Lack of video technology is keeping the game in the stone age

By on June 28, 2010
June 27, 2010 - Bloemfontein, South Africa - epa02227144 epa02226352 German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer is beaten and the ball touches down behind the goal line but referee ruled that the ball did not crossed the line during the FIFA World Cup 2010 Round of 16 match between Germany and England at the Free State stadium in Bloemfontein, South Africa, 27 June 2010.

By David Moore-Crouch.

England’s World Cup came to an abrupt end yesterday, after their 4-1 defeat at the hands of Germany. Although the score line reads as a mauling, it overshadows a great injustice that potentially could have seen a very different result. The injustice in question was a shocking referee decision that saw a Frank Lampard goal, which was clearly over the line, being disallowed. The decision not only leaves a sour taste in the mouths of England fans, but once again raises the question of why video technology has not yet been introduced to our great game.

The incident occurred less than a minute after Matthew Upson had brought England back into the match with a nice header. Lampard volleyed a shot past Manuel Neuer than then came off the top post and bounced into the goal. Neuer, however, grabbed the ball and played on. Uruguayan referee, Jorge Larrionda then allowed the play to continue. Almost instant replays showed that the ball had cleared the line and that England had been denied a goal.

In the second game of the day, between Mexico and Argentina, Mexico were also left feeling aggrieved at a poor refereeing decision when a Carlos Tevez goal was allowed even though he was in an offside position. The replay showed that Tevez was indeed offside and that the goal should have been disallowed.  The linesman was then set upon by the whole Mexican side who had witnessed the replay up on the big screen moments after the goal had been scored.

Both these incidents represent an unexplainable deficiency in the World game and that is the lack of video technology which would see poor decisions, like the two yesterday, being stamped out of the game. FIFA’s refusal to adopt video technology is perplexing and out of sync with other sports. Rugby League, Rugby Union, American Football, Cricket and even Tennis have adopted some form of video technology assistance. The introduction of video technology has often been met with resistance. The purists at Wimbledon, for example, cried out in disgust at the thought of Hawkeye being used in their great game. However, they were quickly won over by the success of the technology. In most instances, video technology has been hailed as a great addition to sport. Despite all its successes, Football has remained steadfast in their reluctance to adopt it.

Back in March, the International Football Association Board (IFAB) once again rejected proposals to introduce goal-line technology to help referees with disputed goals. The decision was met with hostility particularly from within the UK. Both the English and the Scottish Football associations voted in favour of developing technology.  Even Arsenal manager, Arsene Wenger weighed into the debate describing the IFAB’s decision as “beyond comprehension.”

FIFA’s counted the criticism by highlighting the fact that football is about the humans involved, the players and the referees and although mistakes are made, it is all part of the game. This is true to an extent, however, football has evolved exponentially and is now a billion dollar industry in which a poor decision can have greater repercussions than just a potential loss on the field. In some cases, millions of pounds ride on team’s fortunes. A prime example of this, was Ireland’s failure to make the World Cup ‘at the hand’ of Thierry Henry. Ireland’s failure cost them at least £4.5 million, which is what they would have received from FIFA for participating in the World Cup. At most, it could potentially cost them £18.7 million if they had managed to go on and win the competition. With this amount of money on the line, teams cannot afford poor decisions.

FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, has also argued that technology takes away an element of the referee’s power.  In no way does technology diminish the role of the referee. If anything it serves as a safeguard as it protects them from player’s backlash, as was seen from the Mexicans yesterday; from the wrath of the fans as well as personal embarrassment. I strongly believe that referees would be instilled with confidence knowing that they can call upon the assistance of video technology to aid them with controversial decisions.  The worried face of the linesman, who was accosted by the whole Mexican team, should be proof enough that referees need the protection that video technology offers.

FIFA can no longer bury their heads in the sand over this issue. The great game is continually being marred by poor decisions that could easily be rectified through the introduction of video technology. Until FIFA decide in favour of technology, Football will remain inadequately behind the times. They need to follow the leads of other sports and move Football into the 21st century. The football world is crying out for it. Only time will tell if FIFA decide to listen.

Should Football introduce video technology?

