Goal Line Technology

[Kingsland Red]

I see even Blatter wants it now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18520916

 

Unless it was a bad dream, I am always surprised when the goal line technology debate comes along that Mark Hughes (?) goal against Leeds (?) at The Dell never crops up - when the ball took the net with it, hit the advertising hoarding behind the goal and came striaght out again, with no Saints appealing and play continuing.

I think we were 0-2 at the time so no cliff hanger though a surreal moment.

[Saint J 77]

So he is for it ,when it without it England benefitted from not having it. But against it after England lost out without it against Germany in 2010 hmmm...

[The Kraken]

So he is for it ,when it without it England benefitted from not having it. But against it after England lost out without it against Germany in 2010 hmmm...

 

Eh?

 

Blatter very publicly started the movement for goal line technology after the Lampard "goal" in WC 2010. Its why Hawkeye and GoalRef have already got through a year of testing and are being narrowed down for final selection in the next few weeks.

[skintsaint]

I am one who doesnt want any sort of technology in football as I think its great having controversy like this but if we are going down that route then maybe replace Linesman with offside line technology is more important....

[The Kraken]

I am one who doesnt want any sort of technology in football as I think its great having controversy like this but if we are going down that route then maybe replace Linesman with offside line technology is more important....

 

I don't quite understand this thinking of being so averse to technology for goal line decision.

 

The benchmarks for the technology being introduced insist that a decision must be automatically relayed to the referee within 1 second of a ball crossing the line. There are no stoppages in play for a decision to be reviewed; if the ball crosses the line the technology reports it to the referee almost instaneously so that he can either give the goal or play on.

 

I really don't know why some people are actually opposed to that form of technology.

[skintsaint]

I don't quite understand this thinking of being so averse to technology for goal line decision.

 

The benchmarks for the technology being introduced insist that a decision must be automatically relayed to the referee within 1 second of a ball crossing the line. There are no stoppages in play for a decision to be reviewed; if the ball crosses the line the technology reports it to the referee almost instaneously so that he can either give the goal or play on.

 

I really don't know why some people are actually opposed to that form of technology.

 

If every decision is right, wont that spoil the game for you? would for me. Good part of the game for me is talking about this sort of thing in the pub etc...

 

I can see why most clubs want it as a wrong decision could cost millions of quid and wouldn't surprise me if its in within 2 or 3 seasons.

 

Oh..and what was the point of the 5th official on goal line duties when he misses it...wasn't even close

[Papa Shango]

Eh?

 

Blatter very publicly started the movement for goal line technology after the Lampard "goal" in WC 2010. Its why Hawkeye and GoalRef have already got through a year of testing and are being narrowed down for final selection in the next few weeks.

 

Exactly. I don't like Blatter at all, but a lot of his comments get twisted. The idea that him and Platini hate all things English is completely false. Sadly a lot of people seem to fall for the media spin.

[Saint J 77]

Eh?

 

Blatter very publicly started the movement for goal line technology after the Lampard "goal" in WC 2010. Its why Hawkeye and GoalRef have already got through a year of testing and are being narrowed down for final selection in the next few weeks.

 

Ok my mistake, I seem to remember him not wanting it at one point though. Wrongly remembering him saying he didn't want it after the Germany game.

[Ric]

I don't think technology would spoil the game - just so long as it's extremely quick to come up with the result.

 

Hawkeye is fine in cricket, where you can quite happily wait ages for the 3rd umpire to make a decision, but in football it has to be a quick - almost instantaneous - ruling.

 

If they can do that for goals (and even for offside decisions, which has been mooted) then it has to be good.

 

What I'm completely, utterly not in favour of is these extra officials. In all the games they've been used in, they've been needed to make a tiny number of decisions - and have got about half right, and half wrong. That's nowhere near good enough for them to be worth it.

