Face it guys, FIFA hates us.

[Footy Smarts]

I'm arguing the linesman has correctly enforced the offside rule.

If there is a shred of doubt (and in this case, there is stacks of doubt from his vantage point), he must give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt, which is what he did.

Haha you really are an idiot. The replays clearly show him offside yet you persist with this "benefit of the doubt" theory. In cricket say a batsmen clearly edges to the keeper and is caught. But the umpire gives it not out because he didn't hear it. What's your reaction? Mine is that the fielding team is unlucky because an incorrect decision was made.

Replays clearly showed the incorrect decision was made. If Smeltz was almost level with the defender I can understand the benefit of the doubt but he was at least a meter offside. Compared to most offsides this was about as clear cut as it comes. The intention of the rule is to favour attacking sides in the case of a borderline decision but there was nothing borderline about this.

With the Italian pen, the ref was simply conned, you know it, I know it, the whole world knows, and even De Rossi admitted it to Nelson straight away!

Conned into paying a penalty for a shirt pull? Yes. But the shirt was pulled. De Rossi's run was impeded by a shirt pull so it should be a penalty. Just because you don't like how de Rossi went about it, being more intent on winning the penalty than the ball, the shirt pull was clear. In the international media that penalty hasn't created the slightest stir because it was correctly paid. Many reports have not liked how de Rossi played for it but that's different to disagreeing with the decision. If the penalty hadn't been paid it would've been mentioned in every report about the game because people who know the rules, which you clearly don't (or in this case the rules simply don't suit your idiotic agenda), know that it was a penalty.

 

[Barkly St End]

^^ not too sure why you have decided to just talk about Australia - the phenomenon of refs favouring larger nations goes back decades and is clearly observable at every WC - the one time where it wasn't as observable was in 2002 (and the reason for that not too hard to fathom).

The whole world knows it - but the world accepts it because at the end of the day, the world only wants to see the better nations and doesn't really give a damn about the likes of Aust and NZ.

 

[Barkly St End]

Haha you really are an idiot. The replays clearly show him offside yet you persist with this "benefit of the doubt" theory. In cricket say a batsmen clearly edges to the keeper and is caught. But the umpire gives it not out because he didn't hear it. What's your reaction? Mine is that the fielding team is unlucky because an incorrect decision was made.

Why are you talking about cricket?

I'm talking about the enforcement of the offside rule in soccer, and if the linesman is in doubt, he must favour the attacking team.

So correct call.

 

[Footy Smarts]

^^ not too sure why you have decided to just talk about Australia - the phenomenon of refs favouring larger nations goes back decades and is clearly observable at every WC - the one time where it wasn't as observable was in 2002 (and the reason for that not too hard to fathom).

The whole world knows it - but the world accepts it because at the end of the day, the world only wants to see the better nations and doesn't really give a damn about the likes of Aust and NZ.

I talked just about Australia to show you how biased media coverage is. It's also the instances that I know best. It is 1 example of the media claiming certian nations are favoured when that isn't the case.

Keep convincing yourself the "the whole world knows it". The more you say it without any evidence the less likely it is to be true. It's like North Korea saying "we are democratic, we are democratic, we are democratic". Saying it louder and louder doesn't make it true.

 

[Barkly St End]

I talked just about Australia to show you how biased media coverage is.

I'm not talking about media coverage.

I'm saying that the whole soccer world knows, understands and accepts that refs favour the more significant soccer countries.

A bit like we all know that a political party will look after any large corporation that gives it donations.

You don't need to prove it - it's an accepted fact.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Why are you talking about cricket?

I'm talking about the enforcement of the offside rule in soccer, and if the linesman is in doubt, he must favour the attacking team.

So correct call.

I was talking about cricket to give a different example of how stupid your logic is.

By your logic it's impossible for the linesman to be incorrect by not raising his flag. By definition, if he doesn't give offside then he must be in doubt about whether it was offside hence not raising the flag must always have been the correct decision.

The problem is that the offside rule isn't actually what you say it is. The offside rule is very clear and doesn't in any way refer to the referee being in doubt or favouring the attacking team. It is very clear about when a player is in an offside position, and when it is an offence to be there and it never mentions any benefit of any doubt going to either team. See page 31 for the details:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf

 

[Barkly St End]

I was talking about cricket to give a different example of how stupid your logic is.

