've got no doubt at all that trying to use video to deal with it would kill football.

Anyway aren't Spurs lolbig4??

nah we're legitbig4

and we don't get those fucking calls, ever.

one zokora joek penalty aside, like

Your honour I wanna declare the witness as hostile

Mind you I don't really trust those things in tennis or cricket where the computer makes up an imaginary line of where it thinks the ball might've bounced so I'm maybe just a luddite

you cried the day stewards replaced feral whippets in the away stands imo

Also is it me or is there something backwards about me being the defender of inequality and the inherent shitness of things and you repping for technological utopia?

I cried the day they banned those wooden rattles from the ground because they made an annoying buzz that the tv viewers at home couldn't deal with tbh

xp i never argued against technological utopia in other general discussions that i'm aware of, tbf.

xp lol yeah they were, let's be fair, cuntish

4-2 is the same as 4-1 in an elimination match. Really

Yes, because obviously the second half would have been identical with the scores at 2-2. It reminds me of that time in 99 when Man United went to Turin and found themselves two goals down early on, then Keane pulled one back, then Yorke seemed to have equalised but the ref inexplicably ruled in hadn't crossed the line, then United limped to a demoralising 4-2 defeat in the second half, Juventus went on to win the European Cup, Arsenal did the double, and United were saddled with the label of Big Time Bottlers as they slunk away into obscurity forever haunted by the Great Lost Season of 98/99.

It's also a bit like that time in 07 when Croatia came to Wembley and England found themselves two goals down early on through sheer haplessness, then Beckham came on and set up one goal, and then a second that was harshly ruled out while England went through a short spell of utter domination, before the momentum went and they limped on to a demoralising 3-1 defeat instead. We'll never know how things might've turned out if the second had been given, and just how good that side could've been.

It reminds me of that time Carragher was sent off twice against the US and ye deservedly didn't get out of the group stages.

I mean, you're basing this on England all of a sudden playing to a level of performance that they haven't achieved for the past 6 weeks. It's a hypothesis of stunning convenience.

I mean, you're basing this on England all of a sudden playing to a level of performance that they haven't achieved for the past 6 weeks. It's a hypothesis of stunning convenience.

OTM. You're shit and you know are for some reason seem unable to accept it.

I've never suggested England weren't shit or that they were better than Germany. I thought they were uninspiring against the USA, dreadful against Algeria, reasonable against Slovenia, but at no stage looking like ultimate victors during the group stage. But Italy have a long tradition of playing like that in the group stages and then winning or getting close to winning, so that doesn't tell us everything. I thought England played better against Germany than at any other time during the tournament and I don't think the game was as one-sided as people are making out with the benefit of hindsight. Germany were great on the counter-attack and England's defence looked rubbish. But England had greater possession and just as many clear chances and just as many goals up to the goal-that-never-was, so there's no way of knowing what would have happened if it had been given. I'm not trying to argue that England were better than Germany, never mind the best team in the world, I'm just arguing against the simplistic "oh well if it had been given you'd have lost 4-2" nonsense.

Italy have a long tradition of playing like that in the group stages and then winning or getting close to winning, so that doesn't tell us everything

It tells us that England don't, frankly.

England played better against Germany than at any other time during the tournament

Yeah, I agree

I don't think the game was as one-sided as people are making out with the benefit of hindsight

It absolutely was. I'm not even sure where the confusion is here- really. Re: possession- yes that's how counter attacks work. Re: clear cut chances- no way, on first half alone germany might have had another two in the net.

I know you can't argue 'it would just have been 4-2', but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that even at 2-2 going out in the second half that England were going to get anything from that game. They didn't deserve to go in level, and while I know 'deserve' is worth nothing in football, it's certainly something to take into account when attempting to impute an imaginary level of second half performance.

England had just as many clear chances and up to the goal-that-never-was

Were we watching the same game?

england had more shots on target on the first half, fwiw.

And tbh even if england had created anything like an equivalent number of 'chances' (shots on goal can't be seriously counted when Gerrard and Lampard are on the team, tbh), until they can finish them as clinically as the Germans did then that's a moot point regardless

xp :)

They didn't look like scoring until the German goalie came out, arms flailing, like some English goalkeeper, and Upson faced the ball into the net

Re: clear cut chances- no way, on first half alone germany might have had another two in the net

Yes, they might have done if they hadn't been stopped by the England defence. Similarly England might have had another two if the woodwork hadn't intervened / offside been wrongly called / ball went narrowly wide.

I feel your pain, not pleasant being outclassed by the German under-21 team

You had to love a couple of those German youngsters doing the '1966 and all that'.

England didn't have 1 shot on target until the halfway mark. When the Germans went two clear and sat back for a breather we finally managed to get a couple of crosses in and score the goal, then the disallowed goal straight after, but for the last 5 minutes of the half we'd gone back to having no clue how to break Germany down.

Then the 2nd half starts and the usual suspects went into solo superhero headless chicken mode and the rest was tragic but inevitable.

Possession is the most dishonest statistic in the game, there are loads of teams who will let you have the ball for as long as you want providing you're doing nothing dangerous with it. England were still terrible at over/underhitting passes and seemed to have no idea of how to frighten the German defence. Even when it was obvious that low crosses whipped across the 6 yard box were terrifying them we seemed to think it would be unsporting to do that.

Sorry, I meant "until the half hour mark" in that first sentence.

i can state with full confidence that with darren bent, walcott and huddlestone ye'd have won this tournament

lol

D'y'know that much as I like Thudd he's no more a holding midfielder than Barry?

They're different players- England needs to be a different type of team.

Barry- hard to judge him on that world cup, he was...... he was amazing. it was like watching Zokora, but without the pace.

i had flashbacks at one stage, bit my tongue, the works

My theory yesterday was Barry was supposed to be the shit Gattuso and Lamps was supposed to be the shit Pirlo.

They got the shit bit right.

Ozil, best pop-eyed German since:

http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i64/facebm_267x400_020820080127.jpg

Nah huddlestone is the shit pirlo, definite about that much.

Barry is the shit.....

shit, the guy doesn't have any characteristics whatsoever, apart from being left footed. i don't know what he's for.

lol I thought of Peter Lorre yesterday, tho I think he's closer to

http://musicmoviesandmore.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/c55508adrien-brody-posters.jpg