View Full Version : French lawyer to sue the FIFA
patati
13 Jul 2006, 03:01 AM
(in French this (http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/toute_l_info_test/sports/zidane__13_07_.html))
A French lawyer intends to sue the FIFA, claiming that the referee watched a video excerpt to find out that Zidane headbutted Materazzi.
He asks for the world cup final match to be cancelled.
The FIFA refeering exclude the use of video material during a match (as we know).
Not sure it is possible to sue the FIFA, what do you think?
leonidas
13 Jul 2006, 03:11 AM
did they show the replay in the stadium? i heard conflicting reports on this.
Ref Flunkie
13 Jul 2006, 06:42 AM
Only in France (and the US if we actually cared enough)
USSF REF
13 Jul 2006, 10:32 AM
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, no matter how obscene.
Now, how the court would force FIFA to cancel the FINAL and force it be replayed... that I have no idea. It would take an act of stupidity on the part of many levels of someones government.
Does it say what court he intends to sue them in and under what jurisdiction they have over FIFA. As far as I know FIFA is incorporated in Switzerland...
Fan123
13 Jul 2006, 10:50 AM
How are they going to prove that the 4th official LOOKED at the replay??? He'll just say he saw it with his own eyes, where is the evidence to prove otherwise?
usatowin
13 Jul 2006, 11:43 AM
The FIFA refeering exclude the use of video material during a match (as we know).
No we don't. Where does it say that? There's no official replay procedure, but where is it prohibited to use what you can't avoid seeing on the video screen? Where does it say you can't look?
Shackleton
13 Jul 2006, 01:38 PM
PR stunt.
Chastaen
13 Jul 2006, 02:33 PM
did they show the replay in the stadium? i heard conflicting reports on this.
On the English broadcast they mentioned that the replay was on the stadium video screens, and that controversial plays should not be replayed in the stadium because FIFA does not allow the use of video replay.
superdave
13 Jul 2006, 02:45 PM
Only in France (and the US if we actually cared enough)
Italy threatened to sue in 2002.
Craig P
13 Jul 2006, 02:58 PM
On the English broadcast they mentioned that the replay was on the stadium video screens, and that controversial plays should not be replayed in the stadium because FIFA does not allow the use of video replay.
On the other hand, on the FSW Report last night, WC AR Hector Vergara said that no replays were played on the screens in the stadia.
LeperKhan
13 Jul 2006, 03:09 PM
The 2 games I went to, they did not show anything remotely controversial on the big screens at the stadium. I just assumed that was the standard policy, and no reason they would change it during the final.
Fan123
13 Jul 2006, 03:25 PM
Balboa said that they were replaying the incident on the screen, but I know better than to trust him. Is there anyone who actually went to the match and saw it?
Fulham Fan
13 Jul 2006, 03:34 PM
Lippi thought they were using video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5152728.stm
"And you will realise that it was not Materazzi who got the attention of the referee.
"It was the fourth and fifth officials looking at the video at the edge of the pitch.
"We did not do anything. They saw it and they called the attention of the referee.
In any case, this lawsuit is just a publicity stunt. It was a bad World Cup and the blame falls on lots of people.
misltek
13 Jul 2006, 03:40 PM
On the other hand, on the FSW Report last night, WC AR Hector Vergara said that no replays were played on the screens in the stadia.
How would he know? Did he look up at the screen?
More and more, the integrity of the fourth official (Luis Medina Cantalejo from ESP) is going to be questioned. Rightfully so. The probability of him actually seeing Zidane and Materazzi is less than 1%, especially since the whistle blew for handling about the same time this occurred. Wouldn't you think Medina Cantalejo should have had his eyes on Elizondo to record any information or cards that would have come out for the handling or possible dissent from that call?
Either the replay was made on the jumbotron or it wasn't, and I wasn't there. Are we ever going to get a solid answer on this? Surely, there must be someone somewhere with a record of what was played on the jumbotron. Also, there's got to be at least one camera in that stadium that was fixed on Medina Cantalejo. I'd like to see that.
bluedevils
13 Jul 2006, 03:52 PM
How would he know? Did he look up at the screen?
More and more, the integrity of the fourth official (Luis Medina Cantalejo from ESP) is going to be questioned. Rightfully so. The probability of him actually seeing Zidane and Materazzi is less than 1%, especially since the whistle blew for handling about the same time this occurred. Wouldn't you think Medina Cantalejo should have had his eyes on Elizondo to record any information or cards that would have come out for the handling or possible dissent from that call?
The 4th should be looking at all different areas of the field of play, not just where the ball is and where the ref is looking. It is his job to catch stuff the rest of the crew may miss. Sure, he needs to see who is getting cautioned and record this information, but that doesn't mean he focuses on the ref for 90 minutes.
Fair Play
13 Jul 2006, 03:54 PM
It may be a moot point due to recent appointment of Roberto Donadoni for the head coaching position to lead the Azzurri during the EURO 2008 qualifers.
misltek
13 Jul 2006, 04:04 PM
bluedevils...
I find it hard to believe that his eyes were focused on these two particular players at that moment in time. Very hard, considering that his focus should have been on Elizondo.
This is not mitigating the seriousness of the Zidane incident, nor is it condemning the referees for getting the right call. I'd much rather have the crew get it right than to miss it and not deal with it.
My personal belief is that Medina Cantalejo relied on other sources to obtain his information, which he then relayed to the AR, who then informed Elizondo. While I agree with the end result, I do not agree with the method of obtaining such information. Medina Cantalejo's integrity should be questioned, and rightfully so.
Fan123
13 Jul 2006, 06:05 PM
bluedevils...
, I do not agree with the method of obtaining such information. Medina Cantalejo's integrity should be questioned, and rightfully so.
How can you disagree with the method if you don't even know what the method was? Are you there on the pitch to prove that Medina did something wrong? All this speculation is stupidity, unless you were there to see with your own eyes what the 4th official did, don't say you "disagree" with his method when you don't even know how he obtained his info.
IASocFan
13 Jul 2006, 07:09 PM
...
I find it hard to believe that his eyes were focused on these two particular players at that moment in time. Very hard, considering that his focus should have been on Elizondo.
...
My personal belief is that Medina Cantalejo relied on other sources to obtain his information, which he then relayed to the AR, who then informed Elizondo. While I agree with the end result, I do not agree with the method of obtaining such information. Medina Cantalejo's integrity should be questioned, and rightfully so.
My personal belief is that part of any refereeing instructions at this level includes; "WATCH MY BACK." Cantelejo should not have been focusing on Elizondo. If there was no reason to be focused on the benches, he should be scanning the field - particularly the areas that Elizondo couldn't be watching - like behind his back!
roninmedia
13 Jul 2006, 07:16 PM
Technicalities can exist to change results in sports. The Lance Armstrong doping positive tests brough up by the french newspaper L'Equipe was nullied by one. According to the report as reported by the sports media, the samples, I believe were held too long in the lab's possesion so that's why Armstrong was cleared.
It holds up in the court of law, but good luck proving it. You have to be one hell of a lawyer if you can do it.