Goal-line technology,good or bad ?

[ali jenkins]

How does it affect the flow of the game?

Because if it starts getting used for all types of decisions, like offside, fouls etc then the game is going to be stopped to check replays

 

[somerset]

Because if it starts getting used for all types of decisions, like offside, fouls etc then the game is going to be stopped to check replays

Its already stopped continuously by footballers falling over at the slightest touch, how would those stops be any different to 30 secs of review for a more game changing decision?

Bryan Robson was right yesterday though, the more important reviews should be for penalty decisions, they do really change the outcome of games, and happen more frequently than disallowed goal scenarios.

 

[ali jenkins]

Its already stopped continuously by footballers falling over at the slightest touch, how would those stops be any different to 30 secs of review for a more game changing decision?

Bryan Robson was right yesterday though, the more important reviews should be for penalty decisions, they do really change the outcome of games, and happen more frequently than disallowed goal scenarios.

Because if they are a foul then it should be stopped, if it isnt then the player gets booked for diving.

If it is a clean tackle and the other team break up to the other end when do you stop the game to check the replay?

 

[somerset]

Because if they are a foul then it should be stopped, if it isnt then the player gets booked for diving.

If it is a clean tackle and the other team break up to the other end when do you stop the game to check the replay?

You are not picking up on my point, a ref would ask for a review if for instance he sees a foul or handball in or around the box,... the question he will ask of the video reviewer upstairs would be something like "I have blown for a handball/foul that I think is inside the box, can you give me any reason why it cant be given?" .... so its a case that the ref has seen and blown for something and needs support/confirmation.

 

[upthealbion1970]

So long as technology doesn't start to creep further then yes it's a good thing. There was a dubious one earlier this season at the Amex (Leeds?)

 

[ali jenkins]

You are not picking up on my point, a ref would ask for a review if for instance he sees a foul or handball in or around the box,... the question he will ask of the video reviewer upstairs would be something like "I have blown for a handball/foul that I think is inside the box, can you give me any reason why it cant be given?" .... so its a case that the ref has seen and blown for something and needs support/confirmation.

Yes but my point is that it wont be long before everything dubious is reliant on HawkEye. It works in Tennis, Cricket, Rugby etc because there is a natural break in play. Football doesnt have that unless the ball goes out and that has got to be less than 50% of the contencious decisions.

 

[somerset]

Yes but my point is that it wont be long before everything dubious is reliant on HawkEye. .

Ok, but that's a different point altogether, the review as in rugby, happens for key moments, scoring and penalties, nobody is proposing a broader scope.

 

[ali jenkins]

How long do you think it'll be before Man U are denied a goal from a tackle that is a bit dubious and Fergie is bleating on to anyone that'll listen that "We have it for goal lines now, why cant we have it for other decisions? Its riddiculous that in this day and age that we cant use it all over the pitch" etc...

 

[somerset]

How long do you think it'll be before Man U are denied a goal from a tackle that is a bit dubious and Fergie is bleating on to anyone that'll listen that "We have it for goal lines now, why cant we have it for other decisions? Its riddiculous that in this day and age that we cant use it all over the pitch" etc...

That type of 'no can do' thinking is what has stopped football progressing, try a bit of forward thinking common sense. There is always an extreme worst case scenario, if the rules around reviews are sensible and well applied, then we can all be conforted in the fact that at least pens and goal line issues have been tackled ( forgive the pun).

 

[ali jenkins]

That type of 'no can do' thinking is what has stopped football progressing, try a bit of forward thinking common sense. There is always an extreme worst case scenario, if the rules around reviews are sensible and well applied, then we can all be conforted in the fact that at least pens and goal line issues have been tackled ( forgive the pun).

What about leaving things as they are? I am not apposed Football making improvements but my personal opinion is that using technology isn't the right way to go. Football is all about opinions, you have yours and I have mine. Thats what makes the game interesting. How many times have you been in the pub talking about a decision? That would be boring if it was black or white, wouldn't it?

 

[Lethargic]

Good thing for straight forward yes/no decisions but nothing else all other decisions should remain with the referees interpretation. In my view people talking about the thin edge of the wedge are a little behind the times, that came when players started "simulating", barracking the ref, etc which has now become an acceptable (although should not be) part of the game.

Next step should be electrodes connected to players so whenever they swear/argue they get a small but effective shock.

 

[Easy 10]

Good thing for straight forward yes/no decisions but nothing else all other decisions should remain with the referees interpretation.

This, with BELLS on.
Hawkeye simply gives a yes/no decision, its either over the line or it isn't. Thats fine, because there is no grey area.

Anyone wanting technology to be used to help decide penalty decisions quite honestly wants their bumps felt. How many times will fans, pundits, ANYONE, see a penalty incident and argue the toss over whether or not the right call was given ? Its not always blatant, its not always obvious, it all comes down to INTERPRETATION.

The other thing that often seems to get overlooked is this - are you going to have video reviews for penalty decisions that ARE given, or ones that AREN'T given ? If you're going to review an incident where the ref waved play on without giving a pen, then when do you stop the game to review it ? What if something else happens (a goal ?) before the review of the penalty appeal takes place ?

