Conference trucks::football;1

    Although the Dutch have good chances I hope they won't underestimate
    the Danes. I wouldn't be surprised if the Danes win.
    I have a strong feeling here that we are more busy with Friday then
    with tonight. I hope our players won't make that same mistake !
    
    John
    
    

I hope we can do it but again there is that funny feeling that some of
the players are already on Friday in their minds, also the Danish got
nothing to loose and will play without presure while the whole world is
watching is.

I'll just keep my fingers crossed.

T_

    Re. last,
    
    	Well it looks like Holland were thinking too far ahead and too
    early. Outplayed for most of the match, they were unable to really
    create chances and only drew level in the last 5 minutes of normal time
    thru' Rijkaard (sp) from a corner. This was after Henrik Larsen had
    scored twice and Bergkamp (sp) had replied with one
    goal in the first half.  The match was reduced to walking
    pace in extra time and understandably the match went to a penalty shoot
    out. Everyone except the great Marco Van Basten scored and so Denmmark
    won. IMHO, I think Denmark deserve to be in the final.
    	Now onto what is going to be a GREAT, GREAT FINAL. I think Denmmark
    will not have one player available due to 2 yellow cards. I think the
    Germans will find their task easier. But it will be interesting to see
    if Denmark can play as well as they did in the semi-final. If they can,
    then it will be a great match. Otherwise, the Germans might just win by
    a rugby scoreline.
    
    
    Kumar
    	

    
    Looks like the Dutch played their best game against the Germans,
    unforunatly it wasn't the final!
    
    The Danes deserved to win, their commitment was total, this is the same
    team that drew with England and lost to Sweden. Just shows what a lot
    of determination and good management can do to a team....
    
    ...the Germans should win the Final easily, or maybe.....
    
    -Dom
                              

    Danish Dynamite Destroy Dutch Dreams !!
    
    A very exciting semi-final with a determined Danish side and a
    disappointing Dutch side. 
    I also believe that in their minds the Dutch were already thinking
    of the final. The Danish ran their lungs out as opposed to the Dutch
    and I thought that in extra time the Dutch would score the decisive
    goal, but...
    
    The Danish now have enough time to get their strength back to give
    Germany a hard time, yet I doubt they can repeat their performance
    against the Dutch. I predict Germany to win by two goals difference.
    
    A hard blow to Denmark is the loss of Hendrik Anderson (sp?), who
    has broken his knee. It really looked bad and looking at his face
    you could see he was in a shock. I hope that didn't finish his
    footballing career and wish him all the best.
    
    Hard luck, Netherlands, thanks for the good performance during these
    championships.
    
    Eduard

    Really good game and full marks to the Danes. I don't think Germany
    will have it at all easy in the final. The Germans don't like teams
    that close them down and don't give them time to settle on the
    ball. The Germans might be technically better but the Danes will make
    up for that with passion. If Heassler can have an off-day (he's been
    the best German so far) then I'll tip the Danes to win it.
    	
    	- Robin.....

    Congratulations Denmark !!!!
    
    I think the Danish deserved to win because the Dutch really did not
    play aggressive enough. They got no space to play the ball and their
    passes were bad, especially in the first half.
    
    The Germans will not have an easy job next friday. Well, at least not
    if the Danes do not get scared by the Germans.
    It is a shame Holland did not make it to the finals, but now I hope to
    see the Danes win.
    
    C'mon you Danes,
    
    Bart.
    

Well done Denmark, a deserved win for the red & whites.

The Dutch lost 'cause they never showed the positive agression that the Danes 
did, they tryed to solve the case by only playing football and ended with 
loosing every battle in the first half, the second half was slightly better
and I still think the equiliser was deserved. 

Then I extra time the Dutch should have done it but didn't and the reason why
Michels let van Basten take a penalty are still not known to me, he was played
out of the games by the Danish defender and looked very uncertain.

A well it's over but in two years time there's the WC in the USA.

Just hope the Danes can give the same performance against the Germans as
they did to us and the Dutch will back the Danes!!!!

