PDA

View Full Version : NHC David Cameron



Sergey
27-06-2010, 09:59 PM
Speaking live at the G8 summit (or is it the G20?)

Made a reference to England being well beaten by the Nazis, erm...Germans...but touched upon the fact that 'technology' should be introduced into the game of football.

No matter who one votes for, be it Labour, SNP, BNP, lets all agree on this. The game simply has to encompass the technology to allow for 'fair-play' for goal-line gaffs.

I really can't imagine Obama talking so succinctly on such an emotive subject of the moment.

Well said, Cameron!

surreyhibbie
27-06-2010, 10:05 PM
The man is a slavering erse who should piss of back under the rock from which he crawled.

But surely, if the BBC and Wimbledon can show clearly what happened, FIFA should get real and do teh same?

Sepp Blatter is against it though, so the rest of the world is wrong...

yekimevol
27-06-2010, 10:09 PM
I only want goal line tec brought in when we start moaning over other stuff it takes away a wee bit to me. imo

Spike Mandela
27-06-2010, 10:12 PM
He sat and watched the game with Angela Merkel, bet she loved that:greengrin

steviecarnie
27-06-2010, 10:13 PM
I only want goal line tec brought in when we start moaning over other stuff it takes away a wee bit to me. imo

Exactly, Games are won on goals, there the only thing that matter, sending off's/yellows can be done later.

Gatecrasher
27-06-2010, 10:18 PM
Sepp Blatter is an arse, 2 occasions today where goal line cameras would have changed the scoreline (whether they would have changed the result is debatable) if you can have F1 cars whizzing around at over 200MPH and use replays why cant football? Tennis, F1, Rugby,
and NFL off the top of my head use it, time for things to change! it should have years ago.

heretoday
27-06-2010, 10:20 PM
Every goal scored or suspected (as today) should go upstairs automatically for confirmation. Most times no action would be taken and the game won't be held up at all.

If a goal is chalked off the ref gets the message and acts on it. Takes the pressure off him a bit.

Jonnyboy
27-06-2010, 10:20 PM
Why did they not use this fifth and sixth officials as experimented via the Europa League? That would have solved the England one surely?

Geo_1875
27-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Exactly, Games are won on goals, there the only thing that matter, sending off's/yellows can be done later.

But surely sending someone off after the game when it can't affect the result is unfair. If someone dives to win a penalty and it is picked up later do you go back and amend the result? You wouldn't know what the league standings were from one week to the next. And how many times have referees looked at video evidence and turned down appeals when they are obviously wrong?

Gatecrasher
27-06-2010, 10:22 PM
Why did they not use this fifth and sixth officials as experimented via the Europa League? That would have solved the England one surely?

Why pay an extra 2 officials if you can have the 4th official look at a replay though? or at least a guy watching it on the TV

Jonnyboy
27-06-2010, 11:04 PM
Why pay an extra 2 officials if you can have the 4th official look at a replay though? or at least a guy watching it on the TV

Fair point well made but Blatter has set his stall against technology but has accepted the use of a 5th and 6th official

HUTCHYHIBBY
27-06-2010, 11:44 PM
Retrospective cards don't help the team that the offence was against as more often than not the offender is suspended against a rival of that team.

Ryan91
28-06-2010, 12:30 AM
I'd like to see goal-line technology introduced and for FIFA to then state outright that no other forms of technology will be used as I fear many would then want for more technology to be used to review refereeing decisions on the spot or for disputed red-cards/penalties etc. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement as the technology is readily available for use in Rugby.

Richard Scott
28-06-2010, 05:30 AM
David Cameron = :asshole:

Kaiser1962
28-06-2010, 06:04 AM
Exactly, Games are won on goals, there the only thing that matter, sending off's/yellows can be done later.

Absolutely agree but my take is that at the first goal Upson was all over Klose like a cheap suit and tried very hard to pull him over. The fact he didnt dosent alter the fact that he tried and should, as he attempted to foul Kolse, have been sent off. Had Klose fallen over, a la Joe Cole, then undoubtedly Upson would have gone and the English are down to 10 men after 20 mins. Barry had a kick at Otiz n(?) at the fourth but missed him totally so does the same apply as in both cases there was undoubted intent?

