Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tottenham robbed

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 3:39:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and the
ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
linesman..

http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv

More about : tottenham robbed

January 5, 2005 4:20:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Mikael Schøler" <QM3mik_s@tdcadsl.dk> wrote in message
news:41db292d$0$243$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and the
> ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
> linesman..
>
> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv

Fergie would have gone ballistic if it had been allowed - the 'officials'
bottled it big time. :( 

Dan
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 5:36:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Mikael Schøler wrote:
> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
> did the linesman..
>
> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv

Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been given ,
certainly that i've seen.

Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 

http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg


--
[Raven]
Related resources
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 6:54:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"[Raven]" <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou> wrote in message
news:6pICd.3510$GG1.3179@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>> did the linesman..
>>
>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>
> Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been given ,
> certainly that i've seen.
>
> Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>
> http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
>
>
> --
> [Raven]
>
>

reminded me when darren peacock got one allowed back in the days when
newcastle were "up there" and it was touch and go on the line... it was
allowed, newcastle beat man u that day 5 - 0

good game, i bought the video tape haha

it was a shocker that though i saw it, should bring in the technology to
replace the old bald 45 yr old linesman who cant see
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 8:25:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 03:54:04 -0000, "Christo" <chris@juststuffd.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"[Raven]" <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou> wrote in message
>news:6pICd.3510$GG1.3179@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>>> did the linesman..
>>>
>>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>>
>> Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been given ,
>> certainly that i've seen.
>>
>> Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>>
>> http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
>>
>>
>> --
>> [Raven]
>>
>>
>
>reminded me when darren peacock got one allowed back in the days when
>newcastle were "up there" and it was touch and go on the line... it was
>allowed, newcastle beat man u that day 5 - 0
>
ah the good old days.

phillipe albert's chip..............that was the bet of the lot :) 


--

gamertag: chrisflynnuk
Live Line-up: RS3, RS3:BA, PGR2, Links04, SC:p T, Toca2, RSC2, MM3,
SWAT, MotoGP2, Burnout3, OutRun2(Demo), FSW
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:07:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Chris F wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 03:54:04 -0000, "Christo" <chris@juststuffd.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"[Raven]" <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou> wrote in message
>>news:6pICd.3510$GG1.3179@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>Mikael Schøler wrote:
>>>
>>>>During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>>>>the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>>>>did the linesman..
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>>>
>>>Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been given ,
>>>certainly that i've seen.
>>>
>>>Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>>>
>>>http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>[Raven]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>reminded me when darren peacock got one allowed back in the days when
>>newcastle were "up there" and it was touch and go on the line... it was
>>allowed, newcastle beat man u that day 5 - 0
>>
>
> ah the good old days.
>
> phillipe albert's chip..............that was the bet of the lot :) 
>
>

What a great goal that was!

--


I've often wanted to drown my troubles, but I can't get my girlfriend to
go swimming.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:16:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

[Raven] wrote:
> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>> did the linesman..
>>
>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>
> Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been
> given , certainly that i've seen.
>
> Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>
> http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg

Didn't Hughes once hit the advertising board and have it bounce out to be
not given?
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:56:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Em Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:39:38 +0100, Mikael Schøler <QM3mik_s@tdcadsl.dk>
escreveu:

> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and the
> ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
> linesman..
>
> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv

'the site has been suspended' :-(

--
The Brazilian Man
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:58:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Em Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:36:50 GMT, [Raven] <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou>
escreveu:

> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>> did the linesman..
>>
>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>
> Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been given ,
> certainly that i've seen.
>
> Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>
> http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
>
>

wow, who was the linesman? don't tell me he could not see it!
is it a conspiracy against the blues to save russian poor kids? :-D