Best of the web

23 Comments

  1. Danny

    June 28, 2010 at 11:07 am

    It’s absolutely true, i missed the game as i was on a flight, but returned to a 4-1 scoreline and yet another goal that wasn’t given… it’s incredible! In Rugby, it adds to the excitement! everyone watching the replay and then the decision….try… or goal…would be fantastic! and what it adds 30 seconds to the game… better that than 10 players crowding round the ref and the linesman…and 50 million people crying out about the injustice… it also means that sometimes the best teams do lose.. and its just wrong plainly and simply.
    I’m not saying that England would have won the game, but i do understand as a footballer myself that when a team comes from 2-0 down to level it, the momentum is with them and psychologically it has a massive effect… put simply no-one knows who would have won.. 2-1 is alot worse than 2-2 and 3-1 is heartbreaking, but 3-2 is retrievable.. this decision has definitely changed the outcome and it’s wrong, wrong, wrong… when are FIFA going to understand that a goal is a goal… you can’t just pretend it didn’t happen because you’re officials weren’t good enough to see it!

  2. DaveYid

    June 28, 2010 at 11:10 am

    I tell you this – If FIFA will ever put in video technology, it will only be when Sepp Blatter retires. He is a technophobe which isn’t good for the 21st century really.

    He probably still sends messages to other FIFA contacts by homing pidgeons.

  3. Danny

    June 28, 2010 at 11:21 am

    When i got home, i watched the replays and what i saw is England score a perfectly good equaliser, then Germany score two break away goals to make it 4-1 because England were overcommitting in attempting to get the leveller. If it was 2-2, then you don’t have to overcommit, the game is completely changed. I used to love the film ‘Back To The Future’ one tiny changed detail and history changes forever.. and its true.. just think, how many England fans made love to their wife last night…probably not many.. but the Germans were probably full of love… on the back of a disallowed goal we could have a new Hitler instead of a new Winston Churchill….who says it doesn’t matter!

  4. Brush

    June 28, 2010 at 11:22 am

    It’s only a game! I enjoy the fact that it is still a human controlled game. Mistakes happen in all walks of life and controversy keeps it interesting. I actually go to games and I don’t want to have it interrupted whilst some other human interprets video pictures. Look at rugby, they have to wait quite a while for decisions to be given, and even then they’re disputed. Keep it simple and contentious!

  5. Danny

    June 28, 2010 at 11:39 am

    try telling that to Shankly! Its a lot more than a game now… never mind the financial implications, its also about pride and it genuinely affects lives! I for one would feel much happier if i wasn’t writing this right now and was talking about Englands fantastic comeback against Germany.. we did it, scored the goal, but it doesn’t count…sorry mate, but you’re wrong!

  6. Dave Jones

    June 28, 2010 at 11:49 am

    technology needs to introduced now not in 10 years time. Look what happened to Ireland and that hand ball. That was the biggest mistake ever and lost the irish economy millions of pounds.
    Things need to change and sett blatter needs to be sacked.
    Players and squads are judged on the results and is not fair if loose matches because of stupid referees. There is to much money involved in the game now.
    What will happen if a national team looses the world cup final due to lack of goal line technology……….

  7. Simon Campbell

    June 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    David,

    With the greatest respect I totally disagree. Any attempt to introduce football technology is doomed to failure. To illustrate lets use Lampards shot/goal yesterday as an example.

    You incorrectly indicate that replays of Lampard’s goal was almost instant. Actually the first replay was after the ball went dead. Under any form of technology introduced, a decision could realistically only be made when the ball went dead. Yesterday the ball bounced down and into the German keepers hand. Quickly he then launched a counter attack which led to a German shot. It took about 30 seconds for the ball to go dead.

    Now imagine if you will that Germany had scored. You’d then have the farcical situation whereby the score would have been momentarily 3-1, only for it to be changed to 2-2 after checking the original shot. It would be ridiculous.

    What would happen to the irrelevant 30 (conceivably it could be much longer) seconds? The clock would have to go back to the original time I assume and that would create a greater stoppage. What would happen to professional fouls occurring in that time? Imagine Terry as final man bringing down a German in the counter attack. I suppose it wouldn’t count as these 30 seconds actually wouldn’t really exist? Fine you might say but what about violent conduct? That should count I assume, but is it fair that Terry should be sent off for knee high challenge in a period of the game that through no fault of his own should never have happened!!

