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.

This entry was posted in European Soccer, World Cup 2010. Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. sread says:

    Neuer’s superb Ironman impression, Lampard’s goal-that-wasn’t. Excellent photo.

  2. kev says:

    Kjaer was pretty good along with Agger in the Danish defense. Denmark will need those two strong if they wanna get through Euro 2012 qualifying. Plus of course Denmark will need strikers who can score besides Bendtner and young players.

    Oh if Kjaer goes to Tottenham, goodbye Ledley King.

  3. batman says:

    So is MB going to Everton or Arsenal or Aston Villa? Is Donovan returning to Everton or Man City? Come on Ives, I need to know.

  4. arak says:

    O/T but any chance Howard, Bradley or LD make the team of the tournament?

    Howard may be a longshot since he gave up easy goals to Ghana and Slovenia but was a beast in that England game.

    Bradley was the best player all tournament and had a goal.

    Donovan had 3 goals and was amazing against Slovenia and Algeria.

  5. arak says:

    P.S. any idea if Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson doing a new film soon? I’m watching Starsky and Hutch and just loving them together.

  6. Oranje Mike says:

    That’s a great pic.

  7. baquito alyeska says:

    one of SBI’s best attributes is selecting the best pics. this one is especially good.

  8. jake says:

    No apology to the US. Typical Blatter bullshit

  9. canchon says:

    I don’t think so, the US was knocked out too early for its players to be considered “team of the tournament.”

    Howard has no shot after giving up that gift against Ghana, and although Donovan scored 3 goals, he disappeared for long stretches of games. Bradley might have a shot but I don’t think they would pick him in front of a Felipe Melo, Van Bommel, etc…who are going further in the tournament.

  10. canchon says:

    No kidding, sorry we blew the goal against Argentina and England in games where the team got blown out anyway, not like the waved off goal against Slovenia would have changed anything *sarcasm*.

    Seppy apologized because it’s the big boys, he can keep crapping on the US as long as he wants. Gulati is too busy figuring out the bag money for 2022 to say anything.

  11. Stephen says:

    We still lost to Ghana. It didn’t matter in the long run.

  12. golfstrom says:

    a true USA fan

  13. JohnRSL says:

    You scared me. I’m alright with goal line technology. Not replay.

  14. bryan says:

    FIFA is pathetic. that would mean both USA goals would still be disallowed. how is this fixing the situation? i hate FIFA.

  15. jai_brooklyn says:

    Great picture of a cheater!

  16. max says:

    I hope not Aston Villa. Every CM they buy ends up on the bench-Sidwell, Reo-Coker, etc. While you can argue MB is better, he won’t be if he sits.

  17. Simple Jack says:

    Blatter is a pig.

  18. kmaxhokie says:

    I agree that both of those goal should of been allowed but there is no way they could fix that problem without replay and replay would never be used in soccer. It would ruin the run of play and take all momentum away from the game.

  19. DC Josh says:

    I’m not a supporter for instant replay or challenges. But I am all for goal-line technology. It’s too easy and fast to NOT implement. Hawk-eye’s inventor said test proved their system works with soccer and would take only .5 second to send a signal to the ref when the ball crossed the line. Blatter loves controversy, it’s as simple as that. Now it’s become too much, and he will crumble under the pressure.

    As for botched offsides calls, I have a possible solution:

    Add two more linesmen for a total of 4 linesmen, each staying on their side of the midfield line. Two linesmen on one side of the pitch solely stick with the last defenders to focus only on offside calls. The other two linesmen on the opposite side of the pitch will aid the ref with infractions. Instead of the ref running diagonally across the pitch as he does now, he would stay towards the middle and side where the offside linesmen are.

  20. spencer says:

    Am I the only one that thinks adding an extra referee to each touch line would be a good idea. Their job would be to spot handballs, watch the goal line and such. So when the ref is in a bad position like when France beat Ireland, Fabiano scored against Ivory Coast he would have seen it because he would have the same view as the goalie just about. The problem with both goals is the fact that lines-man can’t keep up with world class athletes. Not their fault they are slow. FIFA should help them out and add 2 more. That way they can keep their purity of the game, and avoid some mistakes that should never be made.

  21. war says:

    Anything on Landon to City? He could actually play with Robinho to stay in Brazil and Bellamy getting up there in age and fitness. He could always outplace Johnson too. Imagine LD and Bellamy running at you all day long.

  22. Paul, North Jersey says:

    Did anyone hear about the Dempsey to Napoli rumor? I’ve only heard about it from one person so I dont know how true it is. Thanks.