--
The Brazilian Man
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 7:24:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Chris F" <chris@asif.com> wrote in message
news:3lumt0po85rq7g5baosgm8vg3ar5fq8ucv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 03:54:04 -0000, "Christo" <chris@juststuffd.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"[Raven]" <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou> wrote in message
>>news:6pICd.3510$GG1.3179@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>>>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>>>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>>>> did the linesman..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>>>
>>> Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been given
>>> ,
>>> certainly that i've seen.
>>>
>>> Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>>>
>>> http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [Raven]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>reminded me when darren peacock got one allowed back in the days when
>>newcastle were "up there" and it was touch and go on the line... it was
>>allowed, newcastle beat man u that day 5 - 0
>>
> ah the good old days.
>
> phillipe albert's chip..............that was the bet of the lot :) 
>

haha that was a joke for a while up here in the north... a poor one though i
know that much, shame i cant remember the exact joke.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 9:10:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:39:38 +0100, Mikael Schøler
<QM3mik_s@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

>During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and the
>ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
>linesman..
>
>http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv

That's not an option. They obviously didn't want to see it.

-Nick
January 5, 2005 9:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"[Raven]" <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou> wrote in message
news:6pICd.3510$GG1.3179@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>> did the linesman..
>>
>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>
> Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been given ,
> certainly that i've seen.
>
> Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>
> http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
>
>
> --
> [Raven]

To be honest it would only Happen to manure at old trafford and in the last
few minutes, if it were the other way round, the fans and the moans and the
protests of the manure fans/players the goal would be given. I am quite sure
of that.
this has got to one of the worst refereeing blunders ever, the refereeing
over the xmas period has been really shite, i think you can all agree,
numerous mistakes have been made and games which should have a winner have
been draws etc etc.
with so much money in football these days and being as high profile as it
is, we need new changes and new ideas for referee's.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:15:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

The Brazilian Man wrote:
> Em Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:39:38 +0100, Mikael Schøler
> <QM3mik_s@tdcadsl.dk> escreveu:
>
>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>> did the linesman..
>>
>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>
> 'the site has been suspended' :-(

http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carroll_blunder.wmv


--
[Raven]
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:15:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Mikael Schøler wrote:

> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and the
> ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
> linesman..
>
> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv

WHAT a goalie..WHAT a goal.... They both could have been great..lol.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 3:37:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

In article <41dc3d6c$1@news.broadpark.no>, thedeadstaysdead@forever.no
says...
> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>
> > During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and the
> > ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
> > linesman..


In defense of the linesman -- and this is speculation, because I can't
be bothered to look at the video of the game to check it out -- it
should've been nearly impossible for him to have a good look at the goal
line when the ball went in, if he was doing what he was supposed to be
doing at the time of the incident.

A linesman during open play is supposed to line himself up with last
defender, which, at the time Mendes took his shot, was pushed up toward
the half-line, putting the linesman about as far away from the goal as
he can get. I would assume that when the shot was taken, the linesman
began rushing back down the line toward the goal, during which it would
have been hard to concentrate on the ball at all times, or he may have
even taken his eye off the ball and headed back toward the last defender
when it looked like something Carroll was easily going to catch (this
was no Seaman v. Zaragoza flail, either. Carroll was well-positioned and
waiting for the ball. It's amazing that f-ed it up like he did). In
either case, he would not be ideally situated to judge the way he would
during normal attacking circumstances when the defenders would be in the
box putting him in a better perspective.

Of course, that doesn't mean Spurs weren't robbed, just that it may not
have been obvious to those who in command.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 3:42:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Gareth" <gareth47@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:crhd6j$4uk$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "[Raven]" <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:6pICd.3510$GG1.3179@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Mikael Schøler wrote:
> >> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
> >> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
> >> did the linesman..
> >>
> >> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
> >
> > Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been
given ,
> > certainly that i've seen.
> >
> > Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
> >
> > http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
> >
> >
> > --
> > [Raven]
>
> To be honest it would only Happen to manure at old trafford and in the
last
> few minutes, if it were the other way round, the fans and the moans and
the
> protests of the manure fans/players the goal would be given. I am quite
sure
> of that.
> this has got to one of the worst refereeing blunders ever, the
refereeing
> over the xmas period has been really shite, i think you can all agree,
> numerous mistakes have been made and games which should have a winner
have
> been draws etc etc.
> with so much money in football these days and being as high profile as
it
> is, we need new changes and new ideas for referee's.

It was so obviously a goal there is no way it was anything other than
Carroll must have blocked their view.

