Group D-Day - England vs Ukraine & Sweden vs France (Gills' title, but Leppard's OP) 19:45

[skybluedave]

He did say something similar after the Lampard goal. Pretty much that they were going to look into it straight away. Which they did tbh.

Pops to Ashley Cole who is now the most capped Englishman at an international tournament with 21 games. Virtually played 90mins in all them too. Almost scored too last night. Would of been brilliant if he did.

[Marc Albrighton]

Yes but the way hes worded it on his tweet just makes it worse he suggests it was an alternative but now england have benefited from it its a necessity?

[Rob1981]

No, not really. He said much the same after WC2010, immediately started looking into how viable the goal line tech was, and now 2 years later they were testing it in games with a view to bringing it even, even before what happened last night. There is no Blatter is anti-England story here. Move along.

[Icelander83]

Genuinely surprised how many people are certain that ball is 100% over.

That might have something to do with the fact that the ball was 100% over?

http://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-england-goal-2012-6

The still here shows definite green between the goal line and the ball, there's no doubt about that ball being completely over the line

[Kriss]

I was trying to find an excuse for the ass ref and can only come up with the fact that England's white socks might have played a part.

If goal line technology had been in use and the goal given we'd be demanding it's use for offside decisions in which case it wouldn't have been

[Wakers]

I was trying to find an excuse for the ass ref and can only come up with the fact that England's white socks might have played a part.

If goal line technology had been in use and the goal given we'd be demanding it's use for offside decisions in which case it wouldn't have been

That was a really bad decision. But I have to say, most of the linesman have been minutely accurate in the other games. I can only think of one or two other instances of clear offsides not being given.

[Rob1981]

If goal line technology had been in use and the goal given we'd be demanding it's use for offside decisions in which case it wouldn't have been

That's my issue with goal line technology, it won't stop there. Platini knows. Last night they would give the goal, but it would still be the wrong decision - and before the game even restarts, everyone in the world knows it's wrong apart from the referee. The controversy and injustices don't go away, they just move a different area of the pitch - then it's well we've got cameras on the goal line, why not for offside?

[Icelander83]

That was a really bad decision. But I have to say, most of the linesman have been minutely accurate in the other games. I can only think of one or two other instances of clear offsides not being given.

One of them being Milyevski (no idea how that's spelled) being well offside for his header a couple of minutes before this goal?

[Razzler]

It was offside for the ball over the line goal anyway so maybe sort out those offsides whilst we're solving the ball over the line problems

[Wakers]

One of them being Milyevski (no idea how that's spelled) being well offside for his header a couple of minutes before this goal?

He was level if not behind the cross, he wasn't offside.

[Razzler]

Only thing I'd disagree with is how well England defended, Ukraine had a couple of chances where they got quite a few men in the box on the break. The one relief is that England forced them wide and got them to shoot from positions where Joe Hart was favourite, which is probably good defending. Bah, I've just successfully argued myself into a circle.

I think they didn't overly trouble us, there are always gonna be at least half chances but I agree there were a couple of occasions were they were a little too close. The one where Yarmylenko (not even spelling here, just hitting the keyboard) twisted a couple of times and Parker was on his hands and knees but even then Lescott took it off his toes, we had bodies back and the other was the ball over the line where they were in behind and then made a little more space and time cutting inside

[Icelander83]

He was level if not behind the cross, he wasn't offside.

Pretty sure the crosser (and the ball) were pretty much level with the line of defense and Milyevski was well inside that?

[Rob1981]

Not offside Watch it again ffs. It is a clear an offside as you will ever see (the missed free header, not the also offside "goal")

[Wakers]

I only saw one replay of that, but the TV station here froze it in line of the ball, and the striker was level with the ball when it was crossed.

[Marc Albrighton]

No, not really. He said much the same after WC2010, immediately started looking into how viable the goal line tech was, and now 2 years later they were testing it in games with a view to bringing it even, even before what happened last night. There is no Blatter is anti-England story here. Move along.

Im not saying he is he isnt but he doesnt himself any faovurs the way he words thngs and the timing of things, as soon as chelsea won the cl on penalties he wanted to change that all of a sudden which lets be honest only fuels the fire.

[Mr Adam]

That might have something to do with the fact that the ball was 100% over?

http://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-england-goal-2012-6

The still here shows definite green between the goal line and the ball, there's no doubt about that ball being completely over the line

Hadn't seen that shot. Thanks - I agree that is definitely over. That's actually the only one I've seen where it is obvious.

My point remains to an extent though, in that a lot of people are convinced a ball is over the line when in reality it isn't, and I can sense there will be even more controversy when hawk-eye (or whatever) is implemented, doesn't give a goal, and yet the Andy Townsends / Alan Shearers of this world maintain it was definitely over the line. We will have people saying the systems don't work etc.

