Choose your words carefully next time, a study conducted 40 years after the incident taken from camera angles can not prove something like that, besides if a linesman who was there at the time and probally had no personal feelings on who should win can be wrong why can't a study conducted 40 years afterwards be wrong? and if roger hunt the closest person to the ball when it crossed the line reckons its a goal enough so he doesn't make sure to easily tap it in and instead turns round and celebrates then surely it crossed the line.
Actually, yes. I also remembered that study. Read my post to find why the gaol was allowed. Simply, England bought that world cup.
FIFA World Cup England 1966 Prelogue The corruption in that cup, largely thanks to Stanley Rous, was pretty obvious to those not English. In a way, I don't blame him. Europe needed to win a World Cup and with Brazil and a few South American countries coming up, it wasn't certain that playing in Europe will guarantee it (Brazil, afterall, has been the world champion for 8 years and on the way they have played and knocked out the host in 1958 and 1962). The Brazilian international cup in 1964 gave further evidence of this. Portugal, Argentina, and England were invited to take part of the competition to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brazilian football confederation. All four teams took almost the same players that will go to the world cup. Surprinsingly, Argentina won it after Antonio Rattin roughly, but without wildly being physical, man-marked Pele out of the game and Argentina won 0-3. After the match Pele looked for Rattin to exchange shirts. He gave him a hug and thanked him for marking him well but without bad intentions. (They have remained good friends since that day). Then they beat Portugal 2-0 and England 1-0. England, on the other hand, lost 5-1 to Brazil, 1-0 to Argentina, and 2-1 against Portugal. It was quite obvious that England's fate will be no different then Sweden's or Chile's if they were to face Brazil. Objective # 1: Eliminate Brazil 1966 came by and most people's favorites to win were West Germany, Brazil, Portugal, and Argentina. Argentina and West Germany confortably past the first round. So did Portugal. But to eliminate the Champion Brazil, the FIFA President Stanley Rous had to pull strings. In the first match, Brazil beat Bulgaria 2-0. Good to go. After the win, Stanley personally appointed 2 English referees for Brazil's other two matches. The Hungarians and Portuguese literally kicked the key Brazilian players around with Pele not even playing a full half-hour in those two matches combined. Yet the English referees decided to look the other way. By the time Brazil were playing Portugal, Brazil had almost a reserved squad with the veterans being kicked out of the game early. If that's not coincidence, then I don't know what is. Objective #2: Only Europeans will take the top four positions With Brazil gone, Stanley now focused on Argentina and Uruguay, a team England managed only a tie in Wembley and who had been playing magnificent football. Since the last two World Cups have been won by South America, they needed Europe to take the top. So for the two South American's left, Stanley appointed an English referee and a West German referee to oversee each other's games. The exoulsion of Rattin was ridiculous because 1# Rattin was trying to ask the referee what was the foul for. 2# Referees were letting Hungary and Portugal get away with injuring Brazilians to the point were they couldnt play for months. 3# The fouls weren't nothing serious enough that no english player had to permanently leave the field (and after seeing the entire game for the first time, I noticed some of the english players were just diving wheever Argentina advance. And 5# The english player's were giving just as much as they were taking so they weren't exactly clean themselves. Either way, the referee's orders was specific enough and he took out Argentina's best player. England took 78 minutes to finally score on 10-man Argentina. The other one, West Germany vs Uruguay, was equally controversial as the referee kicked out two Uruguayans for petty fouls. The game was 1-0 for 70 minutes until 9-man Uruguay couldn't hold on anymore. The game ended 4-0. Objective 3# England to be Champion Now Stanley was happy as the four highest positions would be held from European teams. But if England didn't become champions, it still would have not been worthwhile. So England played Portugal. A total of 11 offsides was called on Eusebio alone (there were 4 of them, in the 21st minute, 45+, 70, and 72 that wasn't even close to being offside). England went on to win 2-1. I don't have to say anything about the final as it was a total disgrace to football. The last two goals should have never been allowed. The goal that touched the line was not a goal. Why? you don't need video footage of that exact scene. When there is a goal, the linesman runs immediately with flag down towards the middle. It was written in "the laws of the game" by the second FIFA president (who was english). Every time there was a goal, that eact same thing happened even if players protested against a goal. It happens all the way till 2007. That third english goal was the only goal that a linesman didn't do that for which meant he didnt see no goal as he just stood around waiting for play to continue. The linesman is Russian (who the west germans just eliminated and just look at the history between germans and russians. if there is a country russians hate more then united kigdom, its germany) so it was inevitable he would give the goal to england even though it was obvious that he saw no goal. http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=51603 The fourth goal shouldn't have never been given as there were people streaming into the pitch. Its funny that Brazil won 1958 and 1962 and all of a sudden in england 1966, they didnt make it past the first round. but once the world cup was held somewhere else in 1970, brazil won again. funny, isnt it?