Not trying to be pedantic but where would you stop?

oregonhibby
28-06-2010, 06:08 AM
Technology for goals. Ice Hockey uses it and there are no disputes whether a team scores or not.

twiceinathens
28-06-2010, 07:03 AM
As a possible plus in the future the media, after they have put the all blame on Capello for the players' basic ineptitude, will convince themselves that it was only this disallowed goal which prevented them from a glorious sweep to their inevitable tournament victory. Thus come the next big occasion they will once again tell the rest of us how they are hot favourites and we can all have a laugh when the inevitable crash comes.

marinello59
28-06-2010, 07:22 AM
As a possible plus in the future the media, after they have put the all blame on Capello for the players' basic ineptitude, will convince themselves that it was only this disallowed goal which prevented them from a glorious sweep to their inevitable tournament victory. Thus come the next big occasion they will once again tell the rest of us how they are hot favourites and we can all have a laugh when the inevitable crash comes.

That may be the reaction that a lot of Scots want in order to continue saying, 'It's the media that makes us hate them.' Reaction so far seems to be an acceptance that the disallowed goal made no difference really, they were simply outclassed by a much better team. I said it before and have repeated it during the tournament, the English media seemed to adopt a much more realistic approach to their teams chances this time around. I stick by that. Some may have hoped they would win it but there was no coronation in advance.

lapsedhibee
28-06-2010, 07:44 AM
the English media seemed to adopt a much more realistic approach to their teams chances this time around. I stick by that. Some may have hoped they would win it but there was no coronation in advance.

That may be true. I tried not to listen to as much of the coverage as I could, it being generally so nauseating. But one thing I did notice which I don't remember from previous tournaments was an inordinate disrespect for the smaller competing teams. Whichever way you wrap it up, "We're worldbeaters and we'll sail by all these good teams" or "We're not worldbeaters but we'll sail past all the rest of this crap", there's still more than a whiff of arrogance. As for "the golden generation", WTF? :dunno:

jdships
28-06-2010, 08:13 AM
David Cameron = :asshole:

"Take's one to know one "
:greengrin:wink::yawn:

Hibbyradge
28-06-2010, 08:23 AM
Fair point well made but Blatter has set his stall against technology but has accepted the use of a 5th and 6th official

That was UEFA not FIFA.

southern hibby
28-06-2010, 08:25 AM
I for one am all for it. This is because for years I have gone to watch HIBS through in Glasgow and have had to endure bad refereeing. The number of times we should have had things go our way for the ref to wimp out infront off the home crowd is abysmal.
I think Hibs and other teams around Scotland would have a better advantage with footage against the unwashed. Although this will be viewed as a conspiracy against the weegies by both sets of Worlds Greatest Fans.

Hibbyradge
28-06-2010, 08:26 AM
Absolutely agree but my take is that at the first goal Upson was all over Klose like a cheap suit and tried very hard to pull him over. The fact he didnt dosent alter the fact that he tried and should, as he attempted to foul Kolse, have been sent off. Had Klose fallen over, a la Joe Cole, then undoubtedly Upson would have gone and the English are down to 10 men after 20 mins. Barry had a kick at Otiz n(?) at the fourth but missed him totally so does the same apply as in both cases there was undoubted intent?

Not trying to be pedantic but where would you stop?

You can't send someone of for trying to stop a goal scoring opportunity after a goal has been scored.

SlickShoes
28-06-2010, 08:27 AM
I dont think the G8 summit is any place to be talking about bringing in goal line technology to football. Im sure there are more pressing issues to discuss.

heretoday
28-06-2010, 11:08 AM
I dont think the G8 summit is any place to be talking about bringing in goal line technology to football. Im sure there are more pressing issues to discuss.

Ah yes but Cameron has to try and prove he's down with the people and their simple pursuits!

LancashireHibby
28-06-2010, 11:15 AM
Being a rugby league fan, I'm more than used to seeing the referee go to a video referee and think it can only be a good thing, to be honest - the main question to me would be how would you restart the game, but either the goal has been given and it's a kick off as normal, or treat as a goal kick. Same thing with penalty decisions, the ball generally goes out of play, it will be a penalty, or a free kick for simulation. I think the fact that a threat is carried that any diving can be proven straight away and bring immediate punishment would act as a big deterrent without even being used.

bighairyfaeleith
28-06-2010, 11:29 AM
I really don't trust cameron, something about him, he just looks shifty!!

Goal line technology should introduced though.

Bostonhibby
28-06-2010, 11:37 AM
I really don't trust cameron, something about him, he just looks shifty!!

Goal line technology should introduced though.

:agree: would you buy a used car from him?

Actually, pointless question really as he wouldnae be able to sell it without clearing it with his poodle Clegg first, and I wouldn't ever buy anythng from him now...........