T_

    A good game from what I saw of it. The Danes deserved to make it thru.
    Who would have ever thought it, the team that gets drafted in a week
    before the championships start end up knocking the favourites out and
    getting thru to the final. It's a funny ole game .... A couple of
    things that I didn't like. Flemming Povlsen (sp) the Danish guy seemed
    to be pushing his luck a bit, I find it quite irritating that players
    get away with giving it so much mouth to their opponents. I don't know
    whether the Tv coverage is the same all around the world, but here in
    Germany, when the Danish guy (can't remember his name, the one who got
    stretchered off) got injured the cameras zoomed into the egg shaped
    lump that he had developed on his knee. I must admit, I found that
    little bit of coverage unnecessary....
    
    JMO,
    
    Keith.

    As everyone has said the Danes deserved to win.  They decided before
    the game how to beat the Dutch and stuck to the plan well until they
    lost their two best players, Laudrup and Andersson.
    
    Even when the Danes tired the Dutch failed to push players forward to
    get at the weakened defence.  I think the Dutch have been let down by
    their "stars" in this tournament. Van Basten and Gullit have been
    anonymous for the whole tournament.  The way the commentators nearly
    have an orgasm every time Gullit touches the ball is infuriating. 
    Koeman had a terrible game last night, only Rijkaard of the big names
    done well.  For the Dutch the plusses must be the performances of
    Witschge and Bergkamp whjo have both performed well in all 4 games.
    
    The worst part of last night was Van Breukelen's behaviour during the
    penalty shoot out.  The way he tried to distract the Danes during their
    kicks was rather unsportsmanlike, there is enough pressure already
    without doing that to fellow professionals.  A booking for
    ungentlemanly conduct would not have gone amiss, any sympathy I had for
    the Dutch disappeared after that.
    
    The Danes fully deserve their place in the final, they showed they
    weren't scared of the Dutch let's hope they show the same spirit and
    committment against the Germans, althought I think it will be a much
    harder task.
    
    		Brian

    
    Great performance from the Danes, considering they were written off by
    everyone (except Jimmy Greaves!). Seemed to me that the Dutch were a
    wee bit complacent at the start and were never really able to get into
    after that; their passing was poor and the running off the ball not as
    impressive as it was against the Germans. Denmark seemed more committed
    and using their pace down the flanks were able to expose the pedestrian
    Dutch defence.
    
    As for the penalty shoot-out, well, what can I say, except it's still a
    crap way of deciding games. However, the antics of Van Breuklen (sp) in
    the Dutch goal bordered on cheating and the referee should have had
    words with him. The Danes gave the perfect reply to his gamesmanship by
    blasting all five penalties past him. Ha!
    
    jeff

    Yesterday in the office one could notice that most people have no
    confidence in the Dutch team. You could feel the fear. I think we gave
    up to early!
    
    And certainly the Danish don't deserve to win. How can one say that?
    Because they are the underdog? Because they played one good game? Just
    look at the overall performance during the tournament. Ten times better
    than the new champion (regardless of the team that wins the final).
    Maybe the Danish deserve to win the game, but they don't deserve a
    place in the final!!! Just *ONE* slippery. Wrong time. Wrong place.
    
    To me one thing is clear: The best (in this championship) don't win!
    
    You supporters out there: don't cause a negative atmosphere by being
    afraid!
    
    Sjaak.

    
    Great that the Danes made it. Unfortunately I couldn't follow the
    match. 
    
    I was told, that Gullit was the only Dutch to stay on the pitch and
    hug and congratulate the winners. Losing on penalties is dissapointing,
    for sure. I was already having a lot of respect for Gullit's character,
    but this behaviour was really gentlemanlike. We need more of those.
    
    As for the final, the Germans are favourites, of course. I'd rather see
    the Danes win. First, this would marvellously ridicule all that
    preparation fuss. Healthy meals, training camps, ha! They came right
    out of their holidays, having a great time. Then I think it's time for
    the Danes to win a major tournament. They've been entertaining us for
    8 years now. They deserve a reward. Germany is WC already.
    It's only a bit sad for Berti Vogts, for he is quite a nice guy IMO.
    
    Heiko
    

    I can only echo what has already been said. Denmark deserved to win
    last night. The referee was total crap and let too many niggly fouls go
    unpunished. Jan Wouters was very fortunate to stay on the park IMO as
    he had several bookable offences and Van Breukelen's behaviour at the
    penalty shoot-out was just disgraceful. Full marks to Christofte for
    playing him at his own game and slotting in the winning penalty.
    
    How many Danish players are fit enough for the final ??
    
    Kev...

