Goal Line Technology

[derry]

I've now seen another piece of film that shows the ball over the line but why the official didn't give a goal. Unfortunately when Terry dived in for the clearance the officials head was in front of the goal line, as the ball was cleared as per the photo on here his head was half in front of the line so the line of sight would have shown the post over the ball so the goal wasn't given. Additionally the right post and attached crossbar wasn't completely vertical, ie leaning fractionally backwards which would also bias the line of sight. The official did get it wrong but the decision corrected the officials missed offside so rough justice was done.

 

In my opinion we should join the more enlightened sports such as Rugby, Tennis and Cricket and use available technology to get it right. Bugger the so called delay, review all goals do it properly. How much time do we waste already with the rediculous delaying of free kicks in range of goal until the defence is ready and the ref blows his whistle. In that respect the attacking team should be allowed to take it whenever they like.

Edited 21 June, 2012 by derry

[Lord Duckhunter]

The official did get it wrong but the decision corrected the officials missed offside so rough justice was done.

 

 

 

That's my point. The people calling for goal line tecnology only, would have given that "goal", but ignored the offside. Unless they are now calling for all offside decisions to be reviewed.Why then stop at offside, shouldn't Maradona's handball be reviewed? What about fouls or dives? You could end up with a situation where a guy dives for a peno, the resulting peno is smacked down onto the line, reviewed, and a goal given, yet the intial dive was not reviewed.

 

You say review all goals, but that wasn't a goal as the ref didn't give it.

 

If the ball stayed in play, when do you stop and review it, and how do you restart the game after stopping it, if it wasn't over the line.If you wait until the ball goes dead (which could be 4/5 mins in the modern game), all sorts of events could happen. What if a player commits a bad challange and gets a second yellow during the period we are waiting for a review, if we then go back and give a goal does the sending off still stand?

[The Kraken]

That's my point. The people calling for goal line tecnology only, would have given that "goal", but ignored the offside. Unless they are now calling for all offside decisions to be reviewed.Why then stop at offside, shouldn't Maradona's handball be reviewed? What about fouls or dives? You could end up with a situation where a guy dives for a peno, the resulting peno is smacked down onto the line, reviewed, and a goal given, yet the intial dive was not reviewed.

 

You say review all goals, but that wasn't a goal as the ref didn't give it.

 

If the ball stayed in play, when do you stop and review it, and how do you restart the game after stopping it, if it wasn't over the line.If you wait until the ball goes dead (which could be 4/5 mins in the modern game), all sorts of events could happen. What if a player commits a bad challange and gets a second yellow during the period we are waiting for a review, if we then go back and give a goal does the sending off still stand?

Why does it have to be "well if we can't have technology for absolutely everything, we shouldn't have it for anything"?

 

In this one case, yes 2 wrongs actually made a right in the end. For the vast majority of goals over the line not given this hasn't been the case, so its no good using one isolated example as a benchmark.

 

Nigel Adkins was very fond of a phrase: "control your controllables". GLT is controllable with technology; without video replays (which I neither want nor think we'll ever get) offside decisions are not controllable with technology. Lets fix the problems we can fix, and not get wrapped up in the ones we can't.

[derry]

That's my point. The people calling for goal line tecnology only, would have given that "goal", but ignored the offside. Unless they are now calling for all offside decisions to be reviewed.Why then stop at offside, shouldn't Maradona's handball be reviewed? What about fouls or dives? You could end up with a situation where a guy dives for a peno, the resulting peno is smacked down onto the line, reviewed, and a goal given, yet the intial dive was not reviewed.

 

You say review all goals, but that wasn't a goal as the ref didn't give it.

 

 

Includes the immediate build up to check for infringements including offside not just crossing the line. I think the referee could consult the fourth official at any time or be advised of an observed infringement. Why not get it right?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why does it have to be "well if we can't have technology for absolutely everything, we shouldn't have it for anything"?

 

In this one case, yes 2 wrongs actually made a right in the end. For the vast majority of goals over the line not given this hasn't been the case, so its no good using one isolated example as a benchmark.

