A&H

USA! USA! US ... oh!

The Referee Store
Looks a penalty to me. Can't blame the ref for not giving it though, no chance he'd have seen that
 
1st link - I thought that a) if seen it was a nailed on penalty, and that the ball might have crossed the line, but the angle isn’t good enough to be 100%
2nd link - pretty much the same as above
3rd link no goal, not a blatantly obvious penalty either.

I don’t know if AARs are used in WCQs, couldn’t see one on the video, but I can only assume that for the referee to give threat then one of his ARs was in his ear saying goal.

But even then with the amount of bodies on/over the goal line between the AR and the ball I don’t see how he could be certain in went in without X-ray glasses.
 
I don't have the actual figures in front of me nor can I remember them except for one of the amounts but, basically it sums up to FIFA accordingly.

Cost of FIFA conference = $X million
Cost of GLT across the CONCACAF region = $Y million
X is greater than Y by $9 million

Obviously $9 million is not enough to hold a FIFA shindig?
 
Don’t the costs on GLT have to be picked up by the clubs, the hawk eye system used in England runs at about £500,000 per installation.

Is it worth it in stadiums where it would be used maybe a couple of times a year?
 
The point I was making is that these are FIFA World Cup qualifiers and in some confederations across the world, they will happily use GLT and in others they won't. That doesn't seem like a level playing field in their premier competition. And, their rationale is such that FIFA will gladly spend $9 million more on a conference than installing GLT in all the stadiums due to stage CONCACAF qualifiers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top