>>>>>You wait. If we don't win it this year it'll be from such a decision, and we'll end up losing out on the old penalty shoot-out.
>>>
>>>
>>>England? Win it? Whith what? They sucked big time. The only reason they won was a good shot from Beckham and a galie that was not positioned properly and should have studied Beckham expertise in those types of shots and be more prepared. IMHO they did not deserve the win.
>>
>>Nonsense! Admitted, England didn't play well the 1st half but the 2nd they were great. Several shots were on target but were saved.
>>
>>Deserve it or no, it's not always that England manage to get through the group stage without relying on such-and-such losing or whatever. Tournaments in the past they HAVE looked like deserving to win but have been robbed by crap refs and/or linesmen (ARs). So maybe it's our turn to play rubbish but scrape through to lifting the cup. After all, as you know, there have been so many bad decisions this tournament (and that's WITHOUT allowing a man to stay on with 3 yellow cards against him!)
>>
>>You never know, ENgland teams in the past have struggled in the earlier stages but shone in the later, only to be shafted by cheats and/or bad refereeing.
>>
>>I was rooting for plucky Australia (dreams of an England-Australia "Test Match" final) and the result WAS a travesty. It's well time that the tyranny of the "ref's decision is final" (a rule set up before TV) was amended to allow viewing of TV footage in cases of disputed decisions. It's far too unfair that a team can lose because one man is blind, or stupid, or too stubborn to retract his knee-jerk, unconsidered reaction.
>>
>
>(snip)
>
>I have also questioned the referee's call but would not for one instant consider it knee-jerk or unconsidered. If he had it in his mind to nefariously nudge Italy into the next round, he surely would have done it a more subtle way than a PK call in the 94th minute. He had to make the call right away. You can't wait -- wait even two seconds and play has moved on and it's too late. I'm sure he made the call the way he saw it.

I'm not saying that the ref was biased. I just think that he should be more flexible - amenable to advice, esp. from the 2 ARs. I know we don't want the game stopped every few minutes while the "McEnroes" of football argue the toss with the ref. But, when a man's continuance in the tornament is threatened by a red card, or where a penalty may be awarded, or a goal was disputed (did it actually cross the line 100%? was that a defender's hand-ball that deflected a certainty away? Was he actually fouled in the area or did he fall, et (a few) al), WAS IT OFFSIDE!!!??? (and here the linesmen are JUST as much to blame) - Hell where a country may be getting robbed of their just desserts!

As for knee-jerk. A linesman or ref flag or blow on an instant's decision. Then they don't want to lose face by admitting they were wrong, esp. if this has now stopped the game and a player was in, say, a good position to score.

>
>That said, instant replay in the World Cup might not be a bad idea. It's contrary to the essential value of continuous play, and I'm sure fans around the world would scornfully count out the seconds of review time, but ultimately you want the call to be right.
>
>I don't know if instant replay would have done any good yesterday. I watched it at least five times and still don't know whether it was a trip or a dive.

I agree. You never know when a running man, imparted with just that little extra un-allowed-for nudge may be on an inexorable downward trajectory. Look at the "pit maneouvre" that your cops practise - a car at speed gets a little judiciously placed nudge and ends up in a spin.