 

Nigel Adkins was very fond of a phrase: "control your controllables". GLT is controllable with technology; without video replays (which I neither want nor think we'll ever get) offside decisions are not controllable with technology. Lets fix the problems we can fix, and not get wrapped up in the ones we can't.

 

Good luck with telling Fergie that the offside goal against Man U will be given because the video ref reviewed it and said it crossed the line. Can't dissallow it for offside, because it's for goal line stuff only.

 

I can see it on MoTD now, week after week managers queuing up to ask, "why was that corner, foul, offside,dive, handball that led to the goal not reviewed"?

 

It will lead to creeping technology, reviewing all decisions .

[Big Bad Bob]

Good luck with telling Fergie that the offside goal against Man U will be given because the video ref reviewed it and said it crossed the line. Can't dissallow it for offside, because it's for goal line stuff only.

 

I can see it on MoTD now, week after week managers queuing up to ask, "why was that corner, foul, offside,dive, handball that led to the goal not reviewed"?

 

It will lead to creeping technology, reviewing all decisions .

 

Gosh, if they start reviewing *ALL* goals and the build up to them then there will be very, very few goals given. How many will be ruled out because the ref/ref's asst missed the keeper being blocked, a hand on the defenders shoulder, a slight nudge in the defenders back etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

When they first introduced video reviews in Rugby League they could review back all of the set of 6 that led up to the try *IF* the ref thought he had missed something. This was considered ridiculous by some so all they can do now is review the last play of the ball. They can't review for forward passes because that is too subjective!

 

What I'm trying to say is that a decision has to be made about what is subjective and what isn't. Offsides aren't subjective, fouls can be so don't review fouls....

[Lord Duckhunter]

Includes the immediate build up to check for infringements including offside not just crossing the line. I think the referee could consult the fourth official at any time or be advised of an observed infringement. Why not get it right?

 

How far back do you go?

 

And why just a goal. If Saints need a win to stay up and are drawing 0-0 in the last minute, the ref gives a goal kick when it should be a corner, therefore depriving Saints the chance of one last attack and the chance of that winning goal, why can't that be reviewed? Especially as earlier in the game the opposition had scored and a review had awarded the goal. What's Adkins going to say "control the controlables" or "why could one decision be reviewed, but not another".

 

I can hear it now, "we have the technology in place, why aren't we using it?"

[Lord Duckhunter]

What I'm trying to say is that a decision has to be made about what is subjective and what isn't. Offsides aren't subjective, fouls can be so don't review fouls....

 

So you would review , throw in's, corners, offsides, & determine where fouls were committed.

 

That's how cricket started, line decisions. Soon moved onto LBW, which is always subjective and the law even says "benefit of any doubt given to batsmen" How long before the presure to get other decisions "right" leads to more technology, as it did in cricket?

[The Kraken]

Good luck with telling Fergie that the offside goal against Man U will be given because the video ref reviewed it and said it crossed the line. Can't dissallow it for offside, because it's for goal line stuff only.

 

I can see it on MoTD now, week after week managers queuing up to ask, "why was that corner, foul, offside,dive, handball that led to the goal not reviewed"?

 

It will lead to creeping technology, reviewing all decisions .

 

Do you understand that GLT doesn't require a decision to be reviewed? An electronic signal is sent to the referee within a second of the ball crossing the line. It all happens in real time and will therefore be transparent to players and managers. As far as they can see during the game, nothing at all will change. The referee will still rule on whether the ball crossed the line or not.

 

And I simply don't believe it will lead to excessive technology. I believe that's a very backwards way to look at it. FIFA have consistently said they won't have technology that disrupts the flow of the game. The benchmarks of GLT ensure that it has to fit in with those requirements (and be 100% accurate) before it can be introduced. Review of all decisions does not fit that criteria, and therefore won't (and IMO shouldn't ever) be introduced.

 

You seem to be using isolated incident of 2 wrongs making a right to construct a whole argument against GLT. Football will always have an element of human error, because it will always need a referee (and presumably linesmen too). Why not just make the things we can control a little bit more accurate? It also makes the linesmen's jobs a little easier too, so I'm sure they'd welcome it.

