Connect with us


Goal-Line Technology Debate Surfaces Again as Stoke City Fall to Tottenham

Tottenham Hotspur's Peter Crouch (L) saves the ball on the line during their English Premier League soccer match against Stoke City at the Britannia Stadium in Stoke-on-Trent, central England August 21, 2010.  REUTERS/Darren Staples  (BRITAIN - Tags: SPORT SOCCER IMAGES OF THE DAY) NO ONLINE/INTERNET USAGE WITHOUT A LICENCE FROM THE FOOTBALL DATA CO LTD. FOR LICENCE ENQUIRIES PLEASE TELEPHONE ++44 (0)

Stoke City lost a hard fought match on Saturday at home to Tottenham as yet more controversy surfaces concerning goal-line technology.

Spurs went up in the first half thanks to a bundled goal off the face of Gareth Bale before Ricardo Fuller equalized for Stoke City after showing his well-timed striker’s instinct. Bale again scored, this time brilliantly, as he volleyed an Aaron Lennon cross from what looked like an impossible angle to score what would essentially be the winner for Spurs.

Bale’s goal was good enough to remind me of Zinedine Zidane’s goal in the 2002 Champions League final v Bayer Leverkusen. Although it was from a different angle, Bale was able to catch the chest high ball with his swinging left leg a la Zidane and smash it home into the top corner of the net. It’s already in the hat for goal of the season and was a moment of brilliance from the Welsh winger.

For Stoke City who fought bravely to equalize, Tuncay was a game changer when introduced in the 64th minute. His work rate, inventiveness and skill on the ball nearly saw Stoke grab their second on numerous occasions. He really was everywhere for the Potters and boss Tony Pulis who made a good decision in bringing him on. On one of his chances, Tuncay came close when his header just in front of goal was directed wide of the post and out.

Stoke City and their boisterous home support thought they had equalized when in the 90th minute Matthew Etherington found Danny Collins from a corner. Collins headed towards goal only for Spurs keeper Gomes to punch away. In the ensuing insanity, Jonathan Walters looked to have sent the ball over the line with a diving header towards a falling Peter Crouch who was on the line for Spurs.

After multiple views using slow motion on a DVR, the ball looks to have crossed the line directly into Crouch’s chest only to bounce back out while the ref allowed play to continue. Michael Dawson eventually cleared for Spurs who were then out of danger with three points to take back to London.

Here is yet another glaring example of why FIFA needs to implement goal-line technology into football in some form or another. Stoke City look to be robbed a point while fans, bloggers, players, refs and the suits at FIFA headquarters raise their curious arms in the air, shrug their shoulders and look dumbly at each other wondering when, if ever something will be done about an obvious problem that remains in football.

[polldaddy poll=3654234]

200+ Channels With Sports & News
  • Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
  • Includes NBC, USA, FOX, ESPN, CBSSN & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
  • Price: $69.99/mo. for Entertainment package
  • Watch World Cup, Euro 2024 & MLS
  • Includes ESPN, ESPN2, FS1 + local channels
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
  • Price: $6.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
  • Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
  • Also includes daily ESPN FC news & highlights show
2,000+ soccer games per year
  • Price: $4.99/mo
  • Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
  • Includes CBS, Star Trek & CBS Sports HQ
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
  • Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
  • Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
  • Includes Premier League TV channel plus movies, TV shows & more


  1. Ridiculous FIFA. World Cup 2010. FIFA Against Technology In Football

    Ridiculous FIFA. World Cup 2010. Frank Lampard’s Disallowed Goal – RTE Sport

  2. Matt

    August 22, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Really, people didn’t see the obvious foul on Gomes?

    It may or may not have been a goal, and even with video technology we can’t 100% say that it crossed the line (which is necessary if it’s going to be given). You can say “It probably did,” but that’s not enough for a ref to give it as a goal, it has to be complete certainty. Even 24 hours later there can’t be complete certainty on it.

    Either way, it was a really poor performance by the ref, because even Pulis admitted it was foul on Gomes.

    • Matthew Kirbt

      August 23, 2010 at 10:25 am

      It was a foul, yes, but the ref ignored it so he should make a decision on the goal. Also Corluka is all over Huth before he pushes Gomes.

  3. IanCransonsKnees

    August 22, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Was sat right behind the goal when this happened and Chris Foy didn’t have a clue what to do. He didn’t give the foul if there was one, if he doesn’t give the goal he needs to explain why he doesn’t give handball as Crouch handled it when he blocked it.

    Chant of the day after his umpteenth dive (such a pussy for a big man), ‘same old Couchy, always cheating’. A little link to put that into context for those unaware –

  4. Lars

    August 22, 2010 at 12:59 am

    A clear goal even when I saw it live. I also slowed it down with DVR and it was a clear goal. The ref was in perfect position, but I loved how he looked half-way across the field to his assistant who clearly was in no position to call anything. Anywho, goal-line technology can easily fix this WITHOUT having a “time-out” or break in the play. Just have a “5th official” in a booth with a “state-of-the-art” replay/TV screen and it could be settled in less than 10 seconds; if it is inconclusive after that then it is not a goal. No break in play and just goals are awarded/not awarded.

    On a side note, Lee Mason had a pretty poor game, too (Everton v Wolves).

