Some things the BBC *haven't* told us about 1966

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's an interesting video analysing each of the six legal/illegal goals in that infamous final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxVGMOgmcU

Outrageous if true

[Borders Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's an interesting video analysing each of the six legal/illegal goals in that infamous final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxVGMOgmcU

Outrageous if true

Maybe a bit natural justice yesterday then!

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's an interesting video analysing each of the six legal/illegal goals in that infamous final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxVGMOgmcU

Outrageous if true

What do you mean, "if true"? The goal-line footage of the disputed goal (footage the BBC never shows) demonstrates conclusively that it was no goal.

Replay the match!

[(((Fergus)))]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What do you mean, "if true"? The goal-line footage of the disputed goal (footage the BBC never shows) demonstrates conclusively that it was no goal.

Replay the match!

By "if true" I was referring to the claim that some unseen hand had fiddled the official footage to create a false "bounce" before the ball hit the ground, thereby appearing to bounce behind the line.

Also the fact that the linesman is alleged to have said he gave the goal because "the crowd cheered for a goal"

Or the fact that FIFA has airbrished the pitch invasion out of the fourth "goal" footage, thus rendering that one illegal too.

No need to replay the whole game though, with the real score 2-2 just get the old duffers out to take penalties.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

What goes around comes around as they say

[--------]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's an interesting video analysing each of the six legal/illegal goals in that infamous final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxVGMOgmcU

Outrageous if true

It was true - it's actually fairly clear from the original BBC footage that the ball was nowhere near over the line - the angles are all wrong for a goal.

And even as a laddie of 16 I knew you don't play on with a pitch invasion in progress.

BTW - you're aware that in the quarter-finals FIFA (then-President one Sir Stanley Rous who came from guess-where) appointed a West German to referee England-Argentina and an Englishman to referee West Germany-Uruguay? Guess which 2 of those 4 teams ended up playing with only 10 men.

And losing 1-0.

[ChilliEater]

Apart from the "goal" decision, which, while clearly wrong, was almost certainly innocent human error on the officials part, I'm sure I read somewhere that England played all their games in '66 at Wembley and that this was against FIFA rules. Apparently it's considered an unfair advantage for any one team to play all their games at the same stadium during a tournament, so they must move around. I think 1 of England's games was scheduled for elsewhere, but the FA moved it to Wembley at late notice because the expected crowd was bigger than the original venue could handle. I could be wrong on this - my memory has a tendency to let me down these days - but, if true, that is just blatant cheating.

[--------]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Apart from the "goal" decision, which, while clearly wrong, was almost certainly innocent human error on the officials part, I'm sure I read somewhere that England played all their games in '66 at Wembley and that this was against FIFA rules. Apparently it's considered an unfair advantage for any one team to play all their games at the same stadium during a tournament, so they must move around. I think 1 of England's games was scheduled for elsewhere, but the FA moved it to Wembley at late notice because the expected crowd was bigger than the original venue could handle. I could be wrong on this - my memory has a tendency to let me down these days - but, if true, that is just blatant cheating.

This is correct. The same thing applies to Mexico in 1970, West Germany in 1974, and Argentina in 1978. Since then the rule is that the hosts can't play all their matches in the main stadium.

The president if FIFA in 1966 was one Sir Stanley Rous, a former Football League referee.

That, of course, was purely coincidental.

[Stevie Reid]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was true - it's actually fairly clear from the original BBC footage that the ball was nowhere near over the line - the angles are all wrong for a goal.

And even as a laddie of 16 I knew you don't play on with a pitch invasion in progress.

BTW - you're aware that in the quarter-finals FIFA (then-President one Sir Stanley Rous who came from guess-where) appointed a West German to referee England-Argentina and an Englishman to referee West Germany-Uruguay? Guess which 2 of those 4 teams ended up playing with only 10 men.

And losing 1-0.

Also, was the Argentinian not sent off "for the look in his eye"?

Seem to remember that from my Greatest World Cup Goals: From Charlton to Maradonna video I got for Xmas as a kid!