Edited 21 June, 2012 by The Kraken

[The Kraken]

That's how cricket started, line decisions. Soon moved onto LBW, which is always subjective and the law even says "benefit of any doubt given to batsmen" How long before the presure to get other decisions "right" leads to more technology, as it did in cricket?

 

And what is the result of technology in cricket? Has it made it worse? Has it detracted from the game? Is there a semblance of "oh my God, we've open a can of worms here with all this technology and its ruined the game"?

 

As far as I can see with cricket, the overwhelming opinion is that technology has been a thoroughly welcome addition. The same with Tennis and Hawkeye.

[Big Bad Bob]

So you would review , throw in's, corners, offsides, & determine where fouls were committed.

 

No, you're reading too much into what I didn't say. You can't review ALL throw ins, corners etc as that would just lead to much stop start in a game.

 

In fact that used to happen in American Football, they used to review *EVERYTHING* leading to games lasting 4 hours and more.

 

So now the head coach has 3(?) challenges he can make during a match and only for a set of pre-defined allowable calls. If the Coach's challenge is upheld all well and good, if it's not they lose a time-out (Stops them using a challenge for some other nefarious means.)

 

That's how cricket started, line decisions. Soon moved onto LBW, which is always subjective and the law even says "benefit of any doubt given to batsmen" How long before the presure to get other decisions "right" leads to more technology, as it did in cricket?

 

Not now with LBW's, benefit of the doubt goes both ways, that is if the ball's in the "grey area" for hitting the stumps then the Umpire's original call/judgement stands! In fact teams can decide, pre a series, if they want to use HotSpot for LBW's or not (the BCCI don't trust it so won't condone it's use).

 

So, if you insist that calls (or non-calls) can be reviews then let the Managers decide what to review or not, a la American Football, and let them be penalised somehow if they decided to challenge a call that is upheld (ie instead of drop ball it's a free-kick to the opposition!!)

 

Technology can be used in Cricket because it is very much stop-start and the reviewing doesn't get in the way of the flow of the game. The same cannot be said for Football.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If you're going to use technology, the most sensible thing I've read on here is Bob's 3 challanges. Anything else would be the thin end of the wedge in my opinion.

 

GLT may beep to alert the ref that the ball has crossed the line. But how is it fair to just use it for that?

 

A corner at OT is bent in after going out of play, SRL heads it towards goal, the ref's watch (or whatever) bleeps, and a goal is awarded. It should have been a goal kick. One line decision was subject to technology and one 2 seconds earlier that was an important part of the goal (the cross) was not. Can you see the Fergie's, Wenger's ect standing for that?

[The Kraken]

GLT may beep to alert the ref that the ball has crossed the line. But how is it fair to just use it for that?

 

A corner at OT is bent in after going out of play, SRL heads it towards goal, the ref's watch (or whatever) bleeps, and a goal is awarded. It should have been a goal kick. One line decision was subject to technology and one 2 seconds earlier that was an important part of the goal (the cross) was not. Can you see the Fergie's, Wenger's ect standing for that?

 

Ha ha, you really can't get it out of your head can you. That was an isolated incident where 2 wrongs made a right. It hardly ever happens like that. In that case the lino would be right by the corner flag so 99% of the time would flag for it.

 

Try seeing it without those blinkers on.

[saintalan]

The other point about cricket, for a replay re LBW/catch the first thing they review is was it a NO BALL! Akin to reviewing off side before a Goal review?

 

Perhaps they should let each manager have 3 reviews each

[Big Bad Bob]

The other point about cricket, for a replay re LBW/catch the first thing they review is was it a NO BALL! Akin to reviewing off side before a Goal review?

 

Perhaps they should let each manager have 3 reviews each

 

I think this is where people are getting hung up. They do not want to *REVIEW* goals, they want technology that will alert the ref *IF* the ball crosses the goal line, no breaks in play, if the ball crosses the line the ref blows his whistle, if it doesn't they carry on (unless there's a foul or whatever).