By your logic it's impossible for the linesman to be incorrect by not raising his flag. By definition, if he doesn't give offside then he must be in doubt about whether it was offside hence not raising the flag must always have been the correct decision.

The problem is that the offside rule isn't actually what you say it is. The offside rule is very clear and doesn't in any way refer to the referee being in doubt or favouring the attacking team. It is very clear about when a player is in an offside position, and when it is an offence to be there and it never mentions any benefit of any doubt going to either team. See page 31 for the details:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf

There is a FIFA edict that if the linesman is in doubt, he must favour the attacking team.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I'm not talking about media coverage.

I'm saying that the whole soccer world knows, understands and accepts that refs favour the more significant soccer countries.

A bit like we all know that a political party will look after any large corporation that gives it donations.

You don't need to prove it - it's an accepted fact.

So what does the "whole soccer world" encompass? Not me apparently. Not the soccer media. Not the soccer governing bodies. Not soccer playing nations around the world (good luck finding 1 Italian/Englishman/Brazilian, etc that thinks that they are favoured by referees and it's due to FIFA corruption). Does the "whole soccer world" involve a fue disenfranchised AFL fans that watch a couple of games every 4 years and don't know the rules? If that's the case then you might have a point that the "whole soccer world knows"

 

[Barkly St End]

that thinks that they are favoured by referees and it's due to FIFA corruption).

I don't put it down solely to FIFA corruption.

In the words of one Kiwi player, their ref was starstruck.

You get refs from 3rd world countries coming to the WC, and quite naturally, they get star struck by having to officiate games involving millionaires.

 

[Footy Smarts]

There is a FIFA edict that if the linesman is in doubt, he must favour the attacking team.

Proof? Let me guess "the whole soccer world" knows yes?

 

[Footy Smarts]

I don't put it down solely to FIFA corruption.

In the words of one Kiwi player, their ref was starstruck.

You get refs from 3rd world countries coming to the WC, and quite naturally, they get star struck by having to officiate games involving millionaires.

So what is it? Do the referees just make mistakes (like in any other sport) or is it blatant corruption like you suggest in post #26 in this topic?

Just to remind you KevinCat07 said "...It's all scripted from the start..." and you replied with "The more Australians come to understand this, the better off we'll all be".

So which is it? Corruption from FIFA right the way down (which you've claimed and had no proof of) or referees being human and making mistakes? I'd certainly agree with the second part. They do make mistakes. Like The NZ goal the other night or Luis Fabiano's 2nd goal or Klose's red card, etc. But clearly they make mistakes that go both ways.

 

[Barkly St End]

Proof? Let me guess "the whole soccer world" knows yes?

My mistake, it was a UEFA edict, not a FIFA edict.

Check this site out:
http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm

Scroll down to 2003, and you will read this pronouncement from UEFA, and I quote:

At the UEFA’s Referees' Committee held on Saturday 20 December 2003, the following general conclusions and recommendations were made.

Attention is drawn to the following decisions made at the third UEFA seminar for international Assistant Referees for the benefit of international football in Europe by adopting a standard approach in the performances of Assistant Referees.

Offside

1. It was noted again that there had been no changes in the offside law for the season 2003/04, nor any extra IFAB or FIFA directives.
2. If an assistant referee is not totally sure about an offside offence the flag should not be raised (i.e. in case of doubt benefit must be given to the attacking team).
​

I thought that somewhere along the line this interpretation has also been accepted by FIFA - but I might be wrong there - although it seems odd that a major confederation like UEFA would have a different interpretation to the rest of the world - that doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Footy Smarts]

My mistake, it was a UEFA edict, not a FIFA edict.

Check this site out:
http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm

Scroll down to 2003, and you will read this pronouncement from UEFA, and I quote:

At the UEFA’s Referees' Committee held on Saturday 20 December 2003, the following general conclusions and recommendations were made.

Attention is drawn to the following decisions made at the third UEFA seminar for international Assistant Referees for the benefit of international football in Europe by adopting a standard approach in the performances of Assistant Referees.

Offside

1. It was noted again that there had been no changes in the offside law for the season 2003/04, nor any extra IFAB or FIFA directives.
2. If an assistant referee is not totally sure about an offside offence the flag should not be raised (i.e. in case of doubt benefit must be given to the attacking team).
​

I thought that somewhere along the line this interpretation has also been accepted by FIFA - but I might be wrong there - although it seems odd that a major confederation like UEFA would have a different interpretation to the rest of the world - that doesn't sound right to me.