[derry]

Last night the official was the only person who was in a perfect position to see if the whole of the ball was over the line.and he judged it not completely over the line. The tv pictures were not at the perfect angle and were not absolutely conclusive but it looked over but it is unproven. The Lampard goal/Tottenham v MU goal were well over. I am prepared to accept the official didn't see all of the ball behind the post, consequently didn't give a goal.

[jawillwill]

If every decision is right, wont that spoil the game for you? would for me. Good part of the game for me is talking about this sort of thing in the pub etc...

 

I can see why most clubs want it as a wrong decision could cost millions of quid and wouldn't surprise me if its in within 2 or 3 seasons.

 

Oh..and what was the point of the 5th official on goal line duties when he misses it...wasn't even close

 

To be fair, it was close. Very close. If I had to estimate, I'd say it was less than 1cm over the line from TV replays- remember that all of the ball has to be over all of the line, so in theory you should be able to see clear daylight between the ball and the post on the side on angle. And it's a lot easier to see with a goal-line camera on TV, than it is up close to the incident, especially if the ball doesn't bounce at all (i.e. like Lampards).

 

Having said that, I too, am a bit of a weirdo and quite like the controversy that often pops up in football. Just imagine how boring it'd be talking about the '66 final if we all knew the ball either was/wasn't over the line...

 

And moments like this are just wonderful too

[The Kraken]

Last night the official was the only person who was in a perfect position to see if the whole of the ball was over the line.and he judged it not completely over the line. The tv pictures were not at the perfect angle and were not absolutely conclusive but it looked over but it is unproven. The Lampard goal/Tottenham v MU goal were well over. I am prepared to accept the official didn't see all of the ball behind the post, consequently didn't give a goal.

 

 

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

[skintsaint]

think Englands all white kit might of helped the decision too if the ball merged into our 'whiteness'...

[Minty]

One thing that puzzled me about last nights 'goal' was that it appeared that the fifth (or sixth?) official appeared to be looking directly down the goal line, and therefore directly at the post. If this was the case then the post might have partially obstructed his view of a tiny part of the ball, and it would not have looked like the whole ball had gone over the whole line. His position should have been to look down the line of the rear of the posts... i.e. along the outer edge of the line.

 

Admittedly, the difference is a matter of cms, so it's probably impossible for me to tell and I'm talking bo!!ocks but that was my impression.

 

A diagram would probably help here but I don't have one.

 

Anyway, agree with previous poster that you either introduce technology or you don't, but don't mess about with half-arsed measures involving extra officials who don't work anyway.

 

(Ignoring the fact that a Ukrainian player was offside in the build up anyway...)

[trousers]

Can we have the technology for the more obvious bad offside decisions too please....?

 

Edited 20 June, 2012 by trousers

[skintsaint]

Can we have the technology for the more obvious bad offside decisions too please....?

 

 

As I said earlier, this is more important than goal line tech if we go down this route. Twice last night it nearly cost England.

[Minty]

Offside is arguably a harder one to get right, and so would benefit from technology more, if it can be done right. The assistant referee has to keep up with play, ideally being exactly perpendicular to the second-to-last defending player, at exactly the moment the forward pass is made, and to be able to tell exactly when the pass is made, and where the attacking players are at that moment. I think they do a bloody good job considering, but if there is a way to improve it, personally I'm all for it.

[The Kraken]

Offside is arguably a harder one to get right, and so would benefit from technology more, if it can be done right. The assistant referee has to keep up with play, ideally being exactly perpendicular to the second-to-last defending player, at exactly the moment the forward pass is made, and to be able to tell exactly when the pass is made, and where the attacking players are at that moment. I think they do a bloody good job considering, but if there is a way to improve it, personally I'm all for it.

 

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.

[Armitage Shanks]

To me its all part of the game. Mistakes are made. England had two absolutely stonewall penalties last night (the pull on Rooney's shirt and the blatant shove in the back on Carroll) and yet neither were given. Funny how the Ukraine manager didn't mention either of those after the game.