    
    I felt that Koemann was *very* fortunate to be on the pitch after
    deliberately denying the Danes a clear goalscoring opportunity. He
    didn't even get a yellow card, which was incredible. The ref was rather
    inconsistent in this regard, and a little easy-going on the Dutch. Van
    Breukelen SHOULD have been spoken to by the ref, if only to redress the
    balance a bit - he was obviously trying to psyche out the Danes. Still,
    as someone said, they gave him the perfect reply ...
    
    Is there any news on that guy's knee ? It looked bloody awful, it
    really did ...
    
    Adam.
                                                         

    Someone told me this morning that Andersson has broken his Femur.  Is
    this true, horrendous injury if it is.
    
    		Brian

    
    
    			One TEAM, playing with passion,
    		    can often beat 11 talented individuals
    
    
    ...and so it proved last night.  
    
    Danish strategy was perfect.  "Challenge the Dutch at every opportunity,
    don't let them settle, don't let them get into their rhythm".
    
    There is every reason to believe that a similar strategy can be used
    to the same effect against the Germans.
    
    Congratulations to Denmark & Good Luck in the Final.
    
    PJ
    
    P.S.  I suspect that most of the 'neutrals' will be cheering for
    Denmark in the final.  This could lift the team and upset the Germans.

    Congratulations to Denmark for handing the championships to Germany
    on a plate.

    Don't be so sure!!!
    
    Look what happened to the Dutch!!
    
    PJ
    

    RE. 22
    
    >> Don't be so sure !!!
    
    << Look what happened to the Dutch.
    
    And the English and the French !!!!!!!
    
    They did not lose a single match against three out of four favorites !!
    
    Germany has to watch out.
    
    Bart
    

    
    Congratulations Jan, and congratulations to the whole Danish team. When
    i entered the stadium i noticed that the Dutch supporters where very
    tense and nervous. When the two team where warming up, the Danes where
    smiling and laughing but it was hard to find a smiling face on the
    Dutch side.
    
    This was a kind of game that could have ended up in any way. Holland
    had most of the ball possesion, but moved the ball very slowly. The
    first Danish goal came as a shock to the Dutch. The Dutch midfield
    where in the wrong posision many times, and it was har for the defense
    to find players to pass to.
    
    In extra time, the Danes played for penalties, and can you blame them?
    With four players on the field injured, the Danes did a marvelous job
    defending themselves.
    
    There is a thin line betwees failure and success. Van Breukelen almost
    saved the two first penalies, but as we say here in Sweden, "A close shot 
    don't kill any rabbits". We now have had 13 penalties in the tournament
    and 12 have went in. I fell sorry for Van Basten. It's not his fault
    that Holland are out of the tournament.
    
    I won't even bother to predict the final. As many other games this
    tournament, it's the daily form of the teams that counts. Jan, i know
    we had an agreement, but the German team was to strong for us. I will
    attend the final on friday, and a will bring a "Dannebrog" and wave
    with it, i promise.
    
    This is a good thing for Danish football. The new super-league seems to
    be good, and Idraetsparken in Copenhagen in under reparations. The
    interest for football will surely grow in Denmark. Good luck in the
    final!!
    
    Mats
                                           

    Re. .15 Adam,
    
    Please don't take my words out of their context! I congratulate the
    Danish team, ofcourse. And I surely hope the will win the final.
    
    The only thing I can't stand is that the place in the final is only
    judged on ONE game. The Dutch team was unlucky, more tense etc. the
    Danish team had nothing to loose.
    
    Looking to the whole tournament I think that the Dutch team *certainly*
    deserves to play the final! 
    
    Peace,
    Sjaak.

    >>Look at the Dutch
    
      Yeah they gave everything against the Germans and lost to Denmark....
    
      ....and Denmark gave everything against the Dutch to loose against....
    
      ....the Germans.
    
    -Dom

    What can I say after all the other replies then the deserved victory of
    the Danes. What a great and fresh counter-football they played the
    first half......
    And what a lovely thrilling and spectacular game this was, great for
    football !
    Yes, the best team of Europe doesn't prolonge its title but they showed
    great football and after all they didn't loose a game. Something the
    two finalists cannot say ! And what a shame that the decision fell
    through penalties.........is there no alternative ? I would have the
    same dissappointment as now as the Danes would have lost........
    
    re .17  I saw Koeman's action from another perspective later. It was 
            surely no one. Wouters and Jensen deserved for sure one. And 
            there was a clear penalty on the other side ( luckily not given
            because it was not deserved in the time of the game).
    