What I can't believe is that with video replays having proved themselves
in other sports the FA decide that instead they must "reinvent the wheel"
and ask the ball manufacturers to add technology to the balls so they
know where they are on the pitch!
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:54:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Em Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:37:30 -0800, Bickle <bickle@dorrk.com> escreveu:

> In article <41dc3d6c$1@news.broadpark.no>, thedeadstaysdead@forever.no
> says...
>> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>>
>> > During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>> the
>> > ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
>> > linesman..
>
>
> In defense of the linesman -- and this is speculation, because I can't
> be bothered to look at the video of the game to check it out -- it
> should've been nearly impossible for him to have a good look at the goal
> line when the ball went in, if he was doing what he was supposed to be
> doing at the time of the incident.
>
> A linesman during open play is supposed to line himself up with last
> defender, which, at the time Mendes took his shot, was pushed up toward
> the half-line, putting the linesman about as far away from the goal as
> he can get. I would assume that when the shot was taken, the linesman
> began rushing back down the line toward the goal, during which it would
> have been hard to concentrate on the ball at all times, or he may have
> even taken his eye off the ball and headed back toward the last defender
> when it looked like something Carroll was easily going to catch (this
> was no Seaman v. Zaragoza flail, either. Carroll was well-positioned and
> waiting for the ball. It's amazing that f-ed it up like he did). In
> either case, he would not be ideally situated to judge the way he would
> during normal attacking circumstances when the defenders would be in the
> box putting him in a better perspective.
>
> Of course, that doesn't mean Spurs weren't robbed, just that it may not
> have been obvious to those who in command.

No taking the specific case to judge, but come to my mind that UK misses
good keepers.
It's amazing that Banks homeland can't produce any more realiable keepers.
I say that considering you're not happy with Calamity at yr national side,
and that Wright + Kirkland could not provide the hopes you want.
Green seems to be an option, but sometimes we overate a keeper because he
plays a weak side and have full action week in week out.
Weaver was a disappointment, others are too old...

Who has the answer pls be welcome.

--
The Brazilian Man
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 3:05:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

The Brazilian Man wrote:
> Em Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:36:50 GMT, [Raven] <nospam@my.inbox.thankyou>
> escreveu:
>
>> Mikael Schøler wrote:
>>> During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and
>>> the ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither
>>> did the linesman..
>>>
>>> http://www.bentex.co.uk/video/Carroll_blunder.wmv
>>
>> Probably the furthest a ball has crossed a line and ever not been
>> given , certainly that i've seen.
>>
>> Looks closer to the net than the line to me :p 
>>
>> http://www.spurk.myby.co.uk/temp/carrol.jpg
>>
>>
>
> wow, who was the linesman? don't tell me he could not see it!

He's said he's happy with the job he did (apparently his primary role is to
watch the last defender!)
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 3:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

> this has got to one of the worst refereeing blunders ever,

What made me laugh was that the BBC then did a list of the worst refereeing
blunders and included the Chesterfield Middlesboro FA Cup semi final.

They criticised the referee for not giving the "goal" when the ball hit the
bar and rebounded down.

Rather conveniently they forgot that the referee had actually stopped play
before the player shot.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 3:08:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

> What I can't believe is that with video replays having proved
> themselves in other sports the FA decide that instead they must
> "reinvent the wheel" and ask the ball manufacturers to add technology
> to the balls so they know where they are on the pitch!

Other sports do have natural breaks though.

That incident is actually for me a prime example of how it wouldn't work.

There was no point to stop the game to view the video as the ball remained
live, and had Manure gone back up the other end and scored, can you imagine
Fergie's reaction when their goal is chalked off?
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:28:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:54:01 -0200, "The Brazilian Man"
<eduNOSPAMliguori@yahoo.com.br> wrote:

>No taking the specific case to judge, but come to my mind that UK misses
>good keepers.
>It's amazing that Banks homeland can't produce any more realiable keepers.
>I say that considering you're not happy with Calamity at yr national side,
>and that Wright + Kirkland could not provide the hopes you want.
>Green seems to be an option, but sometimes we overate a keeper because he
>plays a weak side and have full action week in week out.
>Weaver was a disappointment, others are too old...
>Who has the answer pls be welcome.