[derry]

 

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

 

At 400% zoom it still isn't conclusive unless the left edge of the ball is flat. It was too close to call, looks over but even that photo doesn't prove it. I go with the official. In any event justice was done because the shooter was offside and the linesman didn't flag when he became active.

Edited 20 June, 2012 by derry

[Thedelldays]

the ball was over the line..it is quite clear. you can see a slight gap between the all and the cross bar...you can make out terrys leg

[Minty]

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.

 

Agreed, it has to fit within the pattern of play and would be bloody difficult, if not impossible, IMO.

[The Kraken]

At 400% zoom it still isn't conclusive unless the left edge of the ball is flat. It was too close to call, looks over but even that photo doesn't prove it. I go with the official. In any event justice was done because the shooter was offside and the linesman didn't flag when he became active.

 

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).

 

Edited 20 June, 2012 by The Kraken

[derry]

the ball was over the line..it is quite clear. you can see a slight gap between the all and the cross bar...you can make out terrys leg

 

 

It's not clear and unless the ball is flat that could be shadow. The official had a clear view and didn't give it which is good enough for me.

[The Kraken]

It's not clear and unless the ball is flat that could be shadow. The official had a clear view and didn't give it which is good enough for me.

The new image above is a lot clearer.

[Big Bad Bob]

White post, white ball, white socks!

 

Easy to see from the angle the camera is at but at the 5th Official's level it would have all blended in.

 

Quite easy to see why it wasn't given.

[Doctoroncall]

The new image above is a lot clearer.

 

It comes down how long the ball is in that position - i don't think the assistant had a chance to say with 100% certainty the ball was over in a split second. Technology would help of course, but when does it stop as it could help with other incidents - offside, penalty calls, wall 10 yards from freekick, keeper on line at penalties etc.

[The Kraken]

It comes down how long the ball is in that position - i don't think the assistant had a chance to say with 100% certainty the ball was over in a split second. Technology would help of course, but when does it stop as it could help with other incidents - offside, penalty calls, wall 10 yards from freekick, keeper on line at penalties etc.

 

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?

[Wurzel]

Love the press conference given by Pierluigi Collina in the video at the bottom of this page.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18520916

He says it was a goal, that's good enough for me. Who the hell is going to argue with him ?

[trousers]

It was over the line but wasn't a goal.

 

FFS

 

[Matty's Caddy]

If we're going down the technology route, the offside rule is the one to go for IMO.

How many replays do we see where play is stopped for an offside only to see the striker level and through on goal.

It would definitely lead to more goals.

Think I've mentioned this before but in my only visit to watch a game of rugby at the millennium last year, when the game was stopped to check with the " 4th official" or whatever, the actual footage was shown on the big screen for all to see and I found it to be an enjoyable part of the entertainment, same with the cricket.

I understand people don't want the game made sterile though.

[The Kraken]

If we're going down the technology route, the offside rule is the one to go for IMO.

How many replays do we see where play is stopped for an offside only to see the striker level and through on goal.

It would definitely lead to more goals.

Think I've mentioned this before but in my only visit to watch a game of rugby at the millennium last year, when the game was stopped to check with the " 4th official" or whatever, the actual footage was shown on the big screen for all to see and I found it to be an enjoyable part of the entertainment, same with the cricket.

I understand people don't want the game made sterile though.

 

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.

[Whitey Grandad]

If every decision is right, wont that spoil the game for you? would for me. Good part of the game for me is talking about this sort of thing in the pub etc...

 

I can see why most clubs want it as a wrong decision could cost millions of quid and wouldn't surprise me if its in within 2 or 3 seasons.

 

Oh..and what was the point of the 5th official on goal line duties when he misses it...wasn't even close

I can't understand all this rubbish. That ball had not completely crossed the line! There needs to be daylight between the back of the posts and the ball and there wasn't, therefore it wasn't a goal. The assistant got it spot on.

[Whitey Grandad]

It was over the line but wasn't a goal.

