FIFA Goal of the Year in 2013 ... Have your say now

Just go here to the FIFA You Tube Channel and have a look, and vote.

I have to give credit to FIFA here as there were a couple in there they had to dig deep for, and was wiling to put them up to vote on. In other words, not every goal here is from a mens international or club match. While I expect such a goal to carry the day, it was refreshing to see something else too.

They are all spectacular however.

If a Ball is in the Back of the Net, is it a goal?

Special thanks to Elie for this one.



Goal or not?

Just watch and enjoy

2 Balls + 1 Goal == Big Trouble

Special thanks to Erich and Angelo for this one!

Goal? No Goal? Something else?

Comment away!!

On Means In ?! It Just Might Work

For those of who who know him, or know of him, George Cumming lead the FIFA referee program, lead and consulted on several Olympics and World Cups, and oh yeah, help revise the Laws Of The Game in points of his career.

It suffices to say he is an expert, renowned, and respected on The Game.

In his blog George Cumming's Football Blog, he writes about a variety of topics about The Laws, various incidents, and soccer pop culture in general. His writings are very good, and his site is also linked to the right, as I have noted before.

Recently with all the discussion of GLT and FIFA stating they will adopt it, he came out with a couple of posts that I thought were really insightful, and one that was way out of the box thinking, that was really, really clever.

His first, Goal line technology for .01% of world football, I think is a simple, yet eloquent recitation of the reality of FIFA's decision is on GLT.

His second, Is it time to think outside the box?, is a devilishly clever idea to twist The Laws slightly to possible avoid much of the controversy. It is "out of the box" as he says, but worth considering.

Both are good reads to put GLT into perspective that we will start to see soon around the globe.

Right on cue

Fifa chief expects goal-line technology approval in July

Warsaw: Fifa president Sepp Blatter revealed that he and Franz Beckenbauer are “on the same page” over goal-line technology after the two met in Zurich on Thursday.

The Swiss reiterated the need for technology to be introduced after Euro 2012 co-hosts Ukraine were denied a goal against England in their decisive Group D fixture on Tuesday, after television replays showed that the ball had crossed the line. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of zeenews.

Kicking Back Comments: Like I said the other day, not a shocker given the recent events in the Euros. My question is ... will the technology even work?

Also of interest are some of the other matters Sepp & Co. are considering tinkering with. Interesting times as (IMHO) we see a swing away from the referee having the discretion and authority they once did.

5 Referees, and no goal

Just take a look:



Pretty clear to me ... and should have been for the AAR straddling the goal line, 7 yards away from the post, or even the AR streaking down the field.

Has Platini's experiment with (5) referees failed with this?

Does this seal the fate of goal line technology up for a vote in a couple of weeks?

Sepp tweeted to that effect saying that goal line technology was now a "necessity."

A good article from SF Gate, "England's Luck Changes as Euros Officials Miss Ukraine Goal" covers these angles and more.

Maybe it was luck ... maybe it was poor refereeing ... maybe it was mana from heaven where the "Soccer Gods" smiled on England for a change in this regard.

In any event, I think sadly, it made goal line technology a lock for future matches.

Another case for technology

I don't know folks ... take a peek before reading on.

The ball defiantly crossed the line, and should have been a goal. My issue comes with the JAR in this case. He is in pretty good position. Optimally he should be on the goal line as the 2nd to last defender (the GK in this case) is there. Last defender in this case is standing off the field, but as well all (should) know, a defender can not step off the end line to create an offside situation.

In this case folks ... I think it was just a blown call and completely distinct from the goal from 2010 between GER v. ENG that I described in Bye - Bye Uruguay where the AR had no chance to make the call when the ball crossed the goal line.

Here, the JAR did very clearly have that chance to make the right call, and I am sure without it, continued to stoke the fires of the need for goal line technology.

Casper the friendly goal scorer

Ghost Goals That Haunt Soccer
When Is a Goal Actually a Goal?; The Six Arguments Against Technological Progress

It's one of the great mysteries of soccer: In a sport where the objective is to score goals, why do we put up with needless uncertainty about whether the ball has actually crossed the line? Why doesn't soccer use the technological tools at its disposal to objectively determine whether the very raison d'être of the game has actually taken place?

Soccer has a long history of so-called ghost goals. These are situations in which the ball crosses the line and comes back out, but the officials fail to award the score. Usually this happens when it's cleared by the goalkeeper or a defender on or behind the line. Sometimes, a long-range shot will hit the underside of the bar, bounce straight down behind the line and then, heavy with backspin, carom out like a billiard shot. Occasionally the ball does not cross the line but the officials fail to notice and give the goal. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of the WSJ.

Kicking Back Comments: An interesting opinion piece that in spots I share the opinion, spots is thoughtful, and spots is just technically incorrect. It is worth a read none the less. At the end of the day though, while I am a technologist, I am not an advocate for technology in this case. One point that I strongly agree with is that such incidents create drama (the author call it debate ... but that is too narrow for me). Drama is why many tolerate a 1 - 0 match, or a 0 - 0 draw. It is in the knowledge that something unexpected can occur, without the intervention of someone sitting in a glass booth somewhere. Let it be determined by those who "feel" the match, referee inclusive.

Let The Game be. Don't try and fix something that is just fine all by itself.

You would think ...

... the video clip yesterday was a fluke and could never happen again, right? Or maybe more pointed, never happen in YOUR match.