Well, Robinson gave a decent account of himself at the other end.

As for Kirkland and Weaver, both have suffered from injury problems
(Weaver even moreso than Kirkland) and as such haven't really had a
great chance to prove themselves. Weaver's been out so long he won't
get the chance now, which is a shame as even though he was a bluenose
bastard he looked pretty decent. Fair comment about Green; looks good
but he is constantly in the action playing for a club so low in the
division. Be interesting to see if he can step up to a higher level -
I think he will.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:28:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Em Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:28:22 +0000, Overcooked missile silo
<nospam@caradawc.freeserve.co.uk> escreveu:

> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:54:01 -0200, "The Brazilian Man"
> <eduNOSPAMliguori@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
>
>> No taking the specific case to judge, but come to my mind that UK misses
>> good keepers.
>> It's amazing that Banks homeland can't produce any more realiable
>> keepers.
>> I say that considering you're not happy with Calamity at yr national
>> side,
>> and that Wright + Kirkland could not provide the hopes you want.
>> Green seems to be an option, but sometimes we overate a keeper because
>> he
>> plays a weak side and have full action week in week out.
>> Weaver was a disappointment, others are too old...
>> Who has the answer pls be welcome.
>
> Well, Robinson gave a decent account of himself at the other end.
>
> As for Kirkland and Weaver, both have suffered from injury problems
> (Weaver even moreso than Kirkland) and as such haven't really had a
> great chance to prove themselves. Weaver's been out so long he won't
> get the chance now, which is a shame as even though he was a bluenose
> bastard he looked pretty decent. Fair comment about Green; looks good
> but he is constantly in the action playing for a club so low in the
> division. Be interesting to see if he can step up to a higher level -
> I think he will.

apologize for missing Robinson on my comments, however I hard recall if it
was on FM or Real world that someone was saying Robinson could not be the
England keeper. :-)

--
The Brazilian Man
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 10:27:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message news:crj9n3$7hi$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > What I can't believe is that with video replays having proved
> > themselves in other sports the FA decide that instead they must
> > "reinvent the wheel" and ask the ball manufacturers to add technology
> > to the balls so they know where they are on the pitch!
>
> Other sports do have natural breaks though.
>
> That incident is actually for me a prime example of how it wouldn't
work.
>
> There was no point to stop the game to view the video as the ball
remained
> live, and had Manure gone back up the other end and scored, can you
imagine
> Fergie's reaction when their goal is chalked off?

Then use a system like cyclops or hawkeye and have it beep in the ref's
ear when the ball crosses the line. Then he can blow and if necessary
see a replay. Spurs were totally robbed and should have had the 3
points. Also there is no way Manu could have gone up and scored and then
had it disallowed if as you say the ball was live. If using a replay the
ref would have blown his whistle before they got to the halfway line so
they wouldn't have scored anyway.

Replays in general would work in football if used wisely. The is it or
isn't it a try adds to the excitement in rugby and I think it would do
the same in football. I would like to see it used to confirm penalties vs
a freekick and off the line incidents and only when the ref didn't see
it. I don't see it being needed as often as in rugby either so it
wouldn't add much time to a game.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:24:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

> Then use a system like cyclops or hawkeye and have it beep in the
> ref's ear when the ball crosses the line. Then he can blow and if
> necessary see a replay. Spurs were totally robbed and should have
> had the 3 points. Also there is no way Manu could have gone up and
> scored and then had it disallowed if as you say the ball was live.
> If using a replay the ref would have blown his whistle before they
> got to the halfway line so they wouldn't have scored anyway.

The microchip-type thing I like, but answer me this.

If he stops play with one team on a break with for example 3 on 2 and going
at pace to watch a replay, and then it proves no goal, how does he restart
play?
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:34:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message news:crlo02$2lf$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > Then use a system like cyclops or hawkeye and have it beep in the
> > ref's ear when the ball crosses the line. Then he can blow and if
> > necessary see a replay. Spurs were totally robbed and should have
> > had the 3 points. Also there is no way Manu could have gone up and
> > scored and then had it disallowed if as you say the ball was live.
> > If using a replay the ref would have blown his whistle before they
> > got to the halfway line so they wouldn't have scored anyway.
>
> The microchip-type thing I like, but answer me this.