  23. Jamie Z. says:

    I can actually see him doing well at Villa. And as a Villa fan, I’d be happy to see him there.

  24. Jamie Z. says:

    He’s right. What’s wrong with being objective?

  25. Jamie Z. says:


  26. DingDong says:

    No, you are not.

  27. SeattleStan says:

    Cheater? Yeah, Neuer was the one who missed that call. Its not like he crossover dribbled the ball like Henry

  28. Jorge says:

    Nope, but in Blatter’s mind, you are probably the only one.

  29. jai_brooklyn says:

    He just grabbed the ball and threw it back in play like nothing happened. Then he gloated about it in the press conference. Way to go!

  30. Oog says:

    Not if it was used on just used on controversial goals. The play is stopped anyways to disallow/allow the goal. Might as well review it really quick.

  31. Adam M. says:

    How to do replay in soccer:

    All contested goals or non-goal calls should be immediately reviewed by video replay as follows:

    1. Did the entire ball cross the goal line,

    2. Did a counted goal result directly from a handball, and

    3. Was the player scoring the goal in an offside position.

    The intent of the rule is to review goals, not infractions that may have led to goals.

    The first category is self-explanatory.

    The second category reviews only whether the ball was put into the net directly off an offensive player’s handball. Analysis is whether the last touch before the ball crossed the goal line was a handball, not whether there was a handball further removed, because the rule is meant to review goals, not handball calls. Examples: Hand of God would be reviewed. Infamous Henry handball would not be reviewed because the ball went into the net off another French player’s foot, not directly off of Henry’s hand. Fabiano’s double-sombrero goal would not be reviewed because he kicked it in the net.

    The third limits review only to the position of the offensive player that last touched the ball before it went into the goal. It would exclude calls where the player making a pass that lead to a “goal” was possibly offsides, because the rule is not meant to review offsides, only goals.

    These rules should permit all good goals to be counted and should exclude many “bad” goals. The rules intentionally will not preclude all goals from counting where an uncalled infraction occured at some point in the chain of event leading to the goal.

    Reviews of all counted goals will occur immediately before play resumes from the center circle. Reviews of non-calls will occur immediately. Play will continue until it is determined that a goal should be counted OR there is a foul, goal kick, corner kick, throw-in, goal, or penalty, whichever comes first, at which point if the disputed goal is counted, play will resume from the center circle and if no goal is counted then play will resume per usual. Should the offensive team, without first losing possession, “score” before it is determined that their uncounted goal should count, only one goal will be credited to them.

  32. A Guest says:

    Thought that City was offering on a pacy winger already, possibly as part of a trade with a side in La Liga?

  33. A Guest says:

    Yuck, no thanks. Restarting play without knowing if a goal counts?

    Also, what exactly constitutes a “non-call”? Who initiates the review?

  34. war says:

    I think they want Silva, who isn’t very pacy. But with that, I heard they wanted to play him as an attacking midfielder

  35. Yinka Double Dare says:

    All the energy expended chasing the goal against Algeria I think clearly affected us against Ghana — sure looked like a lot of the guys finally ran out of gas around the 80th minute or so. Had the Dempsey goal been allowed against Algeria as it should have been, maybe our guys don’t bonk like they did.

    But we still had chances against Ghana and didn’t convert. Should never have gone to extra time if we could convert just one of those great chances. Top quality teams convert those chances. Our guys didn’t. And Clark obviously didn’t have the excuse of being tired for his wretched play.

  36. kmaxhokie says:

    Yeah but there will be some replies where it takes forever to decide. I feel the easiest thing to do would be to add a ref behind each goal. It doesnt take away all problems but it will remove most I feel.

  37. GO USA says:

    I agree with you completely. Maybe if we get those points sooner maybe we don’t have to use so much energy against Algeria. Remember we only had two days rest, so did Ghana, but we clearly put more work in our 90 minutes.
    Although I still feel we had enough chances to beat Ghana. Who knows would we have finished those without heavy legs?

  38. Mason says:

    Yeah… That is a really great pic. He’s just levitating.

  39. ryan says:

    Im not sure its a case of Blatter loving controversy. It has more to do with the fact that he is a moron that is out of touch with the real world.

  40. Joamiq says:

    Where’s our apology for our TWO disallowed legit goals? F*** Blatter.

  41. matt in detroit says:

    Doesn’t Tottenham buy four strikers a year? Aren’t they already loaded at that position?

    This is why they can’t catch up to the big guys even though they spend as much money.