Wrong! Take a look below. Goal, no goal, something else? Vote ==>

Goal or No Goal?

Look here, and vote on the right ==>.

FA killed the video star

For all who looked in the last couple of days at Nah Nah Nani, you may have noticed a change.

The video is gone as the FA has claimed a copyright violation.

Strange huh ...

Not really I think. In fact I am surprised it took this long.

To me while I am all for protection of intellectual property rights, and being trained in the law I understand that it is necessary to patrol such marks to effectively enforce them in the future, I do not think this is why the video was pulled.

If so, this one would not be available:



Right?

How about this one?



Nope, not that one either ... Hmmm, that's odd. What could it be?

My guess, the FA is deathly embarrassed about this one and while it can serve as a great lesson for those who view it, they are not looking at the larger picture, and pulled it.

Too bad actually, as it is a good lesson on many fronts.

Here was the live look ... also still on You Tube:



I don't expect any of these to get pulled any time soon.

Finally, and just to rub salt in the wound, here is a post game interview with Harry Redknapp, manager of the Spurs on the incident by ESPN back on 30-OCT-10:



I don't expect this to get pulled either, but Harry while threatened with getting pulled himself, or at least fined substantially, was let off free with a rap on the knuckles and a lecture from the FA about the responsibility of the manager.

For me this compounds just how embarrassed the FA is about the whole thing.

Next time I've saving the video.

Nah Nah Nani

Kicking Back gives special thanks to Steve for bringing this one forward for publishing.

For those who have not seen this bizarre goal between Man U and Tottenham back on 30-OCT-2010, take a look below, or at the link here.

A disclaimer - My answer here is not a "book" answer. While I will answer the more technical aspects of this catastrophe, I will not cite chapter and verse the LOTG, but rather reference it, this will focus more on management than rules of THE game.

In this clip, we are treated to a chain of events where several mistakes were made by the players, and I would opine the referee. Lets review the sequence of major events:

• Man U #17 (Nani) received a ball in the Tottenham penalty area and was possibly fouled by Tottenham #4 (Kaboul) at the corner of the 6 yard box, in front of the Tottenham net.
• The ball is picked up by the Tottenham GK (da Silva Gomes) and placed at about 12 yards from goal. His demeanor indicated he believed there was a free kick.
• From the video and reports the referee had not stopped play in any way, and the JAR had not indicated anything.
• All the players (all that can be seen in the video) react as if the play was stopped and a free kick was about to be taken.
• Nani jogs to the ball, steps up, and shoots the ball into the net while the GK looked to about to take what seemed to be a free kick.
• Referee and JAR allow the goal making it 2 - 0 Man U in about the 86'.
• Understandable protests erupt inside the field.

Now, take a close look at the video, at 0:30 and 0:34. The referee, Mark Clattenburg, pretty clearly signals something strikingly resembling a play on signal. This first signal seemed to be at the GK (as Nani was on the floor) and the second one seemed to be at Nani as he was looking in that direction.

So that's what happened. What do I think?

The referee blew this one - badly.

Why?

This whole episode did not comport with the spirit of the game, despite complying with the LOTG.

Now, technically, if the referee or JAR believed there was no foul by either Kaboul (trip), or Nani (offside or handball) and allowed the play to continue, the result is a valid goal. No stoppage. Goal. There is no reason for another result. Shame on the GK for putting the ball down, and bravo for Nani for taking advantage.

If a foul was called on any of the above, the restart should have been for the foul. It would stand to reason that the referee did not call one, as he allowed the goal to stand. Reports of the incident agree that no foul was called.

So now what? Do we allow such a goal to stand as referees? One that while technically correct, is against the spirit of the game? Where is the spirit of the game enumerated in the LOTG?

It's not in text, and that's why this is such a difficult decision.

So a couple of folks may be leaning back in their chair and saying, "So we are supposed to not allow a goal, not based in the LOTG, but some ethereal aspect that is not in text anywhere, called "spirit"?"

Yes.

This is the type of decision that turns a person who "enforces the rules", into a referee that is respected by players, coaches, and those who love the game.

It's easy to enforce the rules really. The most difficult part is to manage the players in such a way as to let them know you have THE games best interest at heart.

Letting Man U score a goal in a way that openly takes advantage of such confusion is contrary to the spirit of THE game, and as the referee was the cause for some of that confusion, part of this is on him.

So now what? How does a referee legitimately restart the game in such a case to nullify the goal? Making something up out of whole cloth is just as detrimental to the spirit of the game as is what actually happened.

1. If they believe there was a foul, call the foul. In this case Nani may well have been legitimately busted for handling when he got up off the floor. Restart there. This may very well have been what the GK was reacting to.
2. Drop the ball. Law 8 allows the referee to drop the ball if the ball is in play and required to stop play for any reason not mentioned in the LOTG. This situation could be such a reason. Now I will say, this would be a tough sell at the EPL level ... but just as allowed per the LOTG.

For me, at the heart of this issue is the question if a player should be allowed to use the LOTG to circumvent the spirit of THE game.

My answer is a clear no. Exceptional referees apply the laws to obtain the right result for THE game, not just follow them like a set of directions that can result in unjust results, such as this goal.

Goal?

Hilarius story from Running a Hospital about soccer, a turkey, and a goal.

All courtesy of Paul Levy.