I question the reliability of it. How many times is a ball kicked in a
game? Are there examples of a similar system in other sports?

> If he stops play with one team on a break with for example 3 on 2 and
going
> at pace to watch a replay, and then it proves no goal, how does he
restart
> play?

If he stops play though it's because the chip or cyclops/hawkeye showed
the ball was out or over the goal line I don't see any problem. The
latter two systems seem pretty accurate in other sports.

What they could do is introduce various systems into reserve games and
fine tune them to see what's best.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:34:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Em Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:34:46 -0000, Cullen Skink
<news-groups@REMOVETHISTOEMAILntlworld.com> escreveu:

> "Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote in message news:crlo02$2lf$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> > Then use a system like cyclops or hawkeye and have it beep in the
>> > ref's ear when the ball crosses the line. Then he can blow and if
>> > necessary see a replay. Spurs were totally robbed and should have
>> > had the 3 points. Also there is no way Manu could have gone up and
>> > scored and then had it disallowed if as you say the ball was live.
>> > If using a replay the ref would have blown his whistle before they
>> > got to the halfway line so they wouldn't have scored anyway.
>>
>> The microchip-type thing I like, but answer me this.
>
> I question the reliability of it. How many times is a ball kicked in a
> game? Are there examples of a similar system in other sports?
>
>> If he stops play with one team on a break with for example 3 on 2 and
> going
>> at pace to watch a replay, and then it proves no goal, how does he
> restart
>> play?
>
> If he stops play though it's because the chip or cyclops/hawkeye showed
> the ball was out or over the goal line I don't see any problem. The
> latter two systems seem pretty accurate in other sports.
>
> What they could do is introduce various systems into reserve games and
> fine tune them to see what's best.
>
>

honestly? I'm a romantic fan, to me these mistakes make football what it
is, if we end the referee mistakes, players cheating, etc footie will be
so exciting as a computer game.

--
The Brazilian Man
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"The Brazilian Man" <eduNOSPAMliguori@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:o psj8bcpbkxjeech@eduardo.mshome.net...
Em Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:34:46 -0000, Cullen Skink
<news-groups@REMOVETHISTOEMAILntlworld.com> escreveu:

> "Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote in message news:crlo02$2lf$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> > Then use a system like cyclops or hawkeye and have it beep in the
>> > ref's ear when the ball crosses the line. Then he can blow and if
>> > necessary see a replay. Spurs were totally robbed and should have
>> > had the 3 points. Also there is no way Manu could have gone up and
>> > scored and then had it disallowed if as you say the ball was live.
>> > If using a replay the ref would have blown his whistle before they
>> > got to the halfway line so they wouldn't have scored anyway.
>>
>> The microchip-type thing I like, but answer me this.
>
> I question the reliability of it. How many times is a ball kicked in a
> game? Are there examples of a similar system in other sports?
>
>> If he stops play with one team on a break with for example 3 on 2 and
> going
>> at pace to watch a replay, and then it proves no goal, how does he
> restart
>> play?
>
> If he stops play though it's because the chip or cyclops/hawkeye showed
> the ball was out or over the goal line I don't see any problem. The
> latter two systems seem pretty accurate in other sports.
>
> What they could do is introduce various systems into reserve games and
> fine tune them to see what's best.
>
>

honestly? I'm a romantic fan, to me these mistakes make football what it
is, if we end the referee mistakes, players cheating, etc footie will be
so exciting as a computer game.

I don't think removing cheating or mistakes would be detrimental to
football in any way. What makes football exciting is the game itself and
that wouldn't change. I'm not talking about stopping tackles, or the ref
making most of the decisions, just help in areas where the ref has to use
guesswork like he did in the ManU/Spurs game because he couldn't see the
line.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:25:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

> If he stops play though it's because the chip or cyclops/hawkeye
> showed the ball was out or over the goal line I don't see any
> problem. The latter two systems seem pretty accurate in other sports.