    There are similar problems with appeals systems. Let’s take the German third goal as an example. England takes a free kick and Lampard strikes it into the wall. The ball breaks but Lampard appeals for a handball. If the wall was in the box he might feel that this is worthy of an appeal. Would he be able to appeal? Would it just be the Captain or the manager? Let’s say it falls to the captain and he has only 5 seconds to appeal. Well most worryingly 5 seconds later Barry had been robbed and the Germans were counter attacking. What’s to stop Gerrard from appealing cynically to stop the counter attack? All players dive and cheat in the modern game. Any appeal system would be open to wide abuse.

    If you extend technology to events other than the goal line then these problems are still apparent and in fact are multiplied. Also where do you draw the line in the sand? The English league is deemed the most exciting in the world and this due to the frenetic pace of the game. Your misguided belief that technology would improve the game actually would do the opposite. Slow down the pace, increase stoppage and as a result make the game duller and more boring.

    The answer is a simple one, additional goal line assistants as they have introduced in the Europa League. This would allow the game to flow and cut down on the amount of goal line mistakes. More officials would remove the burden of linesman to try and make these decisions hopefully letting them focus on the offside decisions that due to the increased speed of the game are in my opinion the most difficult decisions for the human eye to judge.

  8. YNWA

    June 28, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Don’t make excuses….’what goes round, comes round’ 66?, England were HAMMERED by quality, in which we lack in buckets……..when it comes to playing against quality players, Rooney and co, are just NOT good enough!!!!!!!!!

  9. YNWA

    June 28, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Dave Jones……..technology, should have been in place, after 1966…………where were you than?

  10. Dave Jones

    June 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    to YNWA
    i was only a thought in my fathers head.

    Simon
    Yeah can see your point….. well but across. More officials might be the answer. It has been used in the europa league last season and no major problems. Will be interesting to see how this developes.

    On another note. When Capello is sacked tomorrow can you see him been next liverpool manager.
    Would it be good appointment?????

  11. Danny

    June 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Simon, I get your point, it would be difficult, but not impossible. In the majority of cases the ball is dead immediately…mexico Argentina for instance. You are right about the dead time it would cause problems, but two wrongs don’t make a right… I love your example…In this instance, the game should be 2-2 not 3-1 and this for me is EXACTLY why there has to be technology, because it is wrong!!!!!! Simple fact is… England scored, so should everything change…. yes…damn right! two wrongs will never make a right! Imagine this situation.. you’re at a party, someone rapes someone…you get found guilty and sent to prison…then the culprit is caught… but you are told sorry, but we can’t change the decision… and you have to stay in prison for another 10 years! Is this right or wrong? Just because its football doesn’t mean you can ignore the fact that an injustice has been done.

  12. Voland

    June 28, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Spot on David.

    Sepp Blatter and others who blocked the introduction of video technology should resign in shame.

  13. Simon Campbell

    June 28, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Danny,

    I’m afraid I do not agree that in the majority of the cases with goal line decisions the ball goes dead immediately. By the nature of the uncertainty of these decisions the ball usually bounces down on the line and out. It is unlikely that it would bounce down and then over or wide. Of course the other alternative is that it bounces down and then in but of course there’d be no problem in that eventuality! I accept that more often than not the ball goes dead within 5-10 seconds but not always and even then that additonal 10 seconds could lead to problematic decisons.

    Even if you could show to me the ball went dead 90%+ of the time then the clear reality is that you can’t introduce a rule change, particularly not a fundamental one based on this.

    The rules of the game must cover for all eventualities and when considering rule changes you must consider worst case scenarios. It is unlikely to lead to a goal on the counter attack but if it did what would happen?

    I’d say that to date any suggestion with regards technology changes is full of inconsistencies and ambuiguities. Perhaps more detrimental is that the change could lead to absurd passges of non-play and the slowing of the game.

    Two wrongs though don’t make a right I agree. The current situation is untenabale but I genuienly feel that introducing technology would actually prove counter productive to the development of the game. As with regards extra goal line officials, I see no such inconsistencies and it requires no fundamental change to the rules of the game.

    Finally, and I don’t think this is a controversial point, I’m going to suggest that the debate on goal line technology and how to deal with the false imprisionment of someone for rape are……lets say slightly different.