    Ha, van Breukelen is always doing his psychological warfare. Don't be
    to hard on him ; it's his way of concentrating ! And you can easily
    punish him by scoring ! And so the Danes did. I agree ; Ha !
    
    And Friday ? I think the Germans have a different mentality then the
    Dutch ; they can fight if they have to ; and win against the remaining
    9 fit Danes..........I hope it will be a game worth looking !
    
    John

    
    > Van Basten is god! and he fell...
    
    i think we should say that the keeper SAVED the penalty, Van Basten did
    not miss it.
    
    if we think back to the world cup, Waddle MISSED, when he put it over
    the bar.
    
    Van Basten gave it his best shot, the keeper luckily dived the right
    way and excellently saved it.
    
    poor Marco should not be crucified, if Schmeical had dived the other
    way, we would have called it a "clinical penalty".
    
    Ian.
    

    What is wrong with the Danes :
    
    First that guy Mikkelsen took us that beautifull goal against GOS and
    two games later their footballers show their most beautifull football
    against us........
    
    What did we do wrong ???????      ;-(   ;-)

    Denmark.

    The best footie team in the world........



    PROBABLY

Dave
	Your PROBABLY right!!!!

    Only 2 previous notes have mentioned the appalling fouls committed by
    Koemann, Wouters and Jensen (forgive the spelling).  I was outraged by
    these blatant 'bodychecks' and by the dismal refereeing which allowed
    them to go unpunished.  Unlike a previous noter, my sympathy for
    Holland, and my hopes for them to beat Germany in the final,
    disappeared during this 'violent' period.  Both the Danish and the
    Swedish national squads and their approach to the game are a credit to
    the world game.
    PFC (alias disgruntled of England).
    

    re:-1
    
    I thought the Dutch started "Dishing it out" whenever things were not
    going to plan thru the whole tournament.
    
    The ref the other night was the pits. As well as not punishing what -1
    mentioned , there was also what I thought was a blatent penalty at the
    end of the first half. That ref was no different from any ive seen all
    the way through - theyve all been Crap.
    
    Nigel

    re .33
    
    Strange that the Dutch fouls are more in your memory then the Danish :
    After one half there were 33 danish against 7 (!) Dutch......
    It showed more aggressiveness from the Danish, as could be seen in the
    play ! And I don't mention the fouls not seen by the ref......
    I only saw a sleeping and not a sweeping Dutch team....;-)
    
    John

 re .35

The difference in fouls is not due to the players but to the referee.He was 
definit pro-dutch.That's the reason of the big difference (33-7).When Andersen
made his first tackle in the game,he received his second yellow card (deserved)
so he would have missed the final.But compared to the seven faults to Holland,
which the referee couldn't let go on,it was a caress. The Danish faults were 
mostly due to their involvement while the Dutch were more frustrated.Check 
these: 
	- Wouters tackled with two feet ahead (should be yellow)
	- Rijkaard who tackled Laudrup without looking to the ball and caused
	  the substitution of Brian (should be red)
	- same phase,Wouters pushed Poulsen to the ground (should be yellow)
	- Koeman made a deliberate foul when Laudrup was going to enter the 
	  penalty area (should be at least yellow cause there was a goal 
	  opportunity)
	- Van Tiggelen stopped Laudrup before half time,but it was definit no
	  penalty (shoulk be at least yellow,cfr. last remark)
	- Van Basten tackled Jensen without playing the ball (should be yellow)
	- Van Tiggelen deliberate fouled Jensen because the last went away after
	  a fault on Van Basten (should be yellow)
	- Van Breukelen for his irritating way of acting versus the Danish
	  penaltyshooters (should be yellow)

Me thinks if it would have been a Belgian referee (ie. Guy Goethals) at least
4 of these cards would have been given.All these non-booked faults are not
contributing in the level of football we will see in the future.If the referees
are not sanctioning these faults the players will continue and it will get 
worser.
Another point is that we should get wrid of the offside rule.This would open 
the playing space and football will not be a battle on midfield.

Patrick

    
    As the one who previously mentioned Koemann's trip (I can't remember
    seeing such a blatant red card offence going totally unpunished) I
    agree with the previous note.
    