[Razzler]

You'd think a bloke standing 8 yards away could spot that though. He's there staring at the line but ... nope. "Oh the post was in the way" ... here's a thought, take half a step to your right and look around the post and still along the line

[Astafjevs]

The reason he stands on the post is because it's easier to tell if the whole of the ball has crossed the line, seeing as the width of the post is pretty much the width of the line. Therefore, if he can see the whole of the ball from that position, it's a fair bet it's all over the line.

Tbh, it doesn't matter. They don't work. Their presence is meant to stop these dreadful errors, if they're still happening then they have no use.

[cms186]

we all know that the ball crossed the line and that the guy on the line messed up/blinked at the wrong time or whatever but we also know there was an offside in the buildup, so the "goal" shouldnt have counted anyway

[Marc Albrighton]

And even if the goal had counted we would have still topped the group and faced italy so really why the uproar?

[Mr Adam]

You'd think a bloke standing 8 yards away could spot that though. He's there staring at the line but ... nope. "Oh the post was in the way" ... here's a thought, take half a step to your right and look around the post and still along the line

I agree with you.

It's actually harder for him to see than if he was about 20m back because obviously the post is forming a wider obstruction to his view.

I think they do a good job in terms of helping the ref with decisions in the area (no matter how many times pundits try to tell you they don't do anything - they do), however if they're there primarily for goal line reasons then really they should just be sitting in line with corner flag - like a line judge in tennis.

[Razzler]

I don't think 'slightly moving your head' would mean OMG he's not on the line either. In fact, there has been no suggestion that the post was in the way has there? Perhaps he got a full view and decided it wasn't a goal. We assume the post got in his way as he got it wrong and from the camera angle it looks in the way. I didn't hear anyone complaining about the post being in the way from the ref team cause, you know, they'd come across thick as hell for not ever so slightly moving his head

[football_master_94]

And even if the goal had counted we would have still topped the group and faced italy so really why the uproar?

Well that's bollocks, though, because there was no indication that it would've ended a draw had that been given and for all you know Ukraine could've scored another before the end.

[skybluedave]

Well that's bollocks, though, because there was no indication that it would've ended a draw had that been given and for all you know Ukraine could've scored another before the end.

Can I use that line when talking about Lampard's disallowed goal? We'd of won 5-2 if that went in

[Wakers]

Can I use that line when talking about Lampard's disallowed goal? We'd of won 5-2 if that went in

That's being silly.

It's quite clear that if they scored that goal, it would have changed the attitudes of every single player on the pitch, and therefore the outcome can in no way be guessed.

But saying "we'd have thumped Germany if Lampard's goal had been allowed" for definite is just being daft.

[Rob1981]

Nothing makes me want to rip my eyes out more than people who talk about that Germany game and say "well, what does it matter, we would have still lost 4-2 just not 4-1".

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Getting mad just thinking about them.

[Wakers]

Ehm, there was very little chance of us winning that game regardless of the goal. Germany were 10x the team we were.

[skybluedave]

I wasn't being serious

[skybluedave]

And oddly enough we had more possesion, and more shots and corners then Germany in that game

[Jonno-Blood]

Ehm, there was very little chance of us winning that game regardless of the goal. Germany were 10x the team we were.

I disagree. The scoreline flatters their performance imo and that disallowed (or not given, whatever) goal completely changed the game. Had that gone in we're going in at half time 2-2 and then we wouldn't be pushing for an equaliser in the 2nd half which ultimately led to them getting 2 goals on the break.

[Rob1981]

Ehm, there was very little chance of us winning that game regardless of the goal. Germany were 10x the team we were.

Lampard makes it 2-2 on the stroke of half time, momentum possibly then with England after they had come back from 2-0 down. Germans were the better team with the ball yes, but to say the Lampard incident didn't matter and they would have definitely won (as the majority do) is idiotic beyond words. Both of the goals we conceded second half were because we had defenders haring out of position trying to chase the game. One of the German goals came from an England corner ffs.

[Rob1981]

Or what Jonno said.

[Kriss]

it would have changed the attitudes of every single player on the pitch, and therefore the outcome can in no way be guessed..

This applies in every case you care to mention so saying something couldn't have happened is equally "just being daft"

[Marc Albrighton]

Well that's bollocks, though, because there was no indication that it would've ended a draw had that been given and for all you know Ukraine could've scored another before the end.

Oh so the ukraine goal could have changed the game but when england claimed drawing 2-2 with germany would have changed the game we were taliking rubbish? Some people make me

[Wakers]

This applies in every case you care to mention so saying something couldn't have happened is equally "just being daft"

This is true. However I didn't say anything of the sort. Slim chance = couldn't happen!

[chopper99]

This argument is so 2010.