Woody1985
28-06-2010, 12:18 PM
Sepp Blatter is an arse, 2 occasions today where goal line cameras would have changed the scoreline (whether they would have changed the result is debatable) if you can have F1 cars whizzing around at over 200MPH and use replays why cant football? Tennis, F1, Rugby,
and NFL off the top of my head use it, time for things to change! it should have years ago.

Is this a reference to the Mexico game (and obviously the E vs G)?

When watching that game I was waiting for the replay of that shot but we never got one. I suspect the camera crew/editors were instructed not to show anything on the big screens (same as TV pics I believe) that could cause mayhem given that the Argentina goal was shown to be well offside.

Woody1985
28-06-2010, 12:24 PM
That may be true. I tried not to listen to as much of the coverage as I could, it being generally so nauseating. But one thing I did notice which I don't remember from previous tournaments was an inordinate disrespect for the smaller competing teams. Whichever way you wrap it up, "We're worldbeaters and we'll sail by all these good teams" or "We're not worldbeaters but we'll sail past all the rest of this crap", there's still more than a whiff of arrogance. As for "the golden generation", WTF? :dunno:

You obviously missed the comment about 'England vs Slovenia being the equivilent of a Premiership team vs a 3rd division team in FA cup terms'.

Although the one I liked best was the one Vs the US when they scored after 4 minutes 'Ohhh, this could be fun' in the tone that they were expecting a rout with no challenge. :faf:

They make their bed, and this year, it would seem they're prepared to lie in it rather than making excuses.

DaveF
28-06-2010, 12:30 PM
Technology for goals. Ice Hockey uses it and there are no disputes whether a team scores or not.

Would that cover the buld up to goals too or just whether the ball crosses the line?

Thierry Henry's double handball to knock out Republic of Ireland for example. The ball cleary went in the net - no problem there - but the hand ball helped to get it there.

So where do you draw the line?

DaveF
28-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Being a rugby league fan, I'm more than used to seeing the referee go to a video referee and think it can only be a good thing, to be honest

Is the video ref available at all super league games or only the ones covered by SKY?

Just wondering if contentious grounding decisions \ forward passes etc only 'matter' when SKY are present and in normal circumstances it's left to the officials on the park?

Hibs On Tour
28-06-2010, 12:41 PM
Two goal-line assistants are all that is needed. Or a 4th official watching replays. Then you have the linesmen watching for offsides and the ref watching general play. The bit that matters most is obviously the goal-line as that's where it all counts most.

If that had been Brazil yesterday getting a goal disallowed against say a more 'industrial' team and it was in the final and they got beat there would be none of the laughing about it because it was England there would be a complete clamour to stop this nonsense ever happening again. Blatter is a pie. Neither additional officials nor technology would mean delays every two or three minutes - how often do you get a truly contentious goal-line issue? Not even once a game really on average. Does it matter when it happens though - damn right.

Agree also that Upson was lucky not to go for the attempted take-down of Klose. Thought also that Johnson's last-ditch tackle on Klose [which was a cracker and he got the ball clean to be fair] was risky in the extreme - have seen them wrongly given so often.

LancashireHibby
28-06-2010, 12:57 PM
Would that cover the buld up to goals too or just whether the ball crosses the line?

Thierry Henry's double handball to knock out Republic of Ireland for example. The ball cleary went in the net - no problem there - but the hand ball helped to get it there.

So where do you draw the line?

If there's any doubt about the legitimacy of a goal then I think it's only fair that it can be reviewed - let's be honest, it wouldn't have taken 5 seconds to make the decision in the Henry situation.


Is the video ref available at all super league games or only the ones covered by SKY?

Just wondering if contentious grounding decisions \ forward passes etc only 'matter' when SKY are present and in normal circumstances it's left to the officials on the park?

Only for Sky games (every game in the NRL in Australia), but none Sky games have an extra official at each end to help with decisions.

Does get a bit drawn out from time to time, but that is purely with the nature of the decisions with grounding the ball etc, whereas the decisions in football are generally a lot more clear cut. The video ref isn't allowed to rule on forward passes however as it is ruled unfair to use it if it isn't in line with the player passing the ball - this could provide a question mark over offside decisions, although it's never been an issue raised previously when watching replays.

DaveF
28-06-2010, 01:08 PM
If there's any doubt about the legitimacy of a goal then I think it's only fair that it can be reviewed - let's be honest, it wouldn't have taken 5 seconds to make the decision in the Henry situation.

I agree and I'd be in favour of it coming in but it would have to be applied at all levels of competition. You can't have cheating in qualifiers (ala Henry) only to have the cheats (France) potentially benefit from a video ruling in the actual finals.

Ireland (or whoever) would rightly go mental at that.