    Getting rid of the offside rule, however attractive it may be in many
    respects, is a completely different argument, however ...
    
    Adam.

    re-1
    Patrick,
    
    I can give a same summit of fouls fron Danish side, perhaps they were
    not so open as the one you mention. But never mind, I agree that on
    many instances, not only in this game, a yellow card should be drawn
    more. On the other hand to see all the faults is impossible for one
    referee.....When I recently visited football matches I was wondered how
    many things happen outside the sight of the referee. More camera's and
    using these tapes could help ( like with american football).
    Next to that I see that referee's blow more against attackers then
    defenders. A couple of years ago the FIFA introduced the rule that if a
    defender caused a fault to an attacker, he would receive red. Ajax lost
    through this rule the Europa Cup againt KV Mechelen. In the first
    minutes Blind was sent out. After that I didn't see the application of
    this rule anymore in international football. 
    Yes, get rid of the off-side rule. We want more goals and attacking
    football ; I am sure the Dutch team would agree ! And Denmark would
    have had a normal win, and not these frustrating penalties.....
    
    John

    re: -1
    
    >> More camera's and using these tapes could help
    >>	(like with american football).
    
    American football just voted to stop using video tapes because they
    found that in 92% of cases, the referee was correct.
    
    However, I do agree that what is needed are more pairs of eyes watching
    the game (and the players).  In previous notes, I've suggested another
    referee and giving linesmen authority to call fouls, handballs, etc
    themselves.
    
    If you look at most other international sports, they all have multiple
    referees, linesmen, etc.  
    
    Ice Hockey		3 refs on ice	 1 behind each goal
    Basketball		2 refs on court  1 to keep the clock
    Baseball		4 Umpires on the field
    Cricket		2 Umpires on the field
    Tennis		Multiple linesman  1 Umpire to keep score
    American Football	Too many to count!!
    
    Etc
    Etc
    
    PJ
    

    re -1
    Yes, more referees could be a solution too !
    But I would like to know the percentage in soccer as you mention the
    92% in American Football.......
    
    John

    Few refereeing decisions in sport are obviously black and white
    (eg a tennis ball is either in court or out of court, there is no other
    option).
    
    However, there will always be discussions about whether a foul is
    really a foul or whether advantage should or should not be played. You
    could review the videa 100 times and you still might not reach any
    conclusions.
    
    (In the US, American Football video reviews were only overruled if the
    video showed 'conclusive proof that the orignal call was wrong', so
    being strictly accurate, 92% of the calls were either correct or the
    video were not conclusive.)
    
    I do not think that video should be used during a game of soccer.  It
    would disrupt the flow too much and like the US experience, I don't
    think there would be too many occasions when the referee would be
    over-ruled.  
    
    However, I do advocate the use of video to punish deliberate acts of
    violence or cheating that the ref may not have seen during a game (eg.
    MAradona's hand of GOD, Boli's head butt vs. England, Davis's
    jawbreaker against the Saints.)
    
    I also advocate using two referees.  Another pair of eyes might reduce
    the number of times the video needs to be used in the circumstances
    listed above!!
    
    PJ
    

    
    Your'e right, PJ.
    
    It's not so much in foul-situations that a video is needed, more in
    f.ex. offside-situations.
    
    A fresh example is Van Bastens goal against CIS. In my opinion (and
    everyone else on that section where i was sitting), it was a clear
    offside. Looking at the reply later, you could se he was onside. Some
    might feel lucky that this tecnology wasn't available in the 60's. With
    a replay, Enlgland wouldn't have won the World Cup... :-)
    
    In American Football, the rules is more black and white. Either it is a
    foul on the play or it isn't. In real football it's so much up to the
    referees opinion. Someone said that it's 60% rules and 40% judgement.
    Look at the referees in this tournament. They have all different levels
    of accepting a foul. In the first semi, the Italian ref was showing his
    yellow card like a madman, in the second, the ref accepted a high level
    of fouling.
    
    The first thing a footballplayes does is to test the referee. How far
    can i go today? So a videorecording with a couple of referees judging
    toghether is perhaps a good sollution. In icehockey it's even worse. If
    you ever watched a World Cup you know what i mean. American referees
    like Smith and Adams let everything go by where European refs will take
    a two-minute penalty. 
    
    There's been talk that all tackles from behind will result in a
    freekick. That will surely ease up the job for the refs. It will give
    players more space and time to receive and dribble the ball. A funnier
    game to watch?
    
