England were robbed. Let's move on.

Yesterday afternoon, a travesty occurred. In a crucial knockout game against their arch rivals Germany, at the FIFA 2010 World Cup, England were robbed. Towards the end of the first half, Frank Lampard chipped the ball from 25-yards out, which then hit the underside of the crossbar and bounced at least two metres over the goal line before being caught by German goalkeeper, Manuel Neuer, without touching the net. The assistant referee ruled that it was not a goal, even though the replays clearly show that the ball was over the line. Everyone was baffled that referees Jorge Larrionda and Mauricio Espinosa could not have seen the goal, even without video replays. The score then stayed at 2-1 until the second half when Germany put together two more fine goals to inflict England's heaviest defeat in a World Cup.

A predictable clamour for 'goal line technology' has now gathered force. The vast majority of these people are, unsurprisingly, English. Steven Gerrard and Rio Ferdinand were two of the England players who felt that if the goal was allowed, then the result might have been different.

             The goal that never was (I do not own this image)

Really? Are we actually going to say that if the score was 2-2, then England would have won? What is the evidence for this? That 2-2 was a more respectable score than 2-1, and it would have generated more self belief among the players? Where was their self belief when the scores were still 0-0, or even when they were 2-1 down? Germany didn't score their third goal until the second half. England were still in the game until the third goal came, maybe even until the fourth goal was scored. I am not saying that it wasn't goal by Lampard. It would be downright silly to say it wasn't, because the replays CLEARLY show the ball crossing the line. But if the England players had the correct attitude, they would have ignored the disallowed goal and moved on. There is no reason why England couldn't have clawed their way back from 2-1. That was the responsibility of the players and coach Fabio Capello, and they failed to live up to it. The players and management should put their hands up and admit that the better team won. End of.

The call for video technology is a selfish one at best. England were denied a goal, so let's introduce video technology. Where was the call for video technology when Thierry Henry controlled the ball with his hand to allow William Gallas to score, and prevent Ireland from qualifying for the World Cup? When the Irish complained, there was not a single peep out of the English press and media. The argument for video technology is that such innovations exist in rugby and cricket. Yes and no. There is no technology in rugby and cricket, only third umpires and video referees who assess replays and make a decision themselves. And even these decisions are subject to scrutiny. Just remember Mark Cueto's disallowed try at the 2007 Rugby World Cup final. You can never have a zero-fault system in sport. Plus, in all fairness, Lampard's goal was a freak of nature. How often does the ball do something like that? Probably one out of a thousand shots at goal might do that. Having goal line technology would therefore be redundant. 

 
It was very unfortunate that England were denied. Everyone is right to be angry at the referees for failing to spot the goal. But that does not necessarily mean England would have won. Germany were far too ruthless and clinical. The goal MIGHT have changed the balance of play, but Germany were simply better than England. Above all, they played as a team. England are still producing good individual players, but they are still failing to play as a unit. All I saw yesterday afternoon was a collection of individual stars with no form or shape. That, and that alone is the reason why England lost. The disallowed goal merely quickened the inevitable.