Goal Line Technology

[Kumquat]

GOAL-LINE CLOSE CALLS
•Pedro Mendes - Man Utd 0-0 Tottenham, 2006 Premier League

Closer to the back of the net than the line. Was sitting in the Stretford End (opposite goal) and even I could see it was clearly over.
Those 2 points cost Tottenham Champions League Football, for the first time

The sooner goal lone technology is introduced the better.

Thought the goal was 2005 January and Spurs ended up 9th that year?

 

[BigGully]

It is going to happen and so it should, too often the outcome of the games are flawed.

We will look back when this technology is entrenched and be embarrassed at the outcomes of previous generations games when goals were given or not.

These imperfections are not 'part of the game' and I am always frustrated when people ( many football managers ) use the 'luck evens itself out over a season' !!!

Since when has LUCK been so even handed ?

 

[Storer 68]

Same as cricket - the captain could signal he wanted a review to the ref and he'd stop play.

But that's the point - play would have to stop. and if the ball is still in play who stops the play - the ref? the captain making the appeal (who may well have been at the other end of the pitch and not seen the incident)? the coach, the linesman (who again may well be on the other side of the field)!!! The players closest to the incident, the defending team who may well feel they've been "robbed". WHO?

Fraught with difficulty in my book.

and what happens if the images are not conclusive it's not like cricket where the benefit of the doubt goes with the batsman!

 

[Storer 68]

It is going to happen and so it should, too often the outcome of the games are flawed.

We will look back when this technology is entrenched and be embarrassed at the outcomes of previous generations games when goals were given or not.

These imperfections are not 'part of the game' and I am always frustrated when people ( many football managers ) use the 'luck evens itself out over a season' !!!

Since when has LUCK been so even handed ?

Imperfections have to be part of the game because its played by real people and not computers

 

[William Angella]

'but once that signal is given its a goal, end of, and until it's given its not, again end of.'- what happens if the other team go and score before the decision is made, and it turns out it was a goal?

 

[BigGully]

Imperfections have to be part of the game because its played by real people and not computers

Imperfections of sport which add to our enjoyment of it, should be exclusively down to the variances of the players performances and not those of a referee.

 

[Notters]

But that's the point - play would have to stop. and if the ball is still in play who stops the play - the ref? the captain making the appeal (who may well have been at the other end of the pitch and not seen the incident)? the coach, the linesman (who again may well be on the other side of the field)!!! The players closest to the incident, the defending team who may well feel they've been "robbed". WHO?

Fraught with difficulty in my book.

and what happens if the images are not conclusive it's not like cricket where the benefit of the doubt goes with the batsman!

'but once that signal is given its a goal, end of, and until it's given its not, again end of.'- what happens if the other team go and score before the decision is made, and it turns out it was a goal?

I don't think either of you understand. There will be no decision involved. The referee will get a signal when the the ball goes over the goal line and he will point to the centre spot. It's a simple as that. No-one will be able to argue with him as it'll be 100 black and white.

 

[Kumquat]

I don't think either of you understand. There will be no decision involved. The referee will get a signal when the the ball goes over the goal line and he will point to the centre spot. It's a simple as that. No-one will be able to argue with him as it'll be 100 black and white.

And everyone will crowd round him and contest it as they normally do. Then everyone will still bang on and on at the replay and is the technology faultless? Surely it was/wasn't over the line really?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

As [MENTION=1320]Notters[/MENTION] said, it will be an instantaneous decision without the need for any other third party getting involved... ball crosses the line and the bleep signal to the ref is there before anyone can even question it.

 

[magoo]

I'm not really gainst it but i do wonder why everyone wants it so bad when incidences of 'was the ball over the line?' are so few and far between and would be an unneccesary expense for struggling clubs. What is more important to me is stopping simulation especially in the box.

 

[Ecosse Exile]

I don't think either of you understand. There will be no decision involved. The referee will get a signal when the the ball goes over the goal line and he will point to the centre spot. It's a simple as that. No-one will be able to argue with him as it'll be 100 black and white.

Exactly, there will be nothing to debate, the decision is instantanious, there is no time for the other team to race up the other end of the pitch and score.

 

[Kumquat]

I'm not really gainst it but i do wonder why everyone wants it so bad when incidences of 'was the ball over the line?' are so few and far between and would be an unneccesary expense for struggling clubs. What is more important to me is stopping simulation especially in the box.

Personally i like a bit of simulation in the box...

 

[sten_super]

I don't think either of you understand. There will be no decision involved. The referee will get a signal when the the ball goes over the goal line and he will point to the centre spot. It's a simple as that. No-one will be able to argue with him as it'll be 100 black and white.

This is the only system that I'd back. All of the 'review' nonsense is just that; football is too fluid for that. But a microchip in the ball corresponding with chips in the post sending a signal to the ref would be fine.

 

[magoo]

What also occurs to me is that maybe Blatter is trying to make himself a bit more popular after all the recent corruption allegations...

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Another for the "against" voters here.

I like that football is the same from grass roots to professional level. 22 players, a ball and officials. I don't like the idea of introducing such a huge change to the game that would only effect the very top levels. I'd imagine it would only apply to the Premier League and International games?