[Stevie Reid]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Also, was the Argentinian not sent off "for the look in his eye"?

Seem to remember that from my Greatest World Cup Goals: From Charlton to Maradonna video I got for Xmas as a kid!

Just checked: -

http://www.footballworldcupbrazil201...Argentina.html

"The match was an ill tempered affair with both sides committing numerous fouls. Argentine captain, Antonio Rattin, became the first man to be sent off in a full international match at Wembley. At first he refused to leave the pitch and eventually had to be escorted from the field by policemen. The referee later revealed that he’d sent Rattin off because of the way he looked at him."

[Hainan Hibs]

I never knew that the people on the pitch were that near to the action! Wonder why the ref didn't stop the game? He must have seen them.

[CapitalHibs]

What I noticed was on the original BBC version of " the Hurst was it over or not goal" the commentator says once or twice: "The linesman hasn't given it." We then see the ref consulting with the linesman who begins nodding his head in agreement.

What I find strange is that if a Linesman believes a goal has been scored, he is supposed to run back immediately to the half way holding the flag in a downward position.

Also, as a matter of interest - if the linesman also believes he sees an offence committed that the ref misses, and it is a penalty kick, he is supposed to put his flag across his chest and walk towards the corner flag and await consultation from the ref.

[--------]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just checked: -

http://www.footballworldcupbrazil201...Argentina.html

"The match was an ill tempered affair with both sides committing numerous fouls. Argentine captain, Antonio Rattin, became the first man to be sent off in a full international match at Wembley. At first he refused to leave the pitch and eventually had to be escorted from the field by policemen. The referee later revealed that he’d sent Rattin off because of the way he looked at him."

The fact he was the Argentine captain and midfield play-maker was, of course, ENTIRELY coincidental.

[Greentinted]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is correct. The same thing applies to Mexico in 1970, West Germany in 1974, and Argentina in 1978. Since then the rule is that the hosts can't play all their matches in the main stadium.

The president if FIFA in 1966 was one Sir Stanley Rous, a former Football League referee.

That, of course, was purely coincidental.

Rous was also a fervent supporter of apartheid if I remember correctly. He was disappointed with FIFAs ban on the white-only policy eventually lifting the sanction in 1963 insisting that 'South Africa's coloured footballers are happy with the relations that have been established'
To his deepest chagrin, the ban was imposed again a year later.

[martinmcgurk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Apart from the "goal" decision, which, while clearly wrong, was almost certainly innocent human error on the officials part, I'm sure I read somewhere that England played all their games in '66 at Wembley and that this was against FIFA rules. Apparently it's considered an unfair advantage for any one team to play all their games at the same stadium during a tournament, so they must move around. I think 1 of England's games was scheduled for elsewhere, but the FA moved it to Wembley at late notice because the expected crowd was bigger than the original venue could handle. I could be wrong on this - my memory has a tendency to let me down these days - but, if true, that is just blatant cheating.

England were supposed to play at Goodison but is was changed and Nth. Korea v Portugal played there. This was the game where Korea went 3 up before Eusabio tore them apart for Pertugal to win 5-3

[--------]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rous was also a fervent supporter of apartheid if I remember correctly. He was disappointed with FIFAs ban on the white-only policy eventually lifting the sanction in 1963 insisting that 'South Africa's coloured footballers are happy with the relations that have been established'
To his deepest chagrin, the ban was imposed again a year later.

Sound chap, Sir Stanley.

Just the sort of fellow who made the Empire the sort of Good Thing we all agree it was.

Compare Sir Stanley Matthews who spent a great deal of time in South Africa teaching the kids in the townships to play football - and IIRC he wasn't being paid for his time, either.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I loved the fact that Rattin got sent off against England, despite the fact that the referee could not speak Spanish. I don't think the tournament was fixed though. I really don't.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What I find strange is that if a Linesman believes a goal has been scored, he is supposed to run back immediately to the half way holding the flag in a downward position.