    Mats 

    Mats,
    
    re: 60% rules and 40% judgement
    
    Exactly, some referees often take into account a player's intent
    when committing a foul.  (i.e.  was he genuinely trying to get the
    ball, or was it a deliberate kick at the legs.)  The rule book makes no
    distinction!!
    
    PJ 

    
    Re .39
    
    PJ,
    
    Linesmen do have the autority to call fouls, infringements
    etc...depending on the referees instructions to them.  I was amazed at
    how far behind the game the ref was for the Germany-Sweden game..approx
    45yds behind the penalty incident !!
    
    A combination of a ref and 2 linesmen = 3 officials, an extra ref could
    confuse things....what happens if one ref has a different
    interpretation of the laws to the other one..it could get confusing. 
    Plus they would always be consulting with each other regards bookings,
    warnings etc.  I say the linesmen, who are qualified refs to a high
    level, should be given more 'powers' and the officials should act as a
    team, not as a single 'ego' in the middle.
    
    There has been talk of professional refs by UEFA..could be interesting
    !!
    
    Paul

    I have only ref'd one season.  However, I've used "prof" linesmen
    twice, and "educated" club linesmen several times.  (I've been a "prof"
    linesmen six times)  There is nothing as satisfying as having a well
    connected set of officials!  
    
    First, with either type of linesmen (prof. or good club), I can leave
    the two goal lines for them to watch.  Also, they can check for
    clearance over the penalty area on goal kicks, and help out on corner
    kicks.  This not only shortens the field for me by 10 to 20 yards on each 
    end, but frees me to look for more important infractions.  Of course I 
    have to add to my obligations the need to frequently look at them for 
    non-verbal signals. (Nothing worse than being a linesmen and have the ref 
    ignore you).
    
    With Professional linesmen I can also let them focus of offsides which 
    again frees me to follow different parts of the play.  But the best
    piece is that they are my extra set of eyes.  At half time we spend
    lots of time debriefing each other on off-the-ball action.  They give
    me constructive advice and support me when they agree with my unpopular
    call (Yes, ref's care about their decisions being correct!)
    
    As a linesman, I've overturned several goals.  This was due to the fact
    that a) I was right  b) The ref and I constantly communicated (i.e. he
    called the goal but did not put the ball into play until he came over
    to confer with me since he saw my stationary stance at the goalline
    which let him know there was a problem) c) Good linesmen know the rules
    and can be excellent advisors on particularly strange situations.
    
    There is a move afoot to license linesmen just like refs in our town. 
    I support that.  I've seen ref's make bad linesmen, and non-refs make
    good ones.  A good lineman can work very hard and be a real asset. 
    When I finish a lineman job, I'm tired!!  I run a great deal, and have
    almost as much to concentrate on as when I ref.
    
    Regards,
    		Jeff-the-ref

    Jeff & Paul,
    
    On the issue of refs & linesmen...
    
    As long as one referee has ultimately responsibility for the game, I
    would  prefer to see either a second ref on the field or linesmen with
    whistles.
    
    There was recent experiment in France with two refs and there was
    little complaint about the two different styles because as the game
    progressed the officials started to work as a team not as two
    individuals.  Consequently, if the game was getting a bit rough, they
    would call a foul on even the slightest contact, whereas if the game
    was flowing and was being played in a good spirit, the refs would allow
    play to continue, etc, etc.
    
    There is also another unstated reason for having a second ref.  As you
    mentioned, a second pair of eyes would help, but with a second pair of
    eyes watching them, perhaps players would not be inclined to commit so
    may of the niggling, off the ball fouls that are becoming so common 
    (eg Boli's head butt against Stuart Pearce in the Euro Champs).
    
    PJ 

    An interesting thought:
    
    >  Two ref's (one in charge) or whistles to the linesmen
    
    	In some high school matches here they have two refs.  It's OK, but
    I'd prefer just one.  If two are on the field, then they should take
    one half of the field each (i.e. one goal area each).  Then, at half
    time when the teams switch sides (and ref's DON'T), both teams get each 
    ref equally.  It can work, but requires really good teamwork.
    
    	Giving the linesmen whistles isn't a good idea.  As a ref, I should
    be looking over enough to see if they need my attention.  It'd be
    really a tough match if everyone is waiting for one of three whistles
    to stop play.  But I'd be willing to give it a try IF there were very
    clear rules as to when and for what reason a linesman can stop the
    match.
    
