Goal Line Technology

[Kumquat]

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

Yeah West Ham I believe were blamed for that one.

I've had another good idea. I'm full of them today. Instead of stopping the game why not just stick to the ref's decision and then at the end of the game check. If it turns out there should have been a goal then award it. Even more suspense with everybody finding out five minutes after the final whistle. They could do an announcement over the tannoy in reality tv style with th evoice of the guy who does Come Dine with Me. Or alternatively instead of awarding the goal just have a replay. More revenue for the clubs.

 

[sten_super]

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 are, in my opinion, completely and utterly unworkable in soccerball.

This may be a bit controversial, but I'd say that offsides aren't subjective. Or at least shouldn't be (I appreciate the current version of the law states that they have to be interfering with play, but you could easily remove that). I can see that it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to devise a system which measures offsides, and I may welcome that, if again it could be instantaneous and beyond dispute. However I agree 100% about fouls, diving etc. I can't see any way that you could satisfactorily have a review system for that.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

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.

It's what makes football great in my view, you get contentious decisions that rile the crowd and can fire a game up. The best atmosphere at Withdean was often created by a ref giving a dodgy decision. I just don't want the game sterilised and made dull. It's what leads to great debates in pubs, radio phone ins and and on forums such as this. It is starting to take the heart out of football in my opinion.

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.

If you go down to kids playing football then yes you will get people using jumpers for goal posts or playing in a street. But at an amateur Sunday league type level, chances are you have a ref and 2 linesmen and no additional technology to change that.

 

[Easy 10]

This may be a bit controversial, but I'd say that offsides aren't subjective. Or at least shouldn't be (I appreciate the current version of the law states that they have to be interfering with play, but you could easily remove that). I can see that it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to devise a system which measures offsides, and I may welcome that, if again it could be instantaneous and beyond dispute. However I agree 100% about fouls, diving etc. I can't see any way that you could satisfactorily have a review system for that.

If you remove the interpretation of the "interfering with play" within the current offside rules then it would simplify the process to an extent. But we'd then go back to even more stoppages in play, as (uninvolved) players trotting back to an onside position inevitably get caught offside (especially if they've been closing down the keeper, which happens FAR more often these days since keepers can't pick up backpasses). The "interfering with play" rule does somtimes make for some grey areas, but its reason for existing is to help the game flow.

You're asking for video replays and interpretations, which is a very slippery slope. Get that in for offside calls and it would inevitably be brought in for everything else eventually. Which would be a disaster for the game.

 

[sten_super]

It's what makes football great in my view, you get contentious decisions that rile the crowd and can fire a game up. The best atmosphere at Withdean was often created by a ref giving a dodgy decision. I just don't want the game sterilised and made dull. It's what leads to great debates in pubs, radio phone ins and and on forums such as this. It is starting to take the heart out of football in my opinion.

I agree that dodgy decisions do help to create atmosphere at games, but I'm not sure that they are what lead to great debates. It's perfectly possible to have discussions in a pub about rugby, american football or cricket without the need for wrong (or debatable) decisions to talk about.

If you go down to kids playing football then yes you will get people using jumpers for goal posts or playing in a street. But at an amateur Sunday league type level, chances are you have a ref and 2 linesmen and no additional technology to change that.

But that's entirely my point - to suggest that football is a game played by one set of rules with a common set of equipment is a completely false starting point. The game already isn't played with any consistency (even in the number of players on the pitch or the size of the goals!) so to me the argument that "it's the same for everyone and this would change that" is completely wrong.

 

[Acker79]

It's perfectly possible to have discussions in a pub about rugby, american football or cricket without the need for wrong (or debatable) decisions to talk about.

There are even debates about whether decisions were right even with video replays in NFL.

 

[BigGully]

It's what makes football great in my view, you get contentious decisions that rile the crowd and can fire a game up. The best atmosphere at Withdean was often created by a ref giving a dodgy decision. I just don't want the game sterilised and made dull. It's what leads to great debates in pubs, radio phone ins and and on forums such as this. It is starting to take the heart out of football in my opinion.

I understand your concern, football to me is already sterile enough, I was brought up watching football in the 70's & 80's now that was exciting, well off the pitch anyway!!!!!!

But I think your concerns are misplaced.

The debates in pubs and in the stands should be about contentious decisions but not wrong one's.

Lets debate the form of our/their striker and the unlikely team selection of their/our managers.

Was it a foul or not, did he dive etc etc. that's all good stuff which will remain intact, for now anyway.

But I am not a fan of incorrect decisions given which effects directly the outcome of the game which could be confirmed absolutely by technology.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

But that's entirely my point - to suggest that football is a game played by one set of rules with a common set of equipment is a completely false starting point. The game already isn't played with any consistency (even in the number of players on the pitch or the size of the goals!) so to me the argument that "it's the same for everyone and this would change that" is completely wrong.

You're missing my point. You will always have people having kickarounds and kicking a ball against a wall by themself. It is when it starts getting to a competitive level, that the rules, principles and officials are the same.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

There are even debates about whether decisions were right even with video replays in NFL.

So what's the point of them then?!

 

[Shirty]

I'm not a tennis fan by any stretch of the imagination, but isnt this sort of technology used for line calls ? Does it lead to endless debate about the decisions that are made ?

 

[sten_super]

You're missing my point. You will always have people having kickarounds and kicking a ball against a wall by themself. It is when it starts getting to a competitive level, that the rules, principles and officials are the same.

Is that why we have 4th officials holding up boards indicating how much stoppage time there will be at Sunday League games?

I'm not trying to be pendantic (honest!) but you can have proper FA-sanctioned 5-a-side tournaments which have different rules (regarding number of players, size of goals, etc.). Games at different levels are already played in different circumstances (the extra officials in Europa League matches is another example), so for me the argument doesn't hold. Ultimately there is more riding on these decisions (from a financial and sporting perspective) in the top games than lower down the footballing chain, so just because the technology isn't viable below a certain level (I've got no idea how much this technology costs, so I don't know what level) shouldn't rule it out, when all you are doing is ensuring that the correct decision is made.