Also, as a matter of interest - if the linesman also believes he sees an offence committed that the ref misses, and it is a penalty kick, he is supposed to put his flag across his chest and walk towards the corner flag and await consultation from the ref.

Don't think these linesperson protocols were in operation in them days.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

By "if true" I was referring to the claim that some unseen hand had fiddled the official footage to create a false "bounce" before the ball hit the ground, thereby appearing to bounce behind the line.

Think it was acknowledged at the time that if you are a fraction out (either early or late) in when you freeze the action, the ball appears to be behind the line. Not sure if at the time there were such advanced freeze-frame capabilities as there are now.

Also the fact that the linesman is alleged to have said he gave the goal because "the crowd cheered for a goal"

Stunning admission!

Or the fact that FIFA has airbrished the pitch invasion out of the fourth "goal" footage, thus rendering that one illegal too.

Don't think it was airbrushed, the official film just didn't include shots of the invaders. Think the German's red arrows are in the wrong place on that claim.

No need to replay the whole game though, with the real score 2-2 just get the old duffers out to take penalties.

Nah. Engerlund were at Wembley. Away goals to count double in the event of a draw. 4-2 Germany.

[(((Fergus)))]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is correct. The same thing applies to Mexico in 1970, West Germany in 1974, and Argentina in 1978. Since then the rule is that the hosts can't play all their matches in the main stadium.

The president if FIFA in 1966 was one Sir Stanley Rous, a former Football League referee.

That, of course, was purely coincidental.

Bloody cheeky English swine

No wonder someone nicked the cup...it was obviously in the air. Pickles, ya wee basturt

BTW:

Mexico (1970) played all their group games in the Azteca but then so did all the other teams in their group. QF they went out in Toluca.

Germany (1974) played at Berlin, Hamburg x2, Dusseldorf x2, Frankfurt and Munich. Einwandfrei.

Argentina (1978) played first group all in Buenos Aires (x3), second group all in Rosario (x3) and final back in Buenos Aires. No other team in the competition had that privilege. Sneaky tango-dancing cants.

Before that:

1930: all matches were supposed to be played in the one stadium, but delays meant two smaller stadiums had to be used for earlier games. Uruguay did not have to use either of the smaller venues
1934: Italy played in a variety of stadia (refs received special hospitality though and, I believe, provided an assist for at least one goal)
1938: cheating France played their two games before being pumped out in the same venue used for the final
1950: Brazil played all but one of their games in the Maracana. There were six stadia. Dodgy.
1954: Sporting Switzerland played all their group games in different stadia, returning to one of them to get knocked out
1958: unexpected chancers Sweden played all but one of their games in the final venue (where they were of course pumped for their cheek). there were 12 stadia in all, so no excuses.
1962: Only four stadia this time. All teams in Chile's group played all their games in the main stadium (Santiago). In the KO stage Chile went elsewhere for the quarters and were beaten in the semis in Santiago.
1966: England played every ****ing game at Wembley. Home of fair play my ****ing arse.

EDIT Actually between 1978 and 1990 (inclusive) the hosts played all three group games in the same stadium

[(((Fergus)))]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't think it was airbrushed, the official film just didn't include shots of the invaders. Think the German's red arrows are in the wrong place on that claim.

Should have said "cropped"

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nah. Engerlund were at Wembley. Away goals to count double in the event of a draw. 4-2 Germany.

[TheBall'sRound]

In fairness to the BBC, at the end of the coverage of the game (after Shearer dried his eyes) they showed the "behind the goal" footage of the 66' game which clearly shows the ball hitting the line as if to say "What goes around..."

Fair enough. As long as you admit it. Now give that trophy back

[--------]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bloody cheeky English swine

No wonder someone nicked the cup...it was obviously in the air. Pickles, ya wee basturt

BTW:

Mexico (1970) played all their group games in the Azteca but then so did all the other teams in their group. QF they went out in Toluca.

Germany (1974) played at Berlin, Hamburg x2, Dusseldorf x2, Frankfurt and Munich. Einwandfrei.