    • Anthony

      August 22, 2010 at 8:56 pm

      How long does it take to treat injures? Aren’t those basically time-outs, just like certain injures that take awhile to treat, on certain calls, you are going to need thirty to sixty seconds to make sure the call is correct.

  5. Jean-Christian

    August 21, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    I don’t see why you’re calling out FIFA on something under the jurisdiction of a national association.

    • anthony

      August 21, 2010 at 11:01 pm

      It’s not under control of THE EPL OR FA, FIFA must approve all rule changes all national associations want to make, (I.E. Goalline officials in the champions league, fifa had to approve that and only did on a two year basis,). Also England is not going to put in technology, that would make FIFA mad, putting the 2018 World Cup in jeopardy.

  6. Anthony

    August 21, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    First post, have been an EPL watcher and MANU fan since 03, have read you guys since last season, this is a great sight. On the Stoke and Spurs, number one, the goalie was knocked over, the debate on the ball crossing the line should be mute. Any ref who can’t see the goalie getting blowed over shouldn’t be reffing in the premiership. To the video technology, there should be a former official in the press box, anytime there is a bad goalline call he should buzz down to the ref and take a minute to review, and time the game is stopped for review it goes into stoppage time. If there is undisputeable evidence to overturn like today, over turn the call. One ref should not tell the world what they saw was wrong. One more question, today on 606, any caller who mentioned the words goalline technology would be baned from the show, any idea why the BBC doesn’t like goalline technology?

    • Dan

      August 21, 2010 at 10:37 pm

      Completely agree. How he missed the first foul was beyond me, and this goal debate shouldn’t even have happened. Even Pulis said he thought Gomes was fouled in his postgame interview.

  7. Matt

    August 21, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    I think its ridiculous to say that it was definitely a goal. There isn’t an angle that can be decisive. The entirety of the ball has to cross the line and its very very close. I would say something like 60/40 for goal/not goal

    • patrick

      August 21, 2010 at 10:44 pm

      ok it was a hand ball then…

  8. Gary

    August 21, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    I’ve yet to see the camera angle that puts the goal beyond a reasonable doubt. It was in all likelihood a goal, but where’s the view that proves it? Not there. There are goals, plays, offsides calls every match that couldn’t be called with absolute certainty if you pored over them frame by frame for the next decade. If technology is not a 100% guarantee of accuracy then it cannot be implemented, not for goals and certainly not for any other area of the game.

    • Yespage

      August 21, 2010 at 7:52 pm

      You don’t need to really look at the ball. Look at Crouch. His bent arms were inside the line and the ball hit his chest. Sure, there is no 100% no doubt proof, but that shot was a goal with a very high level of certainty.

    • Patrick

      August 21, 2010 at 9:17 pm

      you need glasses or a new TV then..

      the Spud player in the net was a foot back when he hit it out.

  9. luke

    August 21, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    A glaring goal,so obvious and clear,the ref was only yards away. And you could lip read him saying,I did not see it. What a plonker,he would have been sacked in any other profession for non-performance but in football.

  10. tim

    August 21, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Only prob is that even if the ref genuinely couldnt see, its his job to see and the linesmen to confirm when hes confused, they just cant do their jobs properly and need help and because its happenin over and over the only solution is bringing the technology which is ready and works in other sports to solve this. How com the FA are waitin?? (mayb cause the bigger clubs wont get it all their way?) bottom line is the technolggy makes things fair 4 every1 replays may slow it down but hardly tht much and if it was ur team like the phillip comment, i tink people would suddenly want it like every ENGLAND fan2. its a shame when the ref can change a game and even be the main talkin point so often, we need a solution or people will soon just watch the match at home ruining the game totally

    • Yespage

      August 21, 2010 at 6:13 pm

      There is absolutely no reason why the EPL can’t take a NHL tact, have a central office, where the replay is done in near real-time. They could have the call made within a minute or two.

  11. Yespage

    August 21, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    Clearly a goal, even live, forget needing a replay. Keep on hearing about how the ref was in perfect position. Check out the replay and look at where the ball is with respect to the goal post and the ref. The ref couldn’t see the ball. A real shame. Stoke really earned a point against Hotspur.

    A great game overall.

  12. ScottMac

    August 21, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Shame stoke had no Kenwyne today..or did they?

    • Matthew Kirbt

      August 21, 2010 at 4:24 pm

      No Kenwyne wasn’t risked. Should be back for Chelsea.

  13. Matthew Kirbt

    August 21, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Thought it was well over the line and as I was at the match saw no foul on Gomes and Crouch pushed it away with his arm.

    Take it Phillip is a Spurs fan.

    • tim

      August 21, 2010 at 5:22 pm

      totally agree i was there there was newt wrong with the goal (except stoke scored it which means it som reason wasnt a goal)

    • canyid

      August 22, 2010 at 10:59 am

      Spurs fan here who thought it was a good goal. We got away with one.

  14. Phillip Badger

    August 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Pulis said it was a foul on Gomes from Huth before the “goal”. Also said he was surprised the ref didn’t call either incident seeing as how he was perfectly placed to see both.

    Watch some of Stoke’s chances off of corners on the highlights, their whole tactic was to get in Gomes’ way and hope to get away with it. Tuncay’s wide open chance came from Shawcross tripping Gomes as he tried to get out to the cross. Dirty team.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More in General

Translate »