looking at the guardian, even after the english reporters don't really support replay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...y-england-live
Quote:
Video evidence - the debate starts here: "Do you think that crossed the line?" asks Billy Williamson, whose name suggests he might be causing trouble. "I'm not sure. Sometimes angles can be deceptive and TV replays aren't always reliable."
Video evidence - restarting the debate, this time with some sense: "Wouldn't it be easier to add another ref along the end line like the Europa Cup experiment?" asks Mike Murphy. "Video replay is too difficult to implement. That extra ref would have called that a goal."
Oo-er, hold on, here's some logic: "There is widespread condemnation of the decision not to allow Lampard's goal as 'shambolic', 'unbelievable', and 'exceptional'," writes Scott W. "Yet the people who say they have never seen anything like it go on to say that this is why we need video evidence. Surely if the absurdity of this decision resides in its extraordinariness, there is no need to take curative action?"
|
what?