I'm against the idea of stopping and starting the game unnaturally to make a decision. **Edit. just seen the posts about a bleep telling the ref straight away, so this point may be invalid.**

It won't then stop at goal line decisions, as people will want action taken if a striker was actually off-side when he scored the winning goal that relegated another team. Once that comes in there will be calls for every single possible infringement in the build up to a goal to be scrutanised and so on and so on. It will eventually lead to a 90 minute game taking 2 hours to complete.

There may be some high profile examples, but in general it is not a widespread issue.

I am sure there are other reasons I'm against it, but those are the ones off the top of my head.

 

[Acker79]

I don't think either of you understand. There will be no decision involved. The referee will get a signal when the the ball goes over the goal line and he will point to the centre spot. It's a simple as that. No-one will be able to argue with him as it'll be 100 black and white.

I presume that means '100% black and white', but will it? I have memories of umpires in tennis override the old hawkeye system (i.e. the one that was just a beep for service lines, not the 3d image version), showing it to not be 100% accurate.

I say I need to know more about how it works because for example: a problem is that as the ball bounces, especially at speed, it changes shape momentarily, squashing, meaning it could read a ball as being over the line because so much of it is over the line but in fact the ball isn't entirely over the line (I know that sounds confusing, I don't know the actual measurements, but to make it clearer a football is, let's say 25cm in diameter. When it bounces, the diameter increases because the force of the bounce warps the ball, so at the moment it is touching the ground the ball is 35cm wides. 30cm is over the line and that final 5cm of the warped ball is on the line. Technically the ball doesn't cross the line but the machine, depending on how it works, may show it is over the line.

Another problem is if it uses microchips inside the ball, what about the risk of the chip coming loose?

What if the system crashes like most computesrs do at some point?

In a more sinister way, what if the frequency of the receivers can be hacked and someone cause it to beep when it shouldn't?

What about general faults with the equipment?

What about when the referee thinks the machine is wrong? He overrules it and finds out he was wrong he'll get slaughter, he doesn't overule it and fins out he should have he gets slaughtered. If no one else knows when it beeps how do you avoid referees wrongly overuling it then saying it never beeped reporting false errors? If no one else can hear it, how do you prevent refs failing to hear it in noisy stadia?

 

[BigGully]

Another for the "against" voters here.

I like that football is the same from grass roots to professional level. 22 players, a ball and officials. I don't like the idea of introducing such a huge change to the game that would only effect the very top levels. I'd imagine it would only apply to the Premier League and International games?

I'm against the idea of stopping and starting the game unnaturally to make a decision.

It won't then stop at goal line decisions, as people will want action taken if a striker was actually off-side when he scored the winning goal that relegated another team. Once that comes in there will be calls for every single possible infringement in the build up to a goal to be scrutanised and so on and so on. It will eventually lead to a 90 minute game taking 2 hours to complete.

There may be some high profile examples, but in general it is not a widespread issue.

I am sure there are other reasons I'm against it, but those are the ones off the top of my head.

I agree that technology will march onwards with maybe other critical decisions.

But as a starting position why would you settle for a goal being awarded even though it was scored by a player in an offside position ??

The current haranguing of linesman and referee by players and managers when there is a disputed goal lends me to think that it might be a positive option ahead of a view that no team should benefit from scoring an illegitimate goal.

 

[IndependentWSU]

Thought the goal was 2005 January and Spurs ended up 9th that year?

I stand corrected, it was the following year that Tottenham missed out on the final day. They blamed dodgy lasagne I think

 

[sten_super]

Another for the "against" voters here.

I like that football is the same from grass roots to professional level. 22 players, a ball and officials. I don't like the idea of introducing such a huge change to the game that would only effect the very top levels. I'd imagine it would only apply to the Premier League and International games?

But that's already not the case, is it? At the most amateur levels it's played with jumpers instead of goalposts. Games often don't have a referee, or have a referee but no linesmen. Referees in different continents/countries/leagues are more or less lenient of diving and/or hard tackles. As has been said, this isn't changing the rules; it's simply ensuring that (at a certain level, admittedly) more correct decisions are made.

It won't then stop at goal line decisions, as people will want action taken if a striker was actually off-side when he scored the winning goal that relegated another team. Once that comes in there will be calls for every single possible infringement in the build up to a goal to be scrutanised and so on and so on. It will eventually lead to a 90 minute game taking 2 hours to complete.

I think this is true, and in time it may well creep in to other areas. But it's worth appreciating that in cricket, they bought in 3rd umpires to judge clear-cut decisions such as run-outs in 1992, but they didn't bring in the full blown DRS (which it can be argued is more subjective) until 2009.

 

[Easy 10]

I'd have no problem with goalline technology being introduced, as long as it gives an instant and indisputably accurate decision 100% of the time. This is 2011, it shouldn't be THAT difficult to have a system which can accurately read whether a spherical object has completely crossed the line or not. If such a system exists then bring it in.

Providing thats where it stops though. A line-call is a black-and-white decision, its either yes or no. BUt fouls and offsides are subjective decisions, interpretations by the officials which must be left as just that.

As long as introducing goal-line technology isn't the 'thin end of the wedge', because video replays on decisions for fouls and offsides are, in my opinion, completely and utterly unworkable in soccerball.