  42. Mason says:

    There are really three cases he’s addressing:
    1) A ball has crossed the line and has been judged not to.
    2) A ball has not crossed the line and has been judged to have.
    3) A ball has crossed the line, but a handle or offside led to it crossing the line.

    A non-call, for the purposes of review is only the first case, as it is the only case in which play continues. In the other two cases, play has been stopped because a goal has been awarded. Any review can occur while the players are celebrating.

    If I’m reading it correctly, you never restart play without review, but play may continue while a review is underway if it had not stopped. On a non-call you continue play until there is a stoppage OR the review is complete. If the call is upheld, play starts as it would have had nothing happened or continues. If the call is overturned, play is stopped if it continues, a goal is awarded, and play is restarted with a kickoff.

    I assume all review would be initiated by a video replay official, or at the request of the referee.

  43. Stephen says:

    I admit that maybe we were tired. But we got our asses kicked in midfield. Tired or not, if that happens, we are toast. We got outplayed. That is the main reason we lost.

  44. Jank says:

    All you soccer purists who don’t want replay can go suck it. Soccer needs replay. ESPN has showed you can easily show the incorrect call in 10 to 30 seconds and then get the call correct.
    Is that really that much time when players act on the field using up about the same amount of time.
    These dinosaurs in control of FIFA don’t understand the new technology apparently.

    You need to do replays on offsides for goals, handballs on goals and goals themselves. Like someone mentioned above and get an extra ref or two.

    WE have seen so often how the Refs are in the wrong place to make the correct calls.

  45. Nick says:

    No, I’ve heard Dempsey to Liverpool, Dempsey to Valencia, Donovan to Sevilla (if Fabiano is sold) and that’s it.

  46. Stephen says:

    Where do you hear this stuff? (Seriously, not sarcastically, I want to know where to look.)

  47. ciscokid says:

    The stupid thing is that there is a league with horrible referees and a relatively low international profile called the MLS that would be a perfect testing ground for all of these ideas. It fits the “typical” American fan profile desiring replay and ESPN has a worldwide audience that can see how it’s working(though I know thousands of US fan purists would be opposed.

    Of course, it would shine a very bright light on how woeful our refs are, but considering what we’ve seen at the WC, perhaps I should cut them a bit of slack.

  48. away goals says:

    The usa incident against slovenia isn’t comparable to these recent mistakes because it was a subjective call. It was the wrong call, to be sure, but it was called a foul.

    Fifa rarely if ever explains or even comments on a referee’s decisions on fouls.

    Both england and mexico were victims of calls that can objectively be shown to be incorrect or correct. See also fifa’s explanation of ruud van nistelrooy’s controversial goal against italy in euro 2008.

  49. losquakes says:

    No apology to USA or Ireland. Classic Blatter.

  50. Barrett says:

    Gotta chime in here about being completely against “instant” replay. It isn’t, instant that is. It would completely kill the flow of the game. On Lampard’s goal, for example, are we going to stop play to allow someone to look at it? Keep play going while someone upstairs looks at it, causing a sudden stop when the goal is allowed, bringing the ball back to the half for kick off? What if Germany score a quick response while the play is being reviewed – does that goal count? If you stop play when someone is on the ropes it gives them time to rest and get off the ropes.

    However, none of these problems exist if you put a 5th and 6th official at each end. A goal line official would have seen the Henry handball, an admittedly tough position for linesman or referee to see but an easy one for the goal line camera to see. A goal line official could have made the call on Tevez, because Tevez was inside the six while the defenders were outside. A goal line official would have seen the ball bounce beyond the line. Oh, and if he doesn’t stop play, than we have exactly zero delay with the game moving on.

    I love technology, but it’s not always the right way to solve a problem. Quickest way to write down a girl’s number at a bar – with a 10 cent pen, not a $200 phone. Quickest way to improve refereeing at the big tournaments – add extra officials. Baseball is smart to add left and right field umpires during the World Series. That’s what I think FIFA should do for it’s big tournaments.

  51. FRANK LAMPARD says:

    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!

  52. Second City says:

    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.

  53. Clayton says:

    Don’t know if I want replay, but I think it has to happen.

  54. Eurosnob says:

    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.

  55. DB says:

    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.

  56. Paul, North jersey says:

    I found it. Couldnt check until i got home from work:

    link to

  57. alexandria says:

    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.

  58. joejoe says:

    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.

  59. Mason says:

    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…

  60. Mason says:

    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.

  61. Mason says:


    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.