World Cup 2010

Morning Ticker: Blatter to consider replay, Di Maria to Madrid and more



After the events of the last couple of weeks, more specifically on Sunday, FIFA president Sepp Blatter didn't really have any other choice.

Blatter has stated that FIFA will "re-open the file on goal-line technology" during meetings next month to determine whether the organization will implement the use of instant replay in the future.

England and Mexico were victims of two calls that swung the momentum of their respective knockout games in their opponents' favor. It would appear that the use of instant replay would only be viable to determine whether the ball has crossed the goal-line, though, meaning that the goal Carlos Tevez scored from a clear offside position against El Tri would still stand under any future rule change.

Blatter reportedly issued apologies to both England and Mexico in the aftermath of both controversies.

Here are a few more stories to hold you over until the World Cup resumes:


Real Madrid and Benfica have reportedly agreed on a transfer fee for Argentina midfielder Angel Di Maria. The 22-year-old will sign a six-year deal at the Bernabeu worth roughly $30.5 million.

Di Maria has had a solid World Cup for Diego Maradona's side, starting every match of its run to the quarterfinals.


Ghana forward Asamoah Gyan, who scored the goal that eliminated the United States from the World Cup, injured his ankle in training on Monday.

He reportedly left training with ice wrapped around the ankle, but the team does not expect him to miss the Black Stars' quarterfinal match against Uruguay.

Someone who is likely to miss that match, though, is Uruguayan defender Diego Godin, who injured his thigh in Saturday's win over South Korea. Mauricio Victorino would start in his place.


Tottenham is continuing its busy offseason by bidding for Palermo's Edinson Cavani and Simon Kjaer, two standout performers from the World Cup.

Cavani, who has helped Uruguay reach the quarterfinals, is a 23-year-old forward that would inject some youth into Harry Redknapp's front line. Kjaer starred for Denmark in the group stage, but the 21-year-old central defender was forced to miss the team's third match against Japan because of card accumulation.

Tottenham's bid for both players is reportedly £28.5 million.


Happy to hear that Blatter is considering replay? Think it actually gets implemented in the future? What do you make of Di Maria-to-Madrid and Cavani-and-Kjaer-to-Spurs? Who do you think wins the Ghana-Uruguay quarterfinal?

Share your thoughts below.


    Why doesn’t FIFA allow the fourth official to monitor replays and just tell the center if he is wrong about a certain call. Duh!


  • Second City

    Well, they are starring in the new movie: Little Fockers, coming out soon.

    As for a sequel to Starsky and Hutch, no clue. I never could bring myself to watch that.


  • Eurosnob

    Ghana outplayed the US in midfield in the first half, but the US controlled the midfield in the second half of the game. The primary reason Ghana dominated midfield in the first half was Bradley’s decision to play 4 midfielders in 4-4-2 against Ghana’s 5 midfielders in 4-5-1. In these formations, the US was at a numerical disadvantage at the midfield and Clark is probably the worst passer among the US midfielders, which only made the numercial disadvantage worse. It is not surprising that they lost the possession battle in the first half. When Bradley made early adjustments by replacing Clark and Findley with Edu and Feilharber, the US controlled midfield and had more chances to score. They ran out of gas in the overtime. If Bradley started with 4-5-1, he wouldn’t have had to use two of his three subs early to correct his tactical mistakes. He could have used his subs much latter in the game providing midfield with fresh legs for the overtime. But at least Bradley made correct tactical adjustments to correct. I cannot say the same for Capello against Germany. Germans had 5 vs 4 in midfield the whole game and no adjustments were made.


  • DB

    Under this scenario, what would happen if another goal was called while the first was under review? Would they add it, continue play again, and then add the first (disputed) goal to the scoreboard? What if a player, such as the goal-scorer, was ejected in the time being? You can’t take the goal out of its context in the game.


  • alexandria

    You guys are worried about stopping the flow of the game to get the call right but if the official wanted to stop and ask his linesman what he saw then he could, so whats the difference, in that same amountof time the 4th official can check, thes aren’t subjective calls, it crossed the line or it didn’t. Same with offsides, it takes 30 seconds, they could do it and not destroy the game.


  • joejoe

    FIFA is clearly only interested in making money. They don’t care if the game is fair or not. Not sure which organization is more corrupt FIFA or the IOC.


  • Mason

    It would be exactly the same as a goal scored after a referee misses an AR signaling offside (it happens – center looks over while the AR is still waiting and seeing…). In that case, you wipe the goal and go with the correct call (offside, restart: IFK). If a “goal” was scored after a missed goal, it doesn’t count because the ball shouldn’t have been in play any longer. I don’t expect that, with the right tech, goal line reviews would take more than 15 seconds.

    As for cautions and sending offs, they would still stand. Misconduct can happen any time – not just when the ball is in play, and is treated seprately from fouls. It brings up some interesting paperwork issues for refs in the match reports, but I’m sure that FIFA and IFAB would provide guidance on how to write up reckless or EF tackles that happened when the ball was mistakenly thought to be in play. Probably still USB and SFP…


  • Mason

    Ok… Do you know what happens if an AR’s offside call is missed by a center during on a break away? Any play that happens afterward is null and void, because the play should have stopped at the offside call. That means that if the GK comes flying out and clotheslines the attacker in the area, it’s still not a PK. It might be a red card for Violent Conduct, but it will never be a red card for denying a goal scoring opportunity by foul. The restart will always be an IFK from the spot of the offside, no matter what happens afterwards.

    This is an analogous situation to a goal being scored after a missed goal. For the second goal, the ball was not in play. The ball went out of play when it entered the goal, therefore no second goal could be scored. Besides, I’m pretty sure that with the right tech, figuring out if a ball has crossed the line can be done in 15 seconds. It will take a pretty swift counterattack to score at the other end from a missed goal.


  • Mason


    The “wait and see” approach to calling offside almost requires technical assitance. It a ball is played between a goalkeeper and a player who might have been offside, FIFA tells us to keep the flag down and the whistle silent UNTIL the attacking player commits an offside offense(IB, IO, AoP). Without headsets or buzzers, this means the CR is having to choose between watching the AR for his flag or watching the play. With a buzzer, the CR is free to watch the play and let it unfold while knowing that the AR will buzz in with the offside call if it becomes necessary.


Add your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More from SBI Soccer


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,031 other followers