In the other sports there is a natural break in play.

In Football there is not necessarily (especially for the one thing that is
being discussed here)
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:39:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Bickle wrote:
> In article <41dc3d6c$1@news.broadpark.no>, thedeadstaysdead@forever.no
> says...
>
>>Mikael Schøler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>During the game against ManUtd, Carroll made a huuuuuge blunder and the
>>>ball went in.. Unfortunately the referee never saw it, neither did the
>>>linesman..
>
>
>
> In defense of the linesman -- and this is speculation, because I can't
> be bothered to look at the video of the game to check it out -- it
> should've been nearly impossible for him to have a good look

He`s was at the edge of the penalty area...just watched the game. Yet
another ref "paid by ferguson" at old trafford.


at the goal
> line when the ball went in, if he was doing what he was supposed to be
> doing at the time of the incident.
>
> A linesman during open play is supposed to line himself up with last
> defender, which, at the time Mendes took his shot, was pushed up toward
> the half-line, putting the linesman about as far away from the goal as
> he can get. I would assume that when the shot was taken, the linesman
> began rushing back down the line toward the goal, during which it would
> have been hard to concentrate on the ball at all times, or he may have
> even taken his eye off the ball and headed back toward the last defender
> when it looked like something Carroll was easily going to catch (this
> was no Seaman v. Zaragoza flail, either. Carroll was well-positioned and
> waiting for the ball. It's amazing that f-ed it up like he did). In
> either case, he would not be ideally situated to judge the way he would
> during normal attacking circumstances when the defenders would be in the
> box putting him in a better perspective.
>
> Of course, that doesn't mean Spurs weren't robbed, just that it may not
> have been obvious to those who in command.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:07:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message news:crrper$pdn$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > If he stops play though it's because the chip or cyclops/hawkeye
> > showed the ball was out or over the goal line I don't see any
> > problem. The latter two systems seem pretty accurate in other
sports.
>
> In the other sports there is a natural break in play.
>
> In Football there is not necessarily (especially for the one thing that
is
> being discussed here)

The ball going out is a natural break in play though. This incident
should have made a natural break, ie a goal. A beep in the ref's ear
would have alerted him to that fact. As I said we are talking occasional
use of technology not every time the ref needs to make a decision. I
doubt if it would be needed in every game.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 3:30:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

>
> The ball going out is a natural break in play though.

Yes, but if there is doubt over the ball crossing the line, then there is no
break in play.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 5:41:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Marc Robbins wrote:
>>The ball going out is a natural break in play though.
>
>
> Yes, but if there is doubt over the ball crossing the line, then there is no
> break in play.

The break in play argument is just not valid in judging whether the ball
is over the line or not. In case of offside you may have a point,
although I still disagree.

Martijn.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 11:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Martijn wrote:
> Marc Robbins wrote:
>>> The ball going out is a natural break in play though.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but if there is doubt over the ball crossing the line, then
>> there is no break in play.
>
> The break in play argument is just not valid in judging whether the
> ball is over the line or not. In case of offside you may have a point,
> although I still disagree.
>
> Martijn.

Why is not valid?

If the ball doesn't cross the line, then there is no break in play so the
video cannot be called for under those rules.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 1:36:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Marc Robbins wrote:
> Martijn wrote:
>
>>Marc Robbins wrote:
>>
>>>>The ball going out is a natural break in play though.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, but if there is doubt over the ball crossing the line, then
>>>there is no break in play.
>>
>>The break in play argument is just not valid in judging whether the
>>ball is over the line or not. In case of offside you may have a point,
>>although I still disagree.
>>
>>Martijn.
>
>
> Why is not valid?
>
> If the ball doesn't cross the line, then there is no break in play so the
> video cannot be called for under those rules.

What about the fourth official? He can watch the video or respond to
another mechanism which indicates the ball has crossed the line. When he
notifies the referee, play is stopped and a goal is given. It won't take
too long to find out if the ball has crossed the line or not, and if so,
then wait until the first natural break to further investigate the case.
In the unlikely event that the other team has scored at the other end,
that goal will of course be canceled if the ball indeed did cross the
line the first time. Tough luck indeed, but you really can't complain if
there's a perfectly legal goal scored by the other team.

