So we all saw the controversy (of which there was none really) in the France vs Honduras match yesterday. Jonathan Pearce seemed completely incapable of grasping the fact that the when the ball hit the post, it wasn't a goal, and when it hit the keeper, it was. I've never been so annoyed with a commentator watching a match before. To be fair, he's normally one of the more switched on commentators, but he just continued to drive more and more confusion into the decision which, unfortunately, will put off a lot of fair-weather World Cup viewers off Goalline Technology ever coming to the Premier League. Thankfully, Robbie Savage came to save the day (I can't believe I'm saying that) and clarified what Pearce could not, but I fear the damage done by Pearce's commentary will have already taken effect on a large number of the viewing population. I'm glad that FIFA are now viewing their television replay procedure, because it's clear that in this instance we ONLY needed to see what happened after the ball hit the keeper. The above is not the point of my article though. The picture below that I've quickly knocked together is... The top picture is in reference to the image used on this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27862050 - for those who can't be bothered or can't click the link, the article describes how Honduras felt very hard done-by the decision, which they have no right to be even though I can understand their confusion). The bottom picture is taken from live video footage and clearly shows the ball much further over the line, and to me it looks completely over. The point is - why is the top picture being used to help vindicate Honduras' feelings when the image doesn't even show the ball at it's furthest over the line? They've purposely run the video on a few extra frames and taken a screenshot of the ball barely half-way over the line. It's biased reporting, and for those who haven't seen the match and who use this picture the form their opinion, they'll have a completely inaccurate opinion on the system. The system works, it gave the goal correctly, yet BBC seem to be trying their best to belittle and degrade the goalline technology that football so desperately needs.
We use a different system in the prem for goal line decisions and has worked well so far, the confusion in the game yesterday was because initially the ball hit the post and didn't cross the line and appeared as no goal on the screen to confuse the stadium crowd. It was only after it then went on to hit the keeper and cross the line that a second "goal" decision came up, it was the delay in showing that that caused the problem for the crowd and team managers who then started arguing on the touchline.
I agree with what you've said, but the technology and the delay was the not the point of my article. We all know what happened and what caused the confusion. My point was what I highlighted in bold and the picture that I posted. Why have the BBC decided to try and create a situation where people are doubting the accuracy of the system by using an inaccurate picture? GoalControl and HawkEye have been vigorously tested and selected, and they don't deserve for media companies to be falsely reporting inaccuracies of their systems.
Agree completely, bk. The 'confusion' was only because of Pearce (who unlike you I don't rate) who seemed to have trouble grasping a very simple concept. The system works! Typical of the BBC to try and mislead thereafter. Hate to say this but Robbie Savage got it right in his post match analysis. If that berk can grasp this why can't others?
Pity they can't use the technology to ban cheating b*****d Thomas Muller [video]http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=_YolsCjxtfM[/video]
if that had been an England player going down Childs would have said nothing. The simple fact is he was csaught in the face, his going down was ridiculous, but there is now justification for what Pepe did. If he had walked away he wouldnt have been sent off and maybe Muller gets a booking.
I know - I couldn't believe he couldn't understand it ???? I think it's a pretty idiot-proof system - but yet again I am stunned by stupidity. I am so much happier knowing we have this system. It works. No arguments. Shut the **** up.
I don't think he was justifying what Pepe did. He was basically saying that if Muller hadn't dived in the first place Pepe wouldn't have been sent off.
I'd settle for more stringent ref training and guys standing at the end lines... I'm probably behind the times ( If I had my way it would be still 2 points for a win ) but saving tradition is worth the odd bad call .I know I'm in the minority , but in the future I can 10 , 15 minutes of added on time as almost a norm .
Sometime we should take a step back and leave things as they are and let the officials decide the outcome. It adds to the excitement to the game and can be controversial but i don't like gadgets doing the refs job, Football is suppose to be a simple game where mistaken calls from the ref is all part of the game...
I do tend to agree with this. But if we score and it wasnt allowed and the goal would mean we stayed up. I am sure I would be screaming for it then.
the odds of that happening is more than the chance of winning the lottery though. If every decision was perfect then as far as my view is concerned would spoil the game. we have all had decisions go against us just like they have gone for us. its part of what makes football special...
I had to endure Henry's hand ball to keep Ireland out of the last World Cup ( I think ) , I can endure anything .. I enjoy being mad at the official s when they miss a call our way or getting the odd reprieve when the call goes against the opposition , it's perfect being imperfect sometimes imo .
What is more important in the game is to find a way of stopping the cheating that goes on. It's that side of the game i would use technology...
Yeah I noticed they over used the technology, really they should have only shown the part where the ball went over the line but someone was enjoying their new toys
We should start a 'We Hate Adrian Chiles" Facebook group. I really can't stand him. Why, when he's got two out of three pundits who speak English as a second language does he use phrases like "cream crackered"? Prize pillock!
I really don't know anyone that likes him. Nobody. If someone does like him please tell us here - and why, 'cos I don't see it.
