Comment deleted by Site Moderator

http://yfrog.com/jqvo3cj

It was closer than people think. ITV have not helped with their "hawkeye" rubbish.

In footballing terms it was a way out - and remember the ref has to be certain. I just think the tehcnology debate is masking the fact the ref has made an unbelievably bad call that he should not be making. Even at local level football I would expect a ref to get that decision correct.

Watching it on Live TV my first reaction was that it was over, and the Spurs' players reactions weren't even that defensive, certainly not as bad as the gomes one last year in terms of the immediate reaction

Hippo on toast - thanks for the link. Interesting article. I'm not criticising all refs. I've written on a number of occasions defending them for certain decisions. The expectation levels are high from fans but I think we can all accept an element of human error.

I think this incident is not an acceptable human error. That is all. I think a referee should be getting this one right, and I don't think we need video technology for it.

Op your talking shiite, if you cant see the goal was over the line then maybe a visit to your local specsavers is needed

Exactly how useful would video tech have been yday? Not even the tv cameras were positioned in the correct place to be able to see the goal not to mention that awful hawk eye technology they tried to fool us with

TFB - you think the ball was over the line?
You think it was a goal?

So Lampard and Terry are wrong?

No need for insults either mate.

Also - I'm not saying video technology is the answer - maybe you missed the point.

Could someone give me a link to where it says: Terry "I am 100% certain the ball did not cross the line" As photographic evidence seems to back the ref. All i have seen is people saying "I dont think it crossed the line" which is very different from "I am certain 110% it did not cross"

For all the gashing of teeth, we do not know the view the referee had - it may have looked over to him in the micro - second he had to see it!

Until we give officials the tools to be certain we will never have a foolproof game.

After looking at all the angles shown yesterday, I would still not bet my house that it was or wasn't over!

Brummie – I understand your point, and I do have a lot of sympathy with refs. However to give a goal the referee has to be certain and I think we can all agree that he can not be certain it was over – since even now there is debate about it!

The point here perhaps is though that video technology doesn’t clear this one up. Using video technology people are still not convinced either way. If there is doubt then I think the goal should not stand.

As for a fullproof game – I don’t think we’ll ever have that, but I don’t think that really matters. I think on the whole the refs do a good job and a certain amount of human error is expected/acceptable. I think this goes beyond that line though.

Simon West – Terry thought it wasn’t over. You accept that? Again his view is limited – he wasn’t 100% certain but he thought it wasn’t. That’s all.

The fact you merely watched the tv which as i stated had cameras position in a way that was impossible to rule the goal out simply means youve been fooled like many others.

Your whole thread is based on inconculsive tv footage and your opinion.

The fact is, ball was clearly over the line and the evidence proves this.

If im honest i can't see how the ref could be certain it was but my guess is had we had goal line tech it wouldve stood.

Mort,
The naked eye is not a perfect tool and can give different images at different angles and can be decieving, what may look one thing to one person from a specific angle may look different to another person at a different angle - especially if you take into account the time involved!

The fact there are differing views even after viewing it in comfort seems to show the ref could not be certain.

With cricket and technology although it has become blurred, the system was meant to eradicate the howler not the borderline decision. In rugby, the question is asked of the 3rd official ,is there any reason not to allow the try. Again in an effort to eliminate the howler.

Although it looks like the ref had a guess, if technology comes in. what question would the 3rd official be asked. Is it a goal or is there any reason not to allow a goal. The answer to the 1st question seems to be no or you cannot be sure or at least that is the majority view even to be fair of Chelsea fans, The 2nd is more difficult. Is it that bad that it should be overturned ?

TFB – where’s the evidence it clearly was over the line?

Brummie – completely agree the naked eye can deceive you. Video can too sometimes. I think this kind of decision the ref should be getting right, I don’t think it needs video technology. That is all.
Again Brummie – I defend referees a great deal, it is an extremely difficult job. I think this decision they should get right though and I don’t think he did.

Gunnerbegood
In rugby league the video ref can only rule on something the referee on the ground asks him for – eg “is the grounding OK”… which means even if there is a foul in the background or an offside – the try would still be awarded. Interestingly too – in Rugby League the video ref is not allowed to rule on forward passes because the video angles can be deceptive.
Not sure if it’s the same with Union or not…?

Interesting distinction between the howlers and the borderline decisions. I think some fans want perfect refereeing and I don’t think that will happen. Most fans are willing to accept a degree of human error as part of the game.
An incident like this I think is a massive error – but I think it is so bad that a video referee shouldn’t be needed to put it right, I think the ref shouldn’t make such an error.
I may be looking at it wrongly and the ball could have been over the line… there’s nothing in the evidence that suggests so though.
A couple of weeks ago a Rugby League Referee let a team have 7 tackles rather than 6 – they scored from it. To me – that kind of error is not acceptable and you shouldn’t need video evidence for him to get it right. The same is true on this case – Ithink it is a big error and video technology isn’t necessary to get the decision right. Maybe I’m asking too much from the ref?

MrM see the full picture of the one that has been linked (in an earlier article) and i think you can clearly see why the ref has given it. Yes it was harsh and yes the tech needs to come in but at the same time i can understand why the ref gave it. The ref has very little help and i have been arguing for years in case of tech to help the ref and punish players (divers in particular).

I've seen one pic but it still isn't conclusive to me.

I don't think technology needs to come in for this - I think he's just made a gaffe.

completely agree about video technology for diving.

In this game I think the Mikel kick out at Parker is more something for video action.