  14. tom hallahan

    June 28, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    If the ref can stop the game for some diver rolling around to get attention – he can stop the game to review all goals and disallowed goals. On top of that, give each team two questionble call reviews per half.
    The time-interruption arguement is bogus. Between divers, real injuries, time-wasting, players argueing with refs, substitutions and other stoppages, each game of football has an average of 65 minutes of actual playing time. Considering the following incidents;
    Henry hand-ball against Ireland
    USA two good goals disallowed
    England one good goal disallowed
    Mexico shafted by off-side goal
    Kaka sent off for some Ivorian fairy went down like he’d been shot

    in each of the above cases – the ENTIRE WORLD knew that a wrong decision had been made, less than ten seconds after the incident. Even the ref and linesman in the Argentina/Mexico yetserday knew they got it wrong because they could see it on the giant jumbotrons, but because of BLatter’s insistence that technology can’t be used, they couldn’t over-rule themselves.
    blatter needs to go. He’s guilty of fixing elections and bribery. He’s never played or coached football – in fact he’s never held a proper job in either football or business. That man has no business being head of FIFA. Roy Keane got it right about the prawn-cocktail crowd.

    • YNWA

      June 28, 2010 at 3:52 pm

      All this talk about stopping tha game, why?, you do NOT need to stop the game at all…….The referee gives it as he sees it at the time…..relays, by communication to fourth official, to view the video, than after a decision is made, the fourth relays back to the Referee, which in turn, makes HAND signals, which all players should become familiar with, which translates to GOAL or no Goal……………..SIMPLE

  15. Jose

    June 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Its time England to go back to the drawing Board and solve problems they have . And if they can identify them it will be so good. To mention but a few, The england press is damaging football industry in England , The element of being proud , The referees in the EPL also contrubute to the Failure of the national team , The lack of English Born Players in other leagues is also a big Factor . Why do i say all these its because when you look at the team which defeated England yestarday it was full of combined nations , To mention but a few Ghana, Poland , Turkey, Brazil , Tunisia . There fore the germany team is composed of players there origins are from above mentioned countries , that shows that Germanies are no longer proud of them selves like the English People. i will Add on tomorrow

  16. Danny

    June 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Simon, I agree with the difficulty over the dead ball, but something has to change! Tom has just highlighted some massive injustices and some very easy to correct. In all of the above, a replay would have resolved it correctly inside 30 seconds. I don’t want a game to be stopping every 5 mins and going to videa, but again Tom has it nailed. In tennis you get three challenges. Thats it! No more. Why can’t we have this, maybe just two. So in total a possible 4 challenges , an extra 4 minutes of play, because teams only have two, they won’t be stupid with them, so in all probability they won’t get used in most matches, but if they did how different things might be, Ireland at the world cup, england still in it, Maradona’s HOG goal disallowed, and the list could go on. Its not difficult, FIFA preaches fair play, but the French beating Ireland because Henri cheated is not fair play. Its wrong , so its about time they made it right.

  17. Simon Campbell

    June 28, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    YNWA, your suggestion would make football the only sport where a crucial decision is being made by video technology whilst the game continues on around it. That’s simply not workable.

    In this scenario the ref remains in charge (I assume) of referring the decision to the video ref. So Lampard’s shot hits the bar and bounces down. Once there is no certainty between ref and linesman he waves play on, whilst at the same point letting the video ref know he is referring the incident. Obviously in a perfect world the video ref would understand this instantly and wouldn’t need confirmation. He’ll probably pick up on the ref making the sign of a TV with his fingers to highlight that it is being referred to the video ref!

    I would suggest that it would take 30 seconds for the footage to be reviewed and relayed back to the ref (in worst case scenarios where the first view is blocked it would possibly be longer). Everyone bandies around the figure of 10 seconds but seriously where does this come from? In every sport where there is video technology it takes between 30-90 seconds for the decision to be made from initial referral to decision relayed back to the ref/umpire.

    You still have the problem of irrelevant football I refer to above. If you accept that in worst case scenario it could be longer as the first view might be blocked then you are stuck in the same sort of limbo you were in before.

    In addition players and managers would surely want to know what the decision is wouldn’t they? In your scenario even though the game is continuing on everyone is keeping an eye on the ref for the video decision. Ludicrous!