Martijn.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 2:02:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message news:cs4123$op0$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> Martijn wrote:
> > Marc Robbins wrote:
> >>> The ball going out is a natural break in play though.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, but if there is doubt over the ball crossing the line, then
> >> there is no break in play.
> >
> > The break in play argument is just not valid in judging whether the
> > ball is over the line or not. In case of offside you may have a
point,
> > although I still disagree.
> >
> > Martijn.
>
> Why is not valid?
>
> If the ball doesn't cross the line, then there is no break in play so
the
> video cannot be called for under those rules.

but the ball did cross the line in this instance, and some form of
technology or a man on each by-line would have spotted it. The referee
could then if necessary call for video footage.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:03:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

>>> The break in play argument is just not valid in judging whether the
>>> ball is over the line or not. In case of offside you may have a
>>> point, although I still disagree.
>>>
>>> Martijn.
>>
>>
>> Why is not valid?
>>
>> If the ball doesn't cross the line, then there is no break in play
>> so the video cannot be called for under those rules.
>
> What about the fourth official? He can watch the video or respond to
> another mechanism which indicates the ball has crossed the line. When
> he notifies the referee, play is stopped and a goal is given. It
> won't take too long to find out if the ball has crossed the line or
> not, and if so, then wait until the first natural break to further
> investigate the case. In the unlikely event that the other team has
> scored at the other end, that goal will of course be canceled if the
> ball indeed did cross the line the first time. Tough luck indeed, but
> you really can't complain if there's a perfectly legal goal scored by
> the other team.
>
> Martijn.

And it gets increasingly complicated...
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:04:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

>
> but the ball did cross the line in this instance, and some form of
> technology or a man on each by-line would have spotted it. The
> referee could then if necessary call for video footage.

Yes, but that is not the issue that I am saying.

How do you stop play to check if the ball is out or not?

You can't do that because one side or other will be disadvantaged by it.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:28:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

<snip>

Officials at the Premier League have made it clear that the result of
Manchester United's home game against Tottenham Hotspur played last week
would NOT have been different even if any of the high-tech equipment
currently available had been used.
Amazed reporters were apprised of this salient fact when they gathered
outside the organisation's headquarters in central London a couple of days
after the controversial incident that saw United keeper Roy Carroll clearly
"pull" the ball back when it was over the line. The incident deprived Spurs'
Pedro Mendes of a certain goal and what would have been a famous victory for
his side.

There has been feverish speculation in the media since the incident that the
use of technology could have prevented this mishap by overruling the match
officials and awarding Spurs their prize. But the Premier League was keen to
ensure there was no misguided expectation of such a possibility.

"It is true that a ball with some form of micro-chip in it that shows
whether or not it has crossed the line has been developed," admitted a
spokesperson to the howling pack of hacks which had assembled to demand
satisfaction in the matter. "And it is also true that the facility for
instant video replays with a sophisticated communication system to the
referee is now pretty good. However, what I think you are all forgetting is
the circumstances and location in which this particular incident took
place."

He explained: "In short, if you think we're going to allow technology of any
description to award goals against Manchester United, at Old Trafford, with
Fergie standing on the touchline, then all I can say is you must have lost
your bloody marbles."
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:37:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message news:cs9545$jm6$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > but the ball did cross the line in this instance, and some form of
> > technology or a man on each by-line would have spotted it. The
> > referee could then if necessary call for video footage.
>
> Yes, but that is not the issue that I am saying.
>
> How do you stop play to check if the ball is out or not?
>
> You can't do that because one side or other will be disadvantaged by
it.

Seems easy enough. The technology will have flagged that the ball was
out of play. It detects the ball crossing the line and *immediately*
sends a beep or short message to an earpiece worn by the ref, or if
another lineman is used they raise a flag. The ref stops play
immediately and if necessary checks the video evidence or has someone do
that, as in rugby.