 

FFS

 

It wasn't completely over the line! (stamps feet, tears hair out)

[Whitey Grandad]

Love the press conference given by Pierluigi Collina in the video at the bottom of this page.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18520916

He says it was a goal, that's good enough for me. Who the hell is going to argue with him ?

He wasn't there, standing on the goal-line, looking across the back of the goal posts so how can he pass a comment?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I am totally against goal line technology.

 

Not becaues of time, but because of fairness.

 

What if Maradonas handball goal, had bounced just over the line and been subject to technology. The camera would have shown the ball over the line, but he punched it over the line.Are people who are saying it should be "only goal line decisions", prepared to allow the goal to stand when a reply clearly showed a handball?

 

What if a throw in is awarded at OT against Man Utd when it was clearly their throw.From that throw in, Frank Lampard smacks the ball against the bar and just over the line, the Ref waves play on, but we go to the goal line technology and the video guy says it's a goal. What's Fergie going to say "fair enough", or is he going to say "why was the ref helped to make one decision and not another one".

 

Even the hawkeye stuff in the goal wont stop the unfairness, what if a guy crosses the ball when it's clearly behind for a goal kick, it's headed just over the line. Hawkeye gives the goal, but the ball had clearly gone off for a goal kick.

 

It will be the thin edge of the wedge. Bring it in for goal line stuff and it'll end up being for every decision.

 

I prefer every decision made on the pitch to be subject to human error, not some subject to human error and some not. It's quite simple really. A goal is a goal if in the eyes of the ref and his asst it is over the line. It doesn't matter a toss what anyone else says, if the ref doesn't think its a goal, it's not a goal.Just as if the Ref doesn't think it's a foul, it's not a foul. Or if the Lino thinks it's a goal kick, it's a goal kick.

Edited 20 June, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter

[The Kraken]

I can't understand all this rubbish. That ball had not completely crossed the line! There needs to be daylight between the back of the posts and the ball and there wasn't, therefore it wasn't a goal. The assistant got it spot on.

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.

 

This was human mistake made by a human being. Nevertheless this is the only problem we had with this experiment in roughly 1000 matches played."

 

Still think it didn't go in? Because UEFA and FIFA seem to disagree with you.

[Whitey Grandad]

I am totally against goal line technology.

 

Not becaues of time, but because of fairness.

 

What if Maradonas handball goal, had bounced just over the line and been subject to technology. The camera would have shown the ball over the line, but he punched it over the line.Are people who are saying it should be "only goal line decisions", prepared to allow the goal to stand when a reply clearly showed a handball?

 

What if a throw in is awarded at OT against Man Utd when it was clearly their throw.From that throw in, Frank Lampard smacks the ball against the bar and just over the line, the Ref waves play on, but we go to the goal line technology and the video guy says it's a goal. What's Fergie going to say "fair enough", or is he going to say "why was the ref helped to make one decision and not another one".

 

Even the hawkeye stuff in the goal wont stop the unfairness, what if a guy crosses the ball when it's clearly behind for a goal kick, it's headed just over the line. Hawkeye gives the goal, but the ball had clearly gone off for a goal kick.

 

It will be the thin edge of the wedge. Bring it in for goal line stuff and it'll end up being for every decision.

 

I prefer every decision made on the pitch to be subject to human error, not some subject to human error and some not. It's quite simple really. A goal is a goal if in the eyes of the ref and his asst it is over the line. It doesn't matter a toss what anyone else says, if the ref doesn't think its a goal, it's not a goal.Just as if the Ref doesn't think it's a foul, it's not a foul. Or if the Lino thinks it's a goal kick, it's a goal kick.

A brilliant comment and I would add one more point. It should be the same laws of the game at all levels.

[The Kraken]

A brilliant comment and I would add one more point. It should be the same laws of the game at all levels.