    Obviously the decision would be relayed with perfect clarity because when people play football they always look at the ref when the game is still in play!! He’d give the hand signal for a goal (or what about a Klinsmann style dive or Roger Milla dance!) and play would stop suddenly or more curiously he’d rub his hands against his eyes to mimic tears (the new universal sign for no goal) and even though the players may or may not see this, everyone would play on, some aware a goal had been given some not!!

    Without sounding rude….what on earth!!!!

    I think people look at this problem the wrong way round. They start with what they see to be the solution, Video Technology, and then try and fit it to the problem. The problem is what is the best way of reducing the amount of incorrect decisions made in football without disrupting the flow of the game?

    You can see based on my previous posts that there are too many uncertainties and complications associated with video technology. Based on that adding two, maybe four officials, (consider how many line judges you have in tennis) to assist the ref in making the right decision doesn’t seem too complicated does it? No one yet has suggested any flaw with this plan and the only one that could exist I suppose is human error.

    My final point therefore is this. Football is not meant to be an exact science. There will be mistakes and people need to accept this. Let’s try and reduce the amount of game changing mistakes but don’t expect football to ever be mistake free. One of the beautiful things about the sport is that broadly the game people play on Sunday is the same one replicated in the World Cup final. It is most commonly called the simple game. My suggestion is that we keep it that way.

  18. Danny

    June 28, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    why oh why do we have to accept mistakes??? ill ask again..why?
    Im not suggesting its the refs decision. There is a 4th official who can have all the benefits of technology, can even be reviewing the decisions whilst play continues. In rugby it takes 30 seconds, not a problem! Im not saying there shouldn’t be more officials, there should be and this could help eliminate mistakes, possibly one behind each goal. But…and i repeat but… mistakes should not be accepted…this isn’t a spelling error that needs correction… its a massive football game, with millions of people affected by the decision… did you know that the Blackpool Cardiff game was worth 92 million, minimum to the winner…nothing for the loser! Im sorry with that at stake you cannot have mistakes! You say its not workable, but of course it is! So worse case scenario there is 4 disruptions to play! After the Maradona goal, the England players were surrounding the ref, it took alot longer than 2 minutes , same for the Mexico game.. So instead of negative disruptions lets have positive ones, get real… in 66 the technology wasn’t there but now it is and its criminal not to use it! Period. The manager makes the call, the 4th official reviews and its announced on screen easy! and the crowd would love it… drum role…whats the decision…. goal! and everybody roars fantastic…thats entertainment for me..and more importantly there is justice!!!!

  19. YNWA

    June 28, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Simon Campbell … I will not add to the comments, already been made, by the above, ‘written by Danny’, in which he made it very clear that, it is workable, maybe it is too simple, for some, but it’s always the simple ideas that seem to work. Nothing is foolproof but, it IS workable.

  20. ThomAlexander

    June 29, 2010 at 11:29 am

    I agree to an extent with Simon Campbell, that unless there is some sort of instant beep, or notification to the referee that takes less than a couple of seconds, it’s almost unworkable to use video technology. If there is a laser technology that gives instant yes/no decisions, that might be workable, but you can’t stop a game and review decisions.

    Would you even want to do that? Imagine the scenario where a team is attacking in the last minutes, and they hit the bar with the ball bouncing on the line. It’s a packed penalty box. Does the attacking team want play stopped so they can review the incident (which may or may not be in their favour) or does that attacking team want to continue the game in a massively advantageous position? It will depend on the context.

    My fear with using technology is that it will be overused. Using it to decide a goal is fine, but it would be ridiculous to use it for deciding a penalty, or if a player was the last man, or if a player handled the ball. At what point do you stop? Do you challenge throw ins, corners, yellow cards? There are around 35 fouls per game on average, 8-10 corners, and numerous other contentious decisions. At what point do we say that the referee has to make a call?

    I like the idea that a referee could “mark” incidents in the game, as they do in rugby league. If the referee doesn’t see an off the ball clash, he can signal to the stands that he wants this incident marked, and reviewed. This would reduce players trying to get each other sent off, as incidents would be reviewed after the game.

    The worst idea of all is the idea that managers can get “challenges” during the game. This might work in some sports, but how long would it be before this was used tactically, to wind down the clock? How often would a referee’s decision need to be questioned? There does need to be some respect for the decisions of the referee.

