It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature. Studies have consistently shown that officials favour home teams, probably owing to an impulse to avoid situations where tens of thousands of people are shouting death threats at you, and I'd imagine that's doubly true in front of a massive, frothing Brazilian crowd in the World Cup.
That's a fair question, and one I have admitted in the past, doesn't really have a sufficient answer. I think more technology could be used, certainly. The goal line technology introduced this season has been very successful, and I think that for penalty decisions, or debatable incidents such as whether it is handball or a corner/goal kick, a fourth official could have access to replays to communicate them to on-pitch officials. I understand that it is difficult to put a barrier on the technology, as people will say every decision should be reviewed, but certainly they need more help, and the fairly limited role of the fourth official could be expanded. Incidents like the one at Upton Park, where Carroll clearly punched Mignolet in the face against Liverpool when West Ham scored their goal, could have easily have been avoided if the fourth official was consulted. It was a bit of an embarrassment when the whole ground saw the replay on the big screen, but the one man that mattered did not. There won't be a solution that everyone is happy with, but more help could be given, and those 5th officials in games could be upstairs in front of a screen rather than doing bugger all.
The idea that a team could bribe officials in the World Cup is way too far-fetched for me. All it takes is for one official to refuse the bribe (something I'm sure a large percentage of people would do) and then blow the whole thing out of the water by reporting it. For a team to bribe three teams of officials in a row (like SK would have had to do) is a ludicrous suggestion. The only conspiracy that has any legs at all (and it doesn't have many) is that FIFA try to ensure that certain teams progress for financial reasons. There is less of a chance of a whistleblower because they actually appoint the people they would be bribing. The main problem with this theory is that they clearly don't do it at all regularly, as, for one example, they would clearly benefit from USA and England doing better than they always do, and countries like France too, and of course the hosts, who don't always do well.
I definitely agree with more technology. It helps everyone and they can show the replays on the big screens to get the fans involved when a team challenges a call. Teams should get 1 challenge per match, and if they get the call right they keep the challenge.
Am I right in thinking that there were no extra officials behind the goal? I wonder whether that would have helped the referee make a more informed and potentially better decision on the disallowed goal and the penalty, although he probably would have been the wrong side to have helped on the penalty.
I've never seen any officials behind the line actually do anything, they are a complete waste of time because, like the referee, they would have to base a decision on a split-second view of something they might not have a perfect view of anyway. I think AL and RK are absolutely right that more technology is the only answer. Every other major sport uses technology to one degree or another, so football, having got under way with goal line cameras, will undoubtedly begin to see the benefits of a variety of measures. The problem will be finding a way to implement them without interrupting the flow of the game unnecessarily, and RK's suggestion of giving teams a limited number of appeals would help with this.
Well you're not supposed to see them do anything, all they do is talk to the referee. If they influence a decision you'd have no way of knowing. They also surely mitigate the imperfect perception of the referee by looking at the action from a different angle (usually from the opposite side to the referee). It's odd logic to say that because of the limitations of human observation you should have fewer observers. Because of where they are positioned they also keep players more honest in the box, as it's harder to hide a shirt tug or something from the officials.
I'm not even saying there's necessarily actual bribery going on. I'm saying that everyone knows who has juice, and if they don't they don't get put in positions of power. It's no different than what happens in all the leagues and in UEFA. The big clubs don't have to make under-the-table payments to have the various governing bodies rule in their favor. If you look at something like the Qatar thing where there was actual bribery going on-- it's not like they really tried to hide it. As soon as Qatar got the bid everyone with half a brain knew there was something fishy about it. But they did it anyway because they felt like no one could stop them. Perhaps they overestimated their power a bit, but so far despite all the uproar they are getting away with it. South Africa I think didn't have quite the power in FIFA that Brazil does. They were happy just to host the games, and they spent whatever money and influence they had to do so. Brazil getting dumped out in the first round would be a much bigger disaster financially for FIFA and Brazil and politically for the Brazilian officials that backed the games. There's a lot more pressure on them to do well. It's like water running downhill. FIFA would have to make active efforts to try to keep things fair. So all they have to do is do nothing, and everyone gets the message. The hometeam tends to do well in the World Cup just like host countries do well in the Olympics. It's something more than just the homecrowd support, but probably something less than actual, active, rigging of games.
Tbf, after watching Collina's Masterclass programme, I was then completely aware of what officials behind the goalline do. In those situations, if the refereeing team works well together, they contribute a lot. The referee is allowed to ignore them though. Some refs do when they have little experience of working with extra officials.
Anyone else sick of ITV talking incessantly about England yet? I'd quite like to hear these supposed experts talking about Cameroon and Mexico to be honest.
Anyway, not long till we get some decent coverage. Spain/Netherlands and England/Italy on BBC. I'm also quite liking the stadiums, Good and tight to the pitches, relatively speaking.
Yeah, I agree. Funnily enough, I'm watching Cameroon v Mexico because I want to hear about those two and see them play!!
I've been inside the Mineirão Stadium but not since it's revamp. The Foyer is amazing, like a museum, they have statues, a cast of Pelé's feet, the match ball from when England lost to the USA 1-0 in 1950, although that was at another stadium in the city, the Estádio Independência where Clube Atlético Mineiro now play after sharing the Mineirão with Cruzeiro for many years.
Hi TheSecondStain, I was planning on updating the thread as I went/the tournament progressed like I have been doing since the World Cup draw including the scores and league tables. As you are in charge of part 2, having closed the first, perhaps you could continue this for me? Thanks OROW.