Argentina (1978) played first group all in Buenos Aires (x3), second group all in Rosario (x3) and final back in Buenos Aires. No other team in the competition had that privilege. Sneaky tango-dancing cants.

Before that:

1930: all matches were supposed to be played in the one stadium, but delays meant two smaller stadiums had to be used for earlier games. Uruguay did not have to use either of the smaller venues
1934: Italy played in a variety of stadia (refs received special hospitality though and, I believe, provided an assist for at least one goal)
1938: cheating France played their two games before being pumped out in the same venue used for the final
1950: Brazil played all but one of their games in the Maracana. There were six stadia. Dodgy.
1954: Sporting Switzerland played all their group games in different stadia, returning to one of them to get knocked out
1958: unexpected chancers Sweden played all but one of their games in the final venue (where they were of course pumped for their cheek). there were 12 stadia in all, so no excuses.
1962: Only four stadia this time. All teams in Chile's group played all their games in the main stadium (Santiago). In the KO stage Chile went elsewhere for the quarters and were beaten in the semis in Santiago.
1966: England played every ****ing game at Wembley. Home of fair play my ****ing arse.

EDIT Actually between 1978 and 1990 (inclusive) the hosts played all three group games in the same stadium

I stand corrected.

So Engerlund are unique in having played all their games at the main stadium (which also happened to be their regular 'home' ground).

Of course the tournament wasn't fixed, FR.

And Alf Ramsay just LOVED us Scots.

[ChilliEater]

I think we've clearly established that the English cheated their way to the '66 World Cup.The only thing FIFA could fairly do now is strip them of the trophy and award it to whoever was first to beat them at Wembley after the final.

[(((Fergus)))]

The more you scratch the surface of that tournament the dirtier it gets.

All the Brazil games had either English or German referees (Pele was hacked out the competition).

Semi-final England v Portugal and Eusebio has FOUR goals disallowed.

England aren't underachievers, they are unskilled cheats who now lack the necessary clout.

[(((Fergus)))]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think we've clearly established that the English cheated their way to the '66 World Cup.The only thing FIFA could fairly do now is strip them of the trophy and award it to whoever was first to beat them at Wembley after the final.

Good shout but sadly that is further proof that England cheated - even we were capable of pumping them on their own patch.

Should have been Brazil v Portugal final. Pele v Eusebio rematch (Portugal beat them in the group)

[1875godsgift]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The more you scratch the surface of that tournament the dirtier it gets.

All the Brazil games had either English or German referees (Pele was hacked out the competition).

Semi-final England v Portugal and Eusebio has FOUR goals disallowed.

England aren't underachievers, they are unskilled cheats who now lack the necessary clout.

I've tried to find match reports from wiki etc. but can't find any mention of this .
Is this true?
If it is, combined with all the other shenanigans surrounding the auld enema's world cup win, then it makes them the biggest cheats in world football.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If it is, combined with all the other shenanigans surrounding the auld enema's world cup win, then it makes them the biggest cheats in world football.

I find it hard to believe that a country with Steven Gerrard as captain would ever resort to cheating.

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I stand corrected.

So Engerlund are unique in having played all their games at the main stadium (which also happened to be their regular 'home' ground).

Of course the tournament wasn't fixed, FR.

And Alf Ramsay just LOVED us Scots.

They did it in Euro 96 aswell. Don't remember them having to play at Villa park?

Cheating cants! How did they get
Away with it so recently?

J

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's an interesting video analysing each of the six legal/illegal goals in that infamous final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxVGMOgmcU

Outrageous if true

It's both true, and outrageous. I remember watching the match on TV and complaining loudly about the presence of people on the pitch before the fourth goal went in. Ironically, Kenneth Wolstenholme's iconic commentary quote actually confirms that the goal was illegal. "There's some people on the pitch - they think it's all over.....it is now!"

The refereeing decisions in the quarter final between Engerland and Argentina were, even to a 13 year old, totally inexplicable. There's a whole attached to this tournament, actually, which has never been properly investigated.