    	As a linesman, I'd have called lots of fouls -- but most of them
    were seen by the ref and he chose to overlook them.  If I start blowing
    my whistle then it's my game and not his.  My goal is only to make him
    aware of things he doesn't see.  It's real important that I DO NOT show
    any dissent to his calls!!
    
    	Regards,
    
    			Jeff

    This reply is for all you guys who said that the Dutch had made so many
    faults against the Danes :
    
    You were absolutely wrong : Holland got the Fairplay Cup and guessed
    dear fellows who collected it ?
    
    Yes, Ronald Koeman !

    re -1
    
    Before you feel provoked by my last reply and are going to use spaces
    of diskspace :
    
    I really had to laugh for UEFA's decision ! What criteria they used
    here ? 
    
    John

    re: .47
    
    Jeff,
    
    With respect to multiple whistles...I'm not sure how it would work in a
    soccer match, but there obviously aren't any problems with multiple
    whistles in American Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball, etc, etc.
    
    I don't think that in any of these sports, a referees decision is
    questioned if the call is made by a fellow official.  However, I do
    agree with you that the officials must act as a team.
    
    I think someone should experiment with the idea.  I think a lot of
    people would be surprised.
    
    PJ

    You might be right about multiple whistles working.  I don't know much
    about Ice Hockey, but basketball certainly has two refs with two
    whistles.  They tend to work different halves of the floor.  I do know
    that they sometimes have problems with one calling something that is
    closer to the other's position.
    
    Regarding American Football, it's not the same.  The only whistle is
    when the ball is down or out of bounds.  Any official can "drop a flag"
    to signal that a foul has been committed, but play continues.  When the
    whistle is blown, they all get together and decide if and what penalty
    to call. (It can sometimes be a big committee meeting - especially if
    they turn to the instant replay!!).
    
    Why don't you open a note on what "rules" you'd like to change and how 
    you'd change them?  It'd be interesting to hear what folks think about 
    how to implement multiple whistles, etc.
    
    	Regards,
    			Jeff

    
    
    You'll get everybody in the crowd taking whistles to matches and
    confusing the hell out of the players. As it is at the moment if the
    ref is near to play you can differentiate between a whistle from the
    crowd and a whistle from the sidelines, but if you give sideline
    officials a whistle how the hell are you going to know if its some
    joker sat directly behind the linesman (whistleman)..
    Good idea in theory and I know it works for American football etc.. 
    But the spectators at these sports are a lot more "honest" (for want 
    of a better word)..
    
    Gary...

    
    Sorry I got a bit carried away with the word sideline, it should read
    
    As it is at the moment if the ref is near to play you can differentiate 
    between a whistle from the crowd and a whistle from the REFEREE on the
    pitch..
    
    Gary..

    I come back to other sports (like basketball and hockey) and ask the
    question how do referees make their whistles heard over possible
    whistles from the crowd??   I don't accept that basketball fans and
    hockey fans are any more honest than soccer fans!!
    
    PJ

    
    I play ice hockey for a rec team and you would be surprised
    how easy it is to forget about the crowd even though I haven't
    played in front of that many people. Its easy to hear the refs
    blow their whistles. Generally the whistles from the crowd make
    no difference to the game being played.
    
    Hockey is not a good choice to compare to football and reffing
    the game.
    
    JN.

    
    Both hockey (I take it we are on about the ice variety) and basketball
    are played in small areas compared to football and all referees are
    very close to play and the players. So -1 is correct in saying hockey
    isn't a very good comparison and from my playing days of basketball the
    refs where that close to you that there is no way you can make a
    mistake, if they whistled you jumped out of your skin. The same I
    suppose of Ice Hockey. Not so in football, if a linesman has a whistle
    he could be blowing for an offence more than the length of a
    basketball/Ice hockey court/arena away..
    
    Gary..
    
    

    
    Also in hockey when a foul (illegal check) or icing the puck
    the players will most of the time continue to play on but will
    be expecting the ref to blow his whistle to stop play, chuck
    players in the bin and re-start with a face off depending on 
    what the situation is.
    
    If you do happen to be skating past the ref when he gets his lungs
    around the whistle it does tend to make you look up and notice.
    
    JN.