Is this what it will take to implement goal-line technology?
If that is not enough, watch this.
Is there anybody left after this carnage of England in Sunday's 2010 World Cup Round of 16 match against Germany that accepts getting such an important decision disgracefully wrong for the sake of "preserving the integrity of the game"? Or will it just go down as the karmic retribution for England's famous "goal" against West Germany that was given by the officials in the 1966 World Cup final game (won by England) before goal-line technology was even a science-fiction dream?
Frank Lampard's chip/lob from the top-center of the 18-yard box in Sunday's match evened the score at 2-2, except for FIFA's intransigence at implementing any kind of goal-line technology that would prevent mistakes like this, leaving Germany's 2-1 lead intact. With a defense as abject and porous as that of England, completely devoid of ability to contain Germany's quality and brilliant pitch-long sprints of counterattack, perhaps in the end it didn't matter as far as the outcome of Sunday's match is concerned (Germany smashed England 4-1).
But that is not realistically debatable. And, it is not the point.
The point is getting it right - at the very least, in the biggest events of the game.
Fairness is the point. The game can be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world, even with goal-line technology implemented at only a relatively few competitions. The only difference would be officiating decisions regarding the ball going into the net would be more reliable. What's wrong with that? A threat to the game?
How will FIFA president Sepp Blatter defend this travesty of sport on its biggest stage? Will he continue to say such a technological intrusion into the game cannot be supported because "the game must be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world"?
Blatter hasn't relied on only that defense. He has indicated that (1) the spontaneity of football - played, administered and controlled by human beings - should be preserved; (2) fans' debating referee decisions long after a match creates and maintains interest in the game; (3) goal-line technology or video replay would disrupt the flow of the game; (4) goal-line technology is complicated and not 100 percent accurate; and (5) goal-line technology systems are too expensive to install everywhere the game is played.
Even former USA international and ESPN commentator Alexi Lalas pointed out how such controversy promotes interest in the game.
The case for goal-line technology is officially renewed in earnest. Can FIFA's resistance be finally breached?
Not any time soon. FIFA's official match report, as summarized by Tom Dunmore of Pitch Invasion, did not mention that Lampard's shot had clearly crossed the line, instead stating that the shot "struck the underside of the crossbar and bounced down, with the referee ruling the ball had not crossed the goalline." Factual, while being short on facts.
At the very least, egregious human error like Sunday's disallowed goal, easily corrected by goal-line technology, would prevent coaches like England's Fabio Capello from deflecting attention away from his team's inadequacies instead of focusing on a missed call as the reason his side lost the game - Capello indicated that if the goal had stood, Germany would have "crumbled."
And I didn't even mention Argentina's first goal of Sunday's second match where in the 28th minute, Carlos Tevez was clearly in an offside position at Lionel Messi's pass that was headed into the goal by Tevez. It was the kind of call that really gets FIFA's paranoia going - fear that if goal-line technology is implemented, then it is a slippery slope toward every refereeing decision being open to scrutiny and change.
Comments