    If technology was used for anything other than “was this ball over the goal line”, then we’d get 10+ minutes of injury time in every game, and an American football amount of stoppages.

  21. Simon Campbell

    June 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    ThomAlexander, Bless you! At last someone who can see the point I was making. I spent a bit of time yesterday looking at the technological options available. The ‘chip in the ball’ for over the goal line incidents is the only one that is viable. This is on the basis that the technology could relay the information via a vibration to the ref almost instantly. If this was 100% proven to work all the time then there would be no stoppages, no appeal system I’d still be reluctant to make this change but…hey even I could be a convert!

    The argument that the pro-technology writers make above is that the most important thing is to eradicate mistakes. We must make this change now they say! Well consider these “mistakes” if you will:

    It would be a mistake to increase the amount of stoppages in the modern game,
    It would be a mistake to introduce a rule that is open to abuse, or tactical manipulation by managers or players,
    It would be a mistake to have irrelevant passages of play which would occur after the incident,
    It would be a mistake to allow subjective decisions to be open to review (offside, penalties, professional fouls etc),
    It would be a mistake to have a review system in place whilst the game continues around it,
    It would be a mistake to introduce an ambiguous rule which works only some of the time.

    I could go on but I have limited the “mistakes” to things that would actually impact on the game. Yes I accept you could introduce technology and ensure that no incorrect decisions ever occurred again. In fact you could make changes to all aspects of the game:

    You could eradicate serious injuries by making the game non-contact,
    You could increase the number of goals by making the goals bigger,
    You could even state that if it ever goes to penalties all teams playing against England must take their penalties blindfolded!

    We choose not to make these changes because the repercussions would fundamentally alter the game of football that has worked fine for well over 100 of years or so. To make such a change you need to be 100% sure it would improve the game in every aspect and that involved considering how the changes would impact on football as a spectacle.

    When you accept this you are left in no doubt that the “costs” to the way the game is played, far outweighs the “benefits” of introducing video technology.

    Admit it everyone….I’ve converted you!!

  22. hwjc

    June 30, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Simon: well done for fabricating a whole line of reasoning based on several fallacies.

    Fallacy 1: the replay was only broadcast when play had come to a halt because TV companies always wait for a break in play. It’s wrong to state that it was only available at that time. You’d know that already whenever you have your TV remote to hand. The facilities in a TV booth would be far greater than that.

    Fallacy 2: you assert it would be ridiculous for a secondary event to be ruled out if an earlier event superceded it, but you haven’t stated why. Time goes forward, not backwards. Perhaps time works differently in your world, but not anyone else’s.

    Fallacy 3: That the added time required to review an important aspect of the game would impact negatively. Currently the statistics tell us that the ball is often in play for less than 60 minutes out of 90. In the England Germany it was relatively high at 66 minutes according to Fifa at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/matches/round=249717/match=300061501/index.html – did you notice? Where did those 24 minutes plus injury time go? Did you miss them? Personally, I’d have liked 30 seconds to be “wasted” on getting a decision right rather than have week upon week of hand-wringing based on the failure of the officials to uphold the laws of the game, which is, after all, their sole purpose.

    Fallacy 4: You repeatedly talk about a law change. Please explain what law would be changed? A goal is still a goal. A foul is still a foul. An offside is still an offside. All laws remain precisely the same. What you really mean to say is that an operational procedure needs to be in place to adjudicate the laws of the game exactly as they are currently written. In that case, yes. This, however, is the challenge that the administrators of a multi-billion £\$\€ game are there to solve.

    Fifa\Uefa\FA make the mistake of thinking it’s their game and all they have to do is buy up the best hotels, and swan around in the lap of luxury while ripping people off week after week all over the world in the company of their commercial partners. It’s not. It’s our game and we deserve the right to reject the adulterated officiating players and fans are currently having to suffer.

    We do not require the moronic excuse-making of flunkies like you giving them an excuse for their inadequacies when we can all see that football has become the laughing stock of world sport.

    You admit it – you’d rather have bad decision-making, wrong results, incompetence, excuse making rather than the simple game played to the rules and you think lazy fat and corrupt administrators like Blatter should be allowed to get away with the constant drivel they spout.

    Frankly, you disgust me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *