The Kraken

Is there a significant cost stopping park's football from having the tech? We simply don't know yet what the costs will be. But there is the possibility, if they choose to do so, for any team ti implement either 6 officials or the technology. And kets be honest here, even at local level officiating costs a fair bit of money. Add 6 officials, based over 20 odd games per season, and that's already a hefty bill.

Technology has made these games better by ensuring the decisions made by the officials are correct more often. That is clearly a good thing. And as you say they are just as exciting, so the introduction of technology has not diluted the viewing enjoyment. If a machine makes a more accurate job of officating (in conjunction with a human referee) and the sports content is just as exciting, I don't see how that is a bad thing, or why people are scared of it.

So there's already a difference between officiating at the top level and at parks level. Technology is just a further extension of that.

How does goal line technology create an artficial break between the top level of football and everyone else, but having 5 officials doesn't?

Collina isn't. He's clearly at least part robot.

He works for UEFA. UEFA run the tournament. Collina has said the ball crossed the line. UEFA's general secretary has said the ball crossed the line. I think its fair to say they had a good look at the footage and concluded that the ball definitely crossed the line. And probably not just some grainy low resolution images that we have seen, they would have been in posession of much better imagery to confirm it one way or the other. Michel Platini is desperate for his 5-officials approach to work and make technology redundant. If there was even the slightest doubt that the ball didn't cross the line then UEFA would have challenged it. They haven't done that, and for good reason.

if that is truly the case, why on earth has Pierluigi Collina, UEFA's Head of Referees, admitted that one of his members made a mistake?

I think that's a bit of a frightened way to look at technology and how it can improve the game. Which is the be all and end all; has technology improved the games of rugby, cricket and tennis? Irrefutably yes. Would goal line tech improve football, within the benchmarks laid down by FIFA? Irrefutably yes, it would be more accurate and with no interruption to the game. FIFA have consistently stated that they only want technology when it will not disrupt the flow of the game. There will always be some features of the game that will only be determined by human choice; whether a tackle was a foul, whether a player dived, whether a player in an offside position was interfering with play. Technology has got no chance of taking over football with the benchmarks that FIFA have insisted upon; that it can only be used for 100% factually based decisions, i.e. a ball going out of play. Technology will never replace a referee, only make some of his decisions much easier. Its a backwards step to disregard goal line technology, on its own its only logical to implement if it works as prescribed.

Does your local park have 5 officials? They could, if they could afford it. They could also have technology, if they could afford it.

As I said, ITV fed the information into a computer model and it confirmed it as over. If the head of referees is admitting that one of his members made a mistake, I give his opinion the ultimate credibility. He formally represents the man that made the mistake. If the ref's assistant was in any way of the opinion that he got it right, and if the TV evidence didn't prove him wrong, then there is no way on earth Collina would have made that statement.

Why would goal line technology mean that couldn't be the case?

Not quite. There is one lone lunatic who refutes that Saints are a smaller club than those two; or at least he claims its too close to call.

Except it wasn't. Even Sepp Blatter has admitted the ref got it wrong. ITV also mocked up a computer generation of the ball and confirmed it went in. Pierluigi Collina is UEFA's head of referees; he had this to say about it. Still think it didn't go in? Because UEFA and FIFA seem to disagree with you.

Rugby and cricket have natural breaks in play though, so its much simpler for the play to be halted and videos checked. One of the biggest criticisms you often have of football is that the ref "didn't let the game flow"; inserting video replays would diminish it massively as a spectator sport IMO.

I wonder if he's ever put a bet on in a bookies? He'd probably try and have a debate with the kiosk staff. "Well, you say I need to enter whether it will be a win, lose or a draw. But I contend that it isn't as simple as that; there are many more issues to consider than league position, current form, and game location. Plus a whole host of other factors that we my or may not know about. With that in mind it is utterly impossible for me to fill in this form."

This. Go on any neutral footballing forum and ask which is the bigger club and you'll get a resounding answer. The sheer desperation to not admit that by using utterly irrelavant comparisons and speculation is a bit pathetic.

Yes its very hard for me to understand that not only can you not answer you cannot even guess, based upon the information you do actually have (which is very significant).

It stops at goal line technology. As I said above in this post: FIFA put down benchmarks that this technology MUST meet before it is introduced. It cannot rely upon reviewing the tape, a proven 100% correct system needs to alert the ref to the ball crossing the line within 1 second. Those I guess will be the future benchmarks of any technology. If companies can come up with technology such as that, that works flawlessly within those benchmarks, why on earth would we not introduce it?

Based on the information known to you right now, and that alone, what would be your opinion?

The new image above is a lot clearer.

Disagree. Both zoomed and normal resolution show clear daylight IMO. In any case its redundant, it wasn't given. It was also offside, and we had a couple of decent penalty shouts turned down too, so its just one controversy in amongst a few. Roll on technology I say! Edit: different image but a bit clearer and definitely over the line (normal res and zoom).

I'm not even sure how the technology could be implemented to check for every offside decision. Certainly not without stopping play and rewinding the video tape, which I personally think is a type of system that should never be introduced.

How can you compare Saints' attendance from 2004 with Everton's from last season? Hardly relevant. If you're looking for an accurate comparison then you simply have to compare attendances from the same seasons. So either a comparison in 2004 or a comparison last year. Anything else is massively flawed.

The camera was perfectly placed, and IMO shows clearly that the ball was over the line.

Really difficult to tell with the images we have; but I genuinely don't think there is more than an extra 1,000 - 1,500 seats in each of the Northam and Chapel ends. In the Itchen corners the height of seats still seems to be the same as now. And the seats don't seem to rise as high as the Kingland new tier; hence the raised step of the Kingsland roof. Can't really tell from the pictures but it seems to me that the new Northam and Chapel roofs are level, rather than sloped up to the Kingland (again as evidenced by the step up in roof heights), so I'm not sure how much actual capacity that would allow for. Hopefully we'll actually see some formal designs and planning applications go in soon to answer these questions. There's no reason why not; Reading have had planning approval for their stadium increase since 2007.