[football_master_94]

Oh so the ukraine goal could have changed the game but when england claimed drawing 2-2 with germany would have changed the game we were taliking rubbish? Some people make me

I didn't say that (re: England), I'm merely saying that you can't write off the result as a draw if the goal was scored. You can't argue that Lampard's goal would've changed the complex of the game, yet Dević's wouldn't have is the point I'm making.

[foolsgold]

Ehm, there was very little chance of us winning that game regardless of the goal. Germany were 10x the team we were.

After the disallowed goal yes.

Before the disallowed goal, they were better than us for the first 30 or so minutes, then we battered them in the period where we scored and had the goal disallowed.

We had to commit forward in the 2nd half, which left us incredibly frail at the back hence why it finished 4-1. Germany were the favourites of course but I think we had every chance of sneaking a result had the disallowed goal been allowed.

[av3ry]

Dont forget the Ukraine goal was offside. Dont know what Blokhin is raging about.

[Icelander83]

Dont forget the Ukraine goal was offside. Dont know what Blokhin is raging about.

He was raging about the goal not being given? The fact the linesman didn't wave offside doesn't excuse that horror show of a decision, nor does it justify it

[cms186]

He was raging about the goal not being given? The fact the linesman didn't wave offside doesn't excuse that horror show of a decision, nor does it justify it

no, but it does mean the goal should'nt have been given, when the ukranians are blathering that they were denied a justified goal.

[Wakers]

He was raging about the goal not being given? The fact the linesman didn't wave offside doesn't excuse that horror show of a decision, nor does it justify it

Should that passage of play have resulted in a goal? No, because offside should have been given in the build up. I don't see how anyone can say they should have had a goal, by discounting one and focusing on the other. The passage of play was offside, and should have been given as so.

[Icelander83]

no, but it does mean the goal should'nt have been given, when the ukranians are blathering that they were denied a justified goal.

They were, seeing as how he wasn't given offside.

Do we have any sort of official timeframe on this btw? How long before can something happen before it becomes irrelevant to a disputed incident? This was obviously very short but it doesn't really make much of a difference

[Icelander83]

Should that passage of play have resulted in a goal? No, because offside should have been given in the build up. I don't see how anyone can say they should have had a goal, by discounting one and focusing on the other. The passage of play was offside, and should have been given as so.

Again, yes it should have been offside. As it wasn't given offside the Ukrainians had a goal not given that should have been given

[cms186]

They were, seeing as how he wasn't given offside.

yes, but he should have been! the correct result was reached ( ie no goal for ukraine ) but it was reached through 2 different mistakes, rather than 2 correct ones

[cms186]

Again, yes it should have been offside. As it wasn't given offside the Ukrainians had a goal not given that should have been given

but it shouldnt have been given because he was offside!!!!!!!!!! its not hard to understand is it?

[IMT]

Could Blatter show his anti-English feeling any clearer? It happens for us and all of a sudden it's a "necessity", ignoring the blatently obvious fact it was sodding offside anyway. Here's some news for you, you fat racist ******, it's been a necessity for a long time before England may or may not have gained from it.

Christ I didn't think it possible to hate this poisonous pondlife anymore than I already did.

[IMT]

He was raging about the goal not being given? The fact the linesman didn't wave offside doesn't excuse that horror show of a decision, nor does it justify it

Yeah but if he is "raging" about that, then Hodgson would be more than justified to be raging had it been given and the offside ignored.

How can you blatently ignore this obvious fact is beyond me? how can anyone have the attitude, well it's ok they got the offside wrong, but a disgrace the goal wasn't given, if the correct FIRST call is made, we're not even discussing a goal or lack of one. It's obvious..........isn't it?

[Icelander83]

Yeah but if he is "raging" about that, then Hodgson would be more than justified to be raging had it been given and the offside ignored.

How can you blatently ignore this obvious fact is beyond me? how can anyone have the attitude, well it's ok they got the offside wrong, but a disgrace the goal wasn't given, if the correct FIRST call is made, we're not even discussing a goal or lack of one. It's obvious..........isn't it?

Should it have been called for offside? Yes.

Should it have been given a goal seeing as how it wasn't adjugded to be offside? Yes.

Is the Ukrainian coach going to bitch and moan about his player not being given offside? Takes a bit of pondering but I'm going with: "No"

Is the English coach going to bother about it being offside seeing as how it didn't lead to a goal? No reason to do so

Would the Ukrainian coach bitch about it being given offside if that had happened? No, he was clearly offside

The question was what the Ukrainian coach was raging about. It's quite clear what he was raging about.

[Leppard]

No, it's not okay that they got the offside wrong. Ultimately, the right decision was given BUT, in the game, the offside was not given, correct decision or not. According to the game, they were denied a perfectly good goal.