I think there's a third possibility, and argentinian players were in fact very smart: If mexicans wanted the ref to peek at the screen and argentinians didn't want that, argentinians were clearly signaling to the refs that it was an offside call. But with both teams asking the refs for the video, refs would think that it was a close call, or else why both teams think they're right? So they were just playing mind games. The mexicans bet on the replay, and argentinians, instead of folding, raised. Of course, at the risk that the ref actually decided to take a look.
Nice way for FIFA to absolve themselves of this - blame it on the South Africans. "The problem wasn't that an unlawful goal was allowed to stand, the problem was that everyone in the stadium was able to see we pooched the call." Brilliant!! This is all revisionist history anyway. Mexico wasted no time calling it an offside and raising an arguement. There was no need for replay to tell them. It simply cemented the fact in their mind.
Lots of interesting comments from FIFA this morning... Blatter: And from a member of the FIFA Referees Committee:
That's a pretty damning statement from Mikkelsen. To have it come from a member of the Referees Committee is bad enough for Rosetti... to have it come from one of his own UEFA members? Gutting. Given he's not eligible for WC14 and he's already done the EURO final... I dare say we might have seen the last of Rosetti on the international stage. Perhaps a swansong season in the UCL?
I just went through the rest of the posts on the topic and I think Lampard hits the ball a lot harder than they hit it in 1966, for starters. The DSC is a dinosaur. Serves our purposes very well, but it cannot keep up with the play anymore. Too fast, too big, fitter and just plain better. Why should the AR's be limited to unsighted calls? Why should they be grounded to the touch line?
Not the one he struck on this play. I have no arguments with this. I think there are flaws in the DSC that should be addressed. My only point is that you can't ask the AR to cover offside and the goal line 100% of the time, and the reasons these deficiencies exist were just as present 44 years ago as they are today. It has nothing to do with the game getting faster. The issues with the speed of play, diving, etc. are of greater effect to the referee than the AR.
Damning, but wrong. Not that Rosetti couldn't have been sharper, but it absolutely could be overcome by technology.
Not sure how the DSC affected not seeing whether the ball crossed the line. Many of us had to make those calls without the use of AR's. The problem may be that the referees are too busy watching other things and not the flight of the ball. The powers above are making officiating too difficult and should make it simpler. But both errors from Sunday could be alleviated with goal line AR's.
Diagonal System of Control, with 2 ARs running halfway line to goal line on opposite ends of the field, and the center referee running a diagonal pattern between the two.
I think it pretty clear from that statement that my theory was correct and Rosetti and the linesman failed to spot the touch from tevez. Which was as much a mistake of the referee as the linesman. Specially after seeing tevez claim the goal ,they should have overturned the decision but seemed to succumb to pressure of the moment and did not have the guts to stand up to the argentitnians who cleverly wanted them to see the big screen. Besides even if tevez did not touch the ball he was clearly "interfering with play" ,and the interpretation was wrong by both of the law.
I am not sure anything is clear. Did the fourth official also miss the Tevez header? The other AR? The fifth official? Sepp Blatter?
How the hell was he interfering if he hadn't touched the ball???? That doesn't make any sense. The ball went in, didn't it? He didn't obstruct any Mexicans, did he? Can you clarify what you're getting at here? This isn't like the (correctly) disallowed goal for the US vs. Italy in 2006, where Beasley clearly interfered with Buffon's line of sight. There were no eyeballs for Tevez to distract on that play! (Keep in mind when reading my post that I'm talking about a hypothetical world where Tevez didn't touch the ball.)
Tevez was attempting to head the goal bound shot which forced the defenders who were getting on the goal line to take a more deeper position than they normally would have. And him standing there meant there was no way they could go through him to get the ball. In any case i would say a dummy header or shot is interfering with play.
Just standing in an area where someone else would have to swing a high boot to clear the ball whilst it's in the air is interfering with play.
Can one be interfering when the two players are running behind you to catch up? It is not even close to interference.
I think the hypothetical case of 'tevez not touching the ball' does not give enough info about whether he is interfering with the play or not. If he simply stands there, and does not move towards the ball it's closer to no interference and no offside. If he moves towards the ball and is the only attacking player with the intent to play the ball and his movement is impacting the ability of those 2 defenders to clear the ball in the opinion of the referee then it would be closer to an offside call.
I thought that the ball was going to be cleared off the line had Tevez not headed it, so merely going for a header could certainly be considered interference. It is weird that it isn't the GK who is getting interfered with through a "screen" like play, but I don't think that should matter.