[Whitey Grandad]

I've now seen another piece of film that shows the ball over the line but why the official didn't give a goal. Unfortunately when Terry dived in for the clearance the officials head was in front of the goal line, as the ball was cleared as per the photo on here his head was half in front of the line so the line of sight would have shown the post over the ball so the goal wasn't given. Additionally the right post and attached crossbar wasn't completely vertical, ie leaning fractionally backwards which would also bias the line of sight. The official did get it wrong but the decision corrected the officials missed offside so rough justice was done.

 

In my opinion we should join the more enlightened sports such as Rugby, Tennis and Cricket and use available technology to get it right. Bugger the so called delay, review all goals do it properly. How much time do we waste already with the rediculous delaying of free kicks in range of goal until the defence is ready and the ref blows his whistle. In that respect the attacking team should be allowed to take it whenever they like.

 

That film would be worth seeing. If the posts aren't vertical then all bets are off. No technology can ever be 100% accurate and there would need to an allowance for the margin of error, say 6", assuming that you're going to assume 'no goal' if in doubt. There will always be a point where 50 people would say 'goal' and the other 'no goal' it's a very simple sport, twenty-odd blokes running around a grass field kicking lumps out of the ball and each other. Many decisions are vague and qualified by 'in the opinion of the referee'. Judging offside by an imaginary line across the field at a right-angle is always going to be subjective. It's only a sport and without all the money and hype the result would not be important. Leave the beautiful game as it is, warts and all.

 

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

[trousers]

Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak

FIFA: Goal-line technology to be used at 2014 World Cup finals in Brazil

[Andre]

'bout time really, in'it?

[Whitey Grandad]

It won't stop the debates.

[PhilippineSaint]

did Hawk Eye remove all the equipment from St Mary's after they finished testing it?

[Whitey Grandad]

did Hawk Eye remove all the equipment from St Mary's after they finished testing it?

I don't know, but t wasn't the only technology that they tested, was it?

 

Hawk Eye was developed at the old Plessey site at Roke Manor near Romsey.

[PhilippineSaint]

I don't know, but t wasn't the only technology that they tested, was it?

 

Hawk Eye was developed at the old Plessey site at Roke Manor near Romsey.

 

It was the only one at St Mary's they tested the German outfits elsewhere

[david in sweden]

this really hits a tender spot with me.

Sepp Blatter retains his 19th century attitude to fair play and the ref. is always right, when it's clear to anyone whose ever watched a televised match that refs. are anything but perfect .....

even when they have technical assistance from the linesmen /women (sorry..ASSISTANT referees), who are seldom better placed to make a valid judgement.

 

Those better placed are ...YOU and I ...and the TV cameraman / commentator who can watch replays of incidents over and over again from every angle you like, whereas the ref. has only a split second to make his decision. I never thought that cricket would ever stoop so low as to take ultimate responsibility away from the umpire...but they have .....and it has proven to work, as it does in other sports, too.

 

Goal-line technology is only the tip of the iceberg, and may be called upon only once / twice a season, whereas dubious penalty claims occur in every game...not to mention off the ball incidents.

Replayed incidents from the Citeh game showed that we had a good shout for two penalty incidents,(neither given) which the even biased commentators admitted were genuine.

 

NO Mr. Blatter.. waiting for TV replays takes only seconds...whereas corners, throw-ins and free-kick " line-ups" can waste anything up to ONE MINUTE:blush:.....time a few yourself and see.

 

Now that the technology is available, for goodness sake, let's use it and get proper results to matches.. and not the ridiculous errors of judgement we see in so many games.

Edited 19 February, 2013 by david in sweden

[Whitey Grandad]

I totally disagree. The camera often lies. What are we going to do? Have a telephone vote or every decision?

[trousers]

I totally disagree. The camera often lies.

I beg to differ...

[video=youtube_share;DIxM9XtMX44]

[Lord Duckhunter]

Goal line stuff is the thin end of the wedge. What happens if Ricky punches one in ala maradona style