Goal line technology

Well that was pretty awful. England's second goal should have stood and should have hidden a woeful performance: I couldn't see us being so gung-ho at 2-2 as we were at 2-1. Germany would probably have still won though: they were much better than England.

So what could be done about the ridiculous goal line decision? I'm not convinced by the introduction of technology but I'm even less convinced by FIFA's arguments against.

According to the media there seem to be three basic issues and one lame one that they raise:

1. Fans enjoy debating the controversy
2. That it can't be done everywhere, so it shouldn't be done anywhere (so called "universality of the Laws of the Game")
3. It would interrupt the game too much
4. That it costs too much

Let's look at these one by one...

Controversy

It is clearly true to say fans enjoy discussing decisions, but irrelevant. We want games decided by footballers not random, poor or corrupt referees. The reason I mention the last is that Brian Clough's Derby team were robbed by a corrupt ref (who later admitted it). There is enough unavoidable controversy without allowing for a load of avoidable and unnecessary problems. Surely FIFA want to remove the really bad decisions: otherwise they can let me ref the world cup final.

This is not a sound argument.

Universality

They make a big issue of this and it simply isn't true. Competitive football is different all the way down the pecking order. At big games (internationals and premier league) there are a ref, two linesmen, and a fourth and fifth official. As you go down the levels you lose these step by step. At village football level you often have a ref and club linesmen, in pub leagues you just have a ref. At the level I played competitive football we had club refs (you'd nominate a player to ref the first half, and the other team the other).

We already accept different levels of officiating as we go down, so this is not a sound argument.

Interruptions

This one has some merit, but is not impossible to work round. Firstly these incidents are rare, I don't recall two in a game.

The ref can stop the game for various reasons and does (if a player is injured, to administer a booking, if an outside influence interferes). Just give the ref the power to stop the game for a check with an appropriate restart. Or give each team an appeal and if they win it they get it back, if they lose it they can't appeal again and the opposition have an indirect free kick.

Or just get the fifth official to check the video and radio the ref who can take the game back. The fifth official hasn't much to do anyway. No interruption at all, but how long can you give for it to be decided?

So there is an issue here, but it can be rationed (like substitutions) and would be rare. It isn't like a wicket in cricket.

Cost

Don't make me laugh. However these incidents are incredibly rare so is it worth it? That however is a different argument.

Conclusion?

FIFA's arguments aren't that good. There is a problem to be addressed concerning interruptions in the game but that could be resolved with creative thinking.

As I said I'm not convinced that the change should be made. I agree with IFAB that the way ahead could be for two extra assistants at big matches (as mentioned in this account of the IFAB meeting). (Remember it isn't FIFA who set the rules, though they have an effective veto.)Ironically, England and Scotland voted in favour of technology at that meeting, and were voted down by FIFA, Wales and Ireland.

Starting to look good

This Sunday are two really mouth watering games in prospect: Germany v England and Argentina v Mexico. Saturday's games look like the warm up.

Mexico are much underrated and were unlucky to get South Africa for the opening match. That said they were disappointing against Uruguay. The Argentians have just looked very good. I think that Argentina will win but it should be exciting.

Germany England on the other hand will just be nerve wracking. As long as it doesn't go to penalties (and yes I know the Germans missed the first penalty since Bismarck in 1882 or whenever)...

England have yet to look like they are really fired up. If they can't do it against the Germans then they never will.

My predictions for Groups AB and D were mixed: I called the right teams but wrong score in group A (although I called SAfrica over France), in group B I was spot on, in group D I didn't allow for Serbia self destructing (or Australia's scintillating performance) but got the right teams.

What about today and tomorrow's groups then.

Group E:
Netherlands will get at least a draw to win the group against a woeful Cameroon. I had higher hopes of them. My eurocentricism makes me call Denmark against Japan. But it'll be close.

Group F:
This afternoon's games I can't see not going to form. Paraguay top, Italy second. Italy can't be as bad as they were against New Zealand again.

Group G:
A gap of 9 goals is too much for Ivory Coast to make up. Portugal will lose to Brazil and go through on a slightly better goal difference.

Group H:
Oooh tricky. Spain need to beat Chile. Chile could beat Spain. Could the Swiss sneak through by beating Honduras? Too close to call, but this is a huge test for Spain. Can they find the cutting edge. If I have to make a prediction Spain will win 1-0, and we might have a draw to seperate Switzerland and Chile. Not confident about it though.

I also looked at the goals per game, and round 2 of the group game was an improvement. In the 16 second round group games we had 42 goals at 2.63 gpg, compared to 25 at 1.56 in the first 16 games. Round 3 has reverted to type though: lots of tense 1-0s (often very enjoyable like Ghana v Germany) means we have had 16 in 8 games (exactly 2 per game).

The tournament has broken through to 2.08 goals per game, it might beat Italia 90 yet.

Settling back to below normal

I think I spoke too soon.

Since the bright start things have settled down. After the Australia v Ghana game (a suprisingly entertaining affair) we have fallen to 21 goals in 9 games, back to 2.33 goals per game. At least that is in line with other tournaments.

England were woeful. So disappointing to watch that performance. What is worrying is the lack of any innovation. Rooney was poor up front, and pointless as a left winger. Surely a switch to 4-3-3 isn't that scary?

However to keep it in perspective: we beat Slovenia we are through. Slovenia may be top of the group but they are a European opponent and that may suit our style of play. After all we did alright against Europeans in qualifying. Of course we had a fit Walcott then.

Wright-Philips was the closest to a high spot in the team, and you can't be rude about Joe Cole because we haven't seen him play, but I am starting to wonder if Theo should have been picked. This is entirely benefit of hindsight, I agreed with the selection at the time, but we need something different. Maybe Capello needs to play Cole, but I agree with whichever pundit said that if Cole is the answer you're asking the wrong question.

The big issue is at centre back. Carragher is banned. King is crocked. Ferdinand is Emiled. I'd guess it'll be Terry and Upson, but we are well down the pecking order. Dawson (who is probably next when Terry gets sent off or whatever), it should be noted, has the princely total of 0 caps.

Anyway I remain cautiously optimistic about reaching the knock out stages.

Looking at the other groups that have played 2 games:

Group A: France are relying on Mexico wanting to win the group. That isn't impossible: would you want to face Argentina, or would you prefer South Korea, Greece or Nigeria? France could still get there, but I suspect South Africa might want a result more than the current French team. Somehow I suspect Uruguay and Mexico will play out a 0-0 draw and get through.

Group B: Argentina are solid. I suspect that means Greece are going to get thrashed. Nigeria have been disappointing, so I suspect South Korea might sneak through the middle. Argentina and S Korea.

Group D: I suspect Germany will beat Ghana, which would mean the winner of Serbia v Australia would be in with a shout. However (assuming wikipedia is right about the tie break method) Australia would have a huge goal difference to overcome, and I think Serbia are better anyway. Germany and Serbia I think.

Anyway the next game in my football marathon is in a couple of hours. Cameroon v Denmark.

Then again I could do something else instead...