And if you have it at International qualifiers, then it has to filter down to all levels so there is a consistency all round and everyone plays the same game.

Cheers for the Rugby clear up too. Totally agree that RL does take longer due to grounding's etc, but from my experience it does not diminish the game at all. It's a brilliant sport to watch.

Woody1985
28-06-2010, 01:26 PM
I agree and I'd be in favour of it coming in but it would have to be applied at all levels of competition. You can't have cheating in qualifiers (ala Henry) only to have the cheats (France) potentially benefit from a video ruling in the actual finals.

Ireland (or whoever) would rightly go mental at that.

And if you have it at International qualifiers, then it has to filter down to all levels so there is a consistency all round and everyone plays the same game.

Cheers for the Rugby clear up too. Totally agree that RL does take longer due to grounding's etc, but from my experience it does not diminish the game at all. It's a brilliant sport to watch.

No it doesn't.

You could have it at all major competitions and potentially optional for competitions that could fund it via their own means.

The point was raised yesterday, the international game is different from localised cups and leagues (even variations locally with cups and league) in that there are different amount of subs on the bench. There are different stadium requirements for different levels of the game etc (I appreciate more to do with safety given generally larger crowds the higher the level).

These decisions at the very top are worth millions, ten of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions when looking at economies. It's reckoned that the French economy could have been boosted by 1 billion pound due to them qualifying for the WC. With Irelands recession that could have had a major impact on their country had they got though. FIFA need to realise that at the top level it isn't just about the players and ref on the pitch, it's much much bigger than that now.

There are different variations and impacts right throughout the game at all different levels. To suggest that this technology would be required at a meaningless end of season Scottish 3rd division fixture to the same extent that it would at the world cup finals, CL finals, Europa League etc etc is frankly ludicrous.

LancashireHibby
28-06-2010, 01:28 PM
I agree and I'd be in favour of it coming in but it would have to be applied at all levels of competition. You can't have cheating in qualifiers (ala Henry) only to have the cheats (France) potentially benefit from a video ruling in the actual finals.

Ireland (or whoever) would rightly go mental at that.

And if you have it at International qualifiers, then it has to filter down to all levels so there is a consistency all round and everyone plays the same game.

Cheers for the Rugby clear up too. Totally agree that RL does take longer due to grounding's etc, but from my experience it does not diminish the game at all. It's a brilliant sport to watch.

I think it would have to be applied to competitions as a whole - you might be interested to know that outside of the top flight in RL, the video referee is still an option for televised Championship games, but there isn't a big screen to show the decision to the crowd etc; every game has got a television monitor in the stands if not a big screen, so maybe that would be a happy medium as a solution to this?

DaveF
28-06-2010, 01:51 PM
There are different variations and impacts right throughout the game at all different levels. To suggest that this technology would be required at a meaningless end of season Scottish 3rd division fixture to the same extent that it would at the world cup finals, CL finals, Europa League etc etc is frankly ludicrous.

I don't think so.

Just becuase it's not worth 'millions' does not make a crap decision any easier to take if it relegates your club out of the league or loses you a cup final?

I find the monetary line of debate really annoying - almost as if football does not matter at the lower level, when it actual fact it's the life blood of the game.

LancashireHibby
28-06-2010, 02:19 PM
I don't think so.

Just becuase it's not worth 'millions' does not make a crap decision any easier to take if it relegates your club out of the league or loses you a cup final?

I find the monetary line of debate really annoying - almost as if football does not matter at the lower level, when it actual fact it's the life blood of the game.

I think, for the time being, they'd just have to use it in international competitions as that's the only way of drawing a clear line between the top level and, as mentioned, the Third Division.

Woody1985
28-06-2010, 03:05 PM
I don't think so.

Just becuase it's not worth 'millions' does not make a crap decision any easier to take if it relegates your club out of the league or loses you a cup final?

I find the monetary line of debate really annoying - almost as if football does not matter at the lower level, when it actual fact it's the life blood of the game.

I agree with what you're saying that it doesn't makes it less of an issue from a football perspective. However, what's better, 150 fans disappointed that their team were relegated or 30,000,000 disappointed that their country have been papped out of a world cup. The number of people impacted, the effect a bad decision has and the implications of a dodgy decision are a major factor in the decision making process for me.

Football is now a mutli billion pound industry in which many millions of people are dependant. As I say, the game is no longer limited to the guys on the park and has much larger implication, after all, people are constantly going on how football can help influence society with racism, conflicts etc etc so why should the economic impact be ignored because one man and his dog might feel aggreived?

