Fred De Jong: Lesson from the referees is that life is unfair

I really felt for the Italians in their 2-1 loss to Croatia. Two questionable decisions from the referee's assistant cost them dearly and have now put the Italians in a position from where they might struggle to qualify for the second phase.

The decision to rule out Filippo Inzaghi's goal for shirt-pulling was bad enough. It was, at best, a 50-50 decision. But the earlier call to rule out a goal for offside - when Christian Vieri clearly was not - was a disaster.

There can be no excuse at this level for getting something like that so wrong.

But as poor as the decisions might have been - and generally I have felt the standard has been pretty good, with referees obviously keen to let the game flow - there is no way I would advocate the use of a video referee.

Had there been outside assistance, the Italians might have won, Rivaldo might have deservedly been booked for his theatricals and referee Pierluigi Collina might not have cruelly ruled against the Argentines in awarding England a penalty when Michael Owen dived.

These were three key decisions which could still have some bearing on the eventual outcome of the World Cup, but that is how it is and how it should always be.

Relying on a video referee takes away the magic of the moment, the very reason why you play the game.

The moment you score is what you play for, not having to wait until the referee stops the action and calls for help.

The wild celebrations after a goal, the somersaults, the dancing and the gestures would all be gone. Even the utter disbelief and despair on the coach's face when the goal is unfairly disallowed is all part of the fun.

By delaying any decision, all the spontaneity, all the celebration, all the emotion is lost.

This World Cup has been packed with emotion.

We are just halfway through the group phase and face the unthinkable situation where Argentina, France, Portugal and even Italy might not qualify. If a number of these teams drop out, this World Cup is destined to become a shocker.

It would never be remembered as a great tournament if the final were played between countries such as Sweden and Cameroon.

That is not to take anything away from the lesser-ranked teams, who are doing very well, but from a tournament point of view it would be disappointing if Brazil - who are the best team I have seen so far and are cruising on their side of the draw - came up against a string of lesser sides in their run through post-section play.

Of the others, Germany and Spain have looked okay and I still think France will qualify, even if scoring two goals against a well-organised Danish side will not be easy.

Of the so-called minnows, I think the Asian teams have come on in leaps and bounds, but I have been disappointed with the Africans. It is folly to suggest that an African team will win the World Cup soon.

This talk about Senegal being a contender is, I feel, premature.

Sure, they did well to upset France in the tournament opener, but I could not see them doing the same in four post-group games against the likes of Germany, France and Brazil.

And, speaking of minnows, I do not think Australia would have been embarrassed had they been at the World Cup.

But, having said that, direct entry for Oceania looks unjustified, unless the region's top team were consistently ranked in Fifa's top 25.

If Oceania's best team were ranked outside the top 50, as Australia are, giving them direct entry would deny a more highly ranked team the opportunity to play at this level.

This World Cup, with all teams in or just outside the top 50, is just 10 days old, but already we have seen some great matches and some good goals.

I can't see any reason that won't continue.

nzherald.co.nz/fifaworldcup

Groups and team lists
Stars
Schedule
Points tables
Previous winners and key statistics

Interactive graphics:
Groups and team profiles