As to one side being disadvantaged by it, I don't see how if it was set
up correctly and only used when the ref or lineman can't make a decision.
Spurs were certainly disadvantaged without it!
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 1:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

Cullen Skink wrote:
> "Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote in message news:cs9545$jm6$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> but the ball did cross the line in this instance, and some form of
>>> technology or a man on each by-line would have spotted it. The
>>> referee could then if necessary call for video footage.
>>
>> Yes, but that is not the issue that I am saying.
>>
>> How do you stop play to check if the ball is out or not?
>>
>> You can't do that because one side or other will be disadvantaged by
>> it.
>
> Seems easy enough. The technology will have flagged that the ball was
> out of play. It detects the ball crossing the line and *immediately*
> sends a beep or short message to an earpiece worn by the ref, or if
> another lineman is used they raise a flag. The ref stops play
> immediately and if necessary checks the video evidence or has someone
> do that, as in rugby.

So why go for the video replay then?

Surely by that definition since the ball is out of play (and over the
goal-line) - there's no need for a replay!

My one concern with this micro chip is how it will be set to only beep when
the whole of the ball is over the whole of the line.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:51:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

"Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message news:csarg1$f3d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> Cullen Skink wrote:
> > "Marc Robbins" <marc@ITHINKTHISMEANSNOSPAMrobbins46.freeserve.co.uk>
> > wrote in message news:cs9545$jm6$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>> but the ball did cross the line in this instance, and some form of
> >>> technology or a man on each by-line would have spotted it. The
> >>> referee could then if necessary call for video footage.
> >>
> >> Yes, but that is not the issue that I am saying.
> >>
> >> How do you stop play to check if the ball is out or not?
> >>
> >> You can't do that because one side or other will be disadvantaged by
> >> it.
> >
> > Seems easy enough. The technology will have flagged that the ball
was
> > out of play. It detects the ball crossing the line and *immediately*
> > sends a beep or short message to an earpiece worn by the ref, or if
> > another lineman is used they raise a flag. The ref stops play
> > immediately and if necessary checks the video evidence or has someone
> > do that, as in rugby.
>
> So why go for the video replay then?

I said "if necessary" ie in situations that requited it, this one
wouldn't.

> Surely by that definition since the ball is out of play (and over the
> goal-line) - there's no need for a replay!

Correct, I'm talking about a system that is used for more than this
situation but that would have worked in this situation.

> My one concern with this micro chip is how it will be set to only beep
when
> the whole of the ball is over the whole of the line.

I think a microchip system is daft, reinventing the wheel. Cyclops or
Hawkeye as used in other sports would work, as would a camera in the post
looking across the line or a lineman on each by-line.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 6:46:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.champ-man (More info?)

*****General wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Officials at the Premier League have made it clear that the result of
> Manchester United's home game against Tottenham Hotspur played last week
> would NOT have been different even if any of the high-tech equipment
> currently available had been used.
> Amazed reporters were apprised of this salient fact when they gathered
> outside the organisation's headquarters in central London a couple of days
> after the controversial incident that saw United keeper Roy Carroll clearly
> "pull" the ball back when it was over the line. The incident deprived Spurs'
> Pedro Mendes of a certain goal and what would have been a famous victory for
> his side.
>
> There has been feverish speculation in the media since the incident that the
> use of technology could have prevented this mishap by overruling the match
> officials and awarding Spurs their prize. But the Premier League was keen to
> ensure there was no misguided expectation of such a possibility.
>
> "It is true that a ball with some form of micro-chip in it that shows
> whether or not it has crossed the line has been developed," admitted a
> spokesperson to the howling pack of hacks which had assembled to demand
> satisfaction in the matter. "And it is also true that the facility for
> instant video replays with a sophisticated communication system to the
> referee is now pretty good. However, what I think you are all forgetting is
> the circumstances and location in which this particular incident took
> place."
>
> He explained: "In short, if you think we're going to allow technology of any
> description to award goals against Manchester United, at Old Trafford, with
> Fergie standing on the touchline, then all I can say is you must have lost
> your bloody marbles."
>
>


Bravo!
!