This may be a little bit of a hijack but will ultimately be relvant. I think the answers given could dictate why technology should be used at all levels. Why are the lower leagues the lifeblood of the game?

I'll put my tin hat on as I've seen the abuse some people have taken on here for suggesting it isn't in the past but I would have thought that the top teams, top players etc are the lifeblood of the game.

They're the ones who attract interest and keep the game growing all over the world. Does the Scottish 3rd division inspire African's to take their football to the next level? No, start like Drogba playing on the biggest stages do. People choose to support their local team even if they are crap for whichever reason, others shouldn't be feeling sorry for them. And before anyone accuses me of thinking smaller teams are completely inferior might want to remember I'm a Hibs fan (who've won one trophy that I've been to and another that I can barely remember!).

hibee62
28-06-2010, 03:10 PM
Absolutely agree but my take is that at the first goal Upson was all over Klose like a cheap suit and tried very hard to pull him over. The fact he didnt dosent alter the fact that he tried and should, as he attempted to foul Kolse, have been sent off. Had Klose fallen over, a la Joe Cole, then undoubtedly Upson would have gone and the English are down to 10 men after 20 mins. Barry had a kick at Otiz n(?) at the fourth but missed him totally so does the same apply as in both cases there was undoubted intent?

Not trying to be pedantic but where would you stop?

Its a red card if a goal scoring opportunity is stopped, in this case it wasnt so Upson did not deny a clear goal scoring opportunity.

I looked this up after Arsenal got done in the Champions League final in 06 after Lehmann was sent off for chopping someone down. The ball fell to someone else who scored the goal, hence Lehmann should not have gone as he didn't stop the goalscoring opportunity...

Gatecrasher
28-06-2010, 04:21 PM
Fair point well made but Blatter has set his stall against technology but has accepted the use of a 5th and 6th official
as mentioned that was uefa but this is the reason why he should stop running the game (god knows how he managed to get there in the first place)

Is this a reference to the Mexico game (and obviously the E vs G)?

When watching that game I was waiting for the replay of that shot but we never got one. I suspect the camera crew/editors were instructed not to show anything on the big screens (same as TV pics I believe) that could cause mayhem given that the Argentina goal was shown to be well offside.

yep the goals were the lampard and tevez goals :agree:

Hibs90
28-06-2010, 05:17 PM
Hope Cameron just falls off a cliff. Vile little creature.

Woody1985
28-06-2010, 05:33 PM
as mentioned that was uefa but this is the reason why he should stop running the game (god knows how he managed to get there in the first place)


yep the goals were the lampard and tevez goals :agree:

Sorry, didn't realise til later that you meant the Tevez goal.

I had the game on and watching it with my granda. I was glancing at the paper and he said that Mexico hit the bar and onto the line (or something like that) and he thought it was over the line but they never showed a replay of the shot. He's just turned 70 though so could be talking pish! :faf:

Sergey
28-06-2010, 07:54 PM
<snipped>

This may be a little bit of a hijack but will ultimately be relevant. I think the answers given could dictate why technology should be used at all levels.



The point as I see it is this; surely placing four fixed-position cameras adjacent to the bye-line would easily quell any dispute of the ball crossing the goal line if the question arose.

We're not talking state-of-the-art technology being installed at great expense to the club, just a basic system that can provide accuracy.

IMHO, It's got to happen to maintain the fairness of the game.

dangermouse
29-06-2010, 08:06 AM
I see the developers of the Hawkeye system used by Wimbledon were on the news last night and had developed a similar system for football but FIFA changed their minds about wanting it.

Woody1985
29-06-2010, 03:22 PM
I see the developers of the Hawkeye system used by Wimbledon were on the news last night and had developed a similar system for football but FIFA changed their minds about wanting it.

They could be playing a dangerous game. It sounds like they're trying to force FIFA's hands but FIFA (SB) will most likely take it as an attempt to humiliate them into accepting the technology by saying 'We could have prevented this but FIFA ****ed up'!.

We should at least trial the thing instead of point blank refusing technology. I believe there was a trial but that was related to chips in the ball IIRC.

Hibs On Tour
29-06-2010, 05:12 PM
They could be playing a dangerous game. It sounds like they're trying to force FIFA's hands but FIFA (SB) will most likely take it as an attempt to humiliate them into accepting the technology by saying 'We could have prevented this but FIFA ****ed up'!.

We should at least trial the thing instead of point blank refusing technology. I believe there was a trial but that was related to chips in the ball IIRC.

Both the Hawkeye system and one with chips in balls were presented to Fifa but both were turned down for the nonsensical reasons provided by Blatter. What's the betting neither party greased enough palms...?