Simply repeating something does not make it more (or less) true. Also, repeating the factual inaccuracies that were pointed out after you previously posted that gives it even less credibility.
I don't think there's any doubt it didn't cross the line. That alone though, doesn't make it a conspiracy. It just makes it a mistake. No it doesn't. There's nothing at all in the rules about giving either team the benefit of the doubt (if there is, then please list the rule in question - they are readily available on the internet if you do quick search). The officials have to give what they believe to be the correct decision.
yep, there was confusion, with neither ref nor linesman being sure. That doesn't make it a conspiracy, unless you have the kind of mind that just assumes every single dodgy decision ever is the result of match-fixing. And if it was "obvious" that it wasn't a goal, why did it take so long to prove? You are talking like it was nowhere near the line.
From page 26 of http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/GuidetToProc0607.pdf The actions were perfectly in line with the LOTG. The referee is under no obligation to stop the game if someone is on the pitch, even though they often do.
You are talking as if the ball was 90% in when it was only 1/4. Face it, England bought their way to their only world cup and thats why they havent won anything else.
Is this the only incident in history of officials making a mistake? If it is then I'm sure that people will concede that you have a point, otherwise it is quite clear that you don't.
No. It was many "mistakes" if you have read my post. And, no, im not biased. If you want me to pull any other controversial world cups, let me know which one.
I've read your post, and it is wrong on numerous occassions as I have clearly pointed out. If you cannot get the basic facts correct, then your accusations carry little weight. I don't recall anyone calling you biased, just wrong.
Check post #60. Your arguments about the two extra time goals are both wrong. The rest of your accusations are just conjecture on your behalf, and cannot be proved or disproved. If your facts are incorrect then you don't have much of an argument.
Yep biased and stupid. You do know that england for all that game were the better team right? and that most england players were still fit in extra time whilst the germans were rather exhausted right? and that germanys 2nd goal came from a dodgy free kick.
England are just a bunch of hypocritical cheaters. The first goal was already proven that it wasnt a goal so cry me a river. And the rules CLEARLY states that play should be stopped in the case of a pitch invasion. Get that through your small head. BTW, Germany's second goal came from England leaving half of the net wide open. Only those with enough common sense can tell that cup was bought from the momment they named england as host.
Where does it say that? Can you provide a clear link that the referee must stop play if a third party enters the pitch?
Germany's second goal came from a dubious free kick, after Held appeared to foul Charlton. It was also offside, under the pre-1971 offside interpretation, which prevailed at the time, whereby anyone in a offside position when a ball was played was deemed to be attempting to interfere with play. So, with perfect officiating, England would have won 2-1. England's third goal did not cross the line, but there is no evidence that this was anything other than a honest mistake by the Azerbaijani linesman, who signalled for the goal. Although there were people on the pitch when England scored their fourth goal, they did not affect play in any way and the referee was right to allow play to continue. As for the England-Argentina quarter-final, Rattin was sent off for persistent dissent rather than any one individual offence; he had already been booked, but unwisely continued to harangue the referee for long periods, eventually leading to his dismissal, before refusing to leave to the field for ten minutes after being sent off. Brazil had earlier been comprehensively outplayed and defeated by both Hungary and Portugal, and would have been eliminated even if Morais had not lunged at and injured Pele. The decision to switch the England-Potugal semi-final from Goodison Park to Wembley at short notice was highly dubious, but was taken for commercial reasons rather than reasons of match-fixing. Gethomas3 should provide evidence for his slurs against England or else shut up.
England cheated their way to that world cup. plain and simple. animals. with perfect refereeing, england should have never even been to the semifinals. your ignorance of it is actually quite funny. thank god the germans, argentines, and brazilians keep knocking england out of the world cup. As controversial as Englands exit vs Portugal was in 2006...well, lol its england we're talking about
High quality cameras showed it And the 4th should not be allowed as there were people running onto the pitch at the same time. The 1972 Euro final had the same situation but play only continued when they threw the people back off the pitch. Na, it doesn't matter...you can have 66 Shame though as Beckenbauer and co. were playing some fantastic football on the way to the final.