 

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

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

And I strongly diagree with them. You cannot possibly base any decision upon any of the images that we have seen so far, all of them just fuzzy freeze-frames which have suffered mpeg encoding, and it doesn't help that the white ball is covered with black symbols. It is nowhere near as clear as Lampard's effort and as Lord Duckhunter points out, how many other decisions during that game are you going to review? The best view in the stadium was the bloke in the yellow shirt standing on the goal-line who was staring at the goal looking for just this sort of occasion.

 

Even with a ball that is not moving there is always going to be a position where the decision as to whether it is over the line is a straight 50/50 choice. This is not an exact science and no amount of technology will ever make it so.

[Whitey Grandad]

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

Because there would not be such technology on my local park.

[Whitey Grandad]

ITV also mocked up a computer generation of the ball and confirmed it went in.

Mock-ups are a mockery. They can never say whether the ball was one inch over or one inch short of going in because the inaccuracies of such processes are probably at least half a ball diameter.

[The Kraken]

And I strongly diagree with them. You cannot possibly base any decision upon any of the images that we have seen so far, all of them just fuzzy freeze-frames which have suffered mpeg encoding, and it doesn't help that the white ball is covered with black symbols. It is nowhere near as clear as Lampard's effort and as Lord Duckhunter points out, how many other decisions during that game are you going to review? The best view in the stadium was the bloke in the yellow shirt standing on the goal-line who was staring at the goal looking for just this sort of occasion.

 

Even with a ball that is not moving there is always going to be a position where the decision as to whether it is over the line is a straight 50/50 choice. This is not an exact science and no amount of technology will ever make it so.

 

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.

[The Kraken]

Because there would not be such technology on my local park.

 

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

[Lord Duckhunter]

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.

 

 

It looks like 2 mistakes were made, one by the lino and one by the offical by the post. How is it fair that one mistake can be corrected by technology and the other one not.

 

It's all well and good saying it is for goal line stuff only, but that will change once the unfairness becomes clear to people. remember cricket started for line decisions only, and it now includes LBW. The LBW law has always stated that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsmen. That law has clearly been overlooked since technology came into play, because there must be a doubt for the umpire to refer it.

 

I beleiev that within 5 years of tecnology being used for goal line decisions, all decisions will be subject to this. This is what happened in cricket, what makes people think football will be any different?

[Village Saint]

Last night the official was the only person who was in a perfect position to see if the whole of the ball was over the line.and he judged it not completely over the line. The tv pictures were not at the perfect angle and were not absolutely conclusive but it looked over but it is unproven. The Lampard goal/Tottenham v MU goal were well over. I am prepared to accept the official didn't see all of the ball behind the post, consequently didn't give a goal.

 

This is the first sensible comment I have seen on this. The tv replay was very indecisive as it appeared to show just a fragement of the ball had not crossed the line. Basically there was no clear space between the ball and the line. In that situation a goal should not be given so well done to the extra official - unlike all the studio pundits he got it absolutely right - and without the help of video technology!

[The Kraken]

It looks like 2 mistakes were made, one by the lino and one by the offical by the post. How is it fair that one mistake can be corrected by technology and the other one not.

 

It's all well and good saying it is for goal line stuff only, but that will change once the unfairness becomes clear to people. remember cricket started for line decisions only, and it now includes LBW. The LBW law has always stated that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsmen. That law has clearly been overlooked since technology came into play, because there must be a doubt for the umpire to refer it.

 

I beleiev that within 5 years of tecnology being used for goal line decisions, all decisions will be subject to this. This is what happened in cricket, what makes people think football will be any different?

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.

[The Kraken]

This is the first sensible comment I have seen on this. The tv replay was very indecisive as it appeared to show just a fragement of the ball had not crossed the line. Basically there was no clear space between the ball and the line. In that situation a goal should not be given so well done to the extra official - unlike all the studio pundits he got it absolutely right - and without the help of video technology!

 

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?

[Saintandy666]

The goal was offside anyways... so it shouldn't have got as far as it did anyways.

[trousers]

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?

 

Because he's a human being and some human beings see things differently to other human beings?