It would end up being chilli-con-CARNAGE out there. Line calls - fine. Fouls - forget it. Just forget it. Just rely on an honest decision and accept it might not always be what everyone considers the right one. The alternatives would ruin the game as we know it.

 

[banjo]

Good news but I think that by the time both teams had argued with the ref about if the ball had crossed the line or not someone could of simply of spoken to him to let him know either way.

 

[Mellotron]

Goal line tech - yes. Obviously.
Any further tech - so difficult to say. If there is a way somehow to do it without ruining the flow of play, then yes, obviously. But I'm not sure it is possible.

 

[somerset]

This, with BELLS on.
Hawkeye simply gives a yes/no decision, its either over the line or it isn't. Thats fine, because there is no grey area.

Anyone wanting technology to be used to help decide penalty decisions quite honestly wants their bumps felt. How many times will fans, pundits, ANYONE, see a penalty incident and argue the toss over whether or not the right call was given ? Its not always blatant, its not always obvious, it all comes down to INTERPRETATION.

The other thing that often seems to get overlooked is this - are you going to have video reviews for penalty decisions that ARE given, or ones that AREN'T given ? If you're going to review an incident where the ref waved play on without giving a pen, then when do you stop the game to review it ? What if something else happens (a goal ?) before the review of the penalty appeal takes place ?

It would end up being chilli-con-CARNAGE out there. Line calls - fine. Fouls - forget it. Just forget it. Just rely on an honest decision and accept it might not always be what everyone considers the right one. The alternatives would ruin the game as we know it.

Good grief,... listen, in rugby the reviews are simply used to support or otherwise a decision about a try,... "was there a foot in touch?" , "did the ball get grounded correctly", "was there a forward pass that led to a try?",.... in football terms as I posted above, the reviews should only be used for penalty or goal situations,.. eg. if there was a close offside call before the ball was netted, if there was some doubt whether an offence was inside or outside the box,.... its simple. Nobody is suggesting every event on the pitch is potentially a reviewable act, just those where the ref and/or the linesman have made a decision but want the confidence of confirmation from the video.

 

[Easy 10]

Good grief,... listen, in rugby the reviews are simply used to support or otherwise a decision about a try,... "was there a foot in touch?" , "did the ball get grounded correctly", "was there a forward pass that led to a try?",.... in football terms as I posted above, the reviews should only be used for penalty or goal situations,.. eg. if there was a close offside call before the ball was netted, if there was some doubt whether an offence was inside or outside the box,.... its simple. Nobody is suggesting every event on the pitch is potentially a reviewable act, just those where the ref and/or the linesman have made a decision but want the confidence of confirmation from the video.

Yes, and in rugby a foot in touch or a grounded ball is still basically a yes/no decision.

You're advocating bringing it in to decide if theres been a foul or not - thatsan entirely different matter. And once everyone knows an incident / decision is instantly reviewable if the ref wants to, then what do you think is going to happen ? Players and managers already whine like little bitches over half the decisions a ref makes as it is. If they know they can now pressure him into having another look at it, ESPECIALLY to get a penalty awarded or turned over, the ref would spend more time reviewing decisions than making them.

It would be ruinous to the game, its just too high a price to pay in pursuit of "perfection" on all decisions - which is impossible to achieve, because even on review its still just an interpretation, and people will still disagree on whether the right call was made. We already do after seeing some fouls 20 times.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

if it does happen it's swings & roundabouts

Probably my most hated cliche.

There is no logic to it at all.

Also that is ignoring the importance of the match in which the incident occurs. If Spain have a goal disallowed(even though it was over the line) in a world cup final, but have one given to them in a friendly match 5 months later, they are not going to say "well, at least it evened itself out".

 

[brixtonA23]

Geoff the classic Yorkshireman believes that technology is the best thing for cricket, crowds wait happily for a decision by Hawkeye in tennis, you have referrals in American Football by the umpire watching a replay, rugby the same, surely about time football followed suit?

And why not save the refs from abuse? If they go to a 3rd video referee for his decision, with all camera angles available, then firstly the on pitch referee is exonerated from the hell from stands and managers and the sofa pundits can spend more time on the match itself.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Yes, and in rugby a foot in touch or a grounded ball is still basically a yes/no decision.

You're advocating bringing it in to decide if theres been a foul or not - thatsan entirely different matter. And once everyone knows an incident / decision is instantly reviewable if the ref wants to, then what do you think is going to happen ? Players and managers already whine like little bitches over half the decisions a ref makes as it is. If they know they can now pressure him into having another look at it, ESPECIALLY to get a penalty awarded or turned over, the ref would spend more time reviewing decisions than making them.

It would be ruinous to the game, its just too high a price to pay in pursuit of "perfection" on all decisions - which is impossible to achieve, because even on review its still just an interpretation, and people will still disagree on whether the right call was made. We already do after seeing some fouls 20 times.

Exactly. There could be a goal scored 45 seconds after a slightly contentious tackle in the middle of the pitch. And we ALL know what the manager (who just conceded the goal) would say.

"Well, the ref should have reviewed that tackle because I think it was a foul and they wouldn't have scored". It would open up a family sized tin of wigglies.

 

[pork pie]

Good. They should also consult a 4th official with television evidence of key decisions as well. Football is being outdone by rugby yet again.