I thought that might've been what you were reffering to and obviously this isn't a UEFA tournament. A couple of points though. Firstly this was mainly considered to be a reaction to linesman giving players offside when they were level which should in fact be ruled onside. Secondly, if the linesman says play on because he was in doubt it doesn't make it the correct decision, which is what you're implying. The fact that the linesman didn't see it, and ruled correctly on that basis doesn't make the decision itself correct. He should've seen the offside (the player wasn't anywhere near an onside position) and hence the offside should've been called. Therefore Italy can feel agrieved by the decision.

On another note have you come up with any evidence yet? Is it corruption or are the refs just "star struck"? If it's not corruption are you going to retract your previous statements to that effect?

 

[belfast_bomber]

You get refs from 3rd world countries coming to the WC, and quite naturally, they get star struck by having to officiate games involving millionaires.

What, like Graham Poll?

 

[Barkly St End]

On another note have you come up with any evidence yet? Is it corruption or are the refs just "star struck"?

I thought I made it quite clear that it's a combination of both.

Are there people on this board who would deny corruption in the world game?

That would indeed be an odd position to take.

 

[Barkly St End]

What, like Graham Poll?

Let's be honest here, Poll's problems were of an altogether different kind that would require years of professional assistance.

 

[belfast_bomber]

Let's be honest here, Poll's problems were of an altogether different kind that would require years of professional assistance.

Oh, very true. Was just making a funny joke about him being from a third world country.

Says he sitting in Ireland.

 

[Barkly St End]

Oh, very true. Was just making a funny joke about him being from a third world country.

Says he sitting in Ireland.

heh, heh, I knew it was tongue in cheek, but I missed the Irishman having a gentle dig at his near neighbour.

 

[belfast_bomber]

heh, heh, I knew it was tongue in cheek, but I missed the Irishman having a gentle dig at his near neighbour.

I'm not actually Irish. Live here, and of Irish descent, but Australian born and bred and proud of it.

But always ready to slag a pom...

 

[Footy Smarts]

I thought I made it quite clear that it's a combination of both.

Are there people on this board who would deny corruption in the world game?

That would indeed be an odd position to take.

But we're not talking about "corruption in the world game", we're talking about corruption with the refereeing. These are very different things. No doubt money talks in Football but it's very different to claim corruption in the corridors of FIFA and corruption on the field.

When a referee walks out onto the field at a world cup he does the job to the best of his ability, without bias and without considering the teams that are playing. You've continued to claim corruption in the refereeing of world cup games and continually refused to back up your claim with any evidence whatsoever. It is pitifully poor to continually make the same claim that you have, be caught out with evidence to the contrary, and refuse to retract your statements. So what will it be? Will you grow some balls and admit that there is no evidence for refereeing corruption to favour "powerful nations" or will you actually come up with some evidence? I'm willing to bet it will be more of the same weak hyperbole with no substance whatsoever.

As an aside I think the referee in the Australia Serbia game should be recognised for what a good job he did. In a high tension, at times physical game with high emotions, the referee was always in control of the teams, refereed with consistency and made the correct decision on the vast majority of occaisions. It's a credit to him for performing so well on the big stage and it's a disgrace that when Serbia didn't perform up to standard, their immediate concern was to blame the referee rather than face the fact that they didn't take their oppourtunities well enough.

 

[Barkly St End]

As an aside I think the referee in the Australia Serbia game should be recognised for what a good job he did. In a high tension, at times physical game with high emotions, the referee was always in control of the teams, refereed with consistency and made the correct decision on the vast majority of occaisions. It's a credit to him for performing so well on the big stage and it's a disgrace that when Serbia didn't perform up to standard, their immediate concern was to blame the referee rather than face the fact that they didn't take their oppourtunities well enough.

Ref did a good job this morning.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Ref did a good job this morning.

No response to the other more important part?

 

[Barkly St End]

No response to the other more important part?

Refs have always favoured stronger soccer nations.

Everyone knows it.

Everyone accepts it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Refs have always favoured stronger soccer nations.

Everyone knows it.

Everyone accepts it.

Not all of us do.
Some of us choose not to watch.

 

[Barkly St End]

Not all of us do.
Some of us choose not to watch.

I'm actually referring to within the world of soccer itself: the people that follow the game - they all accept the diving, the feigning, the time wasting, handing out silverware with pens, and the fact that the game is as corrupt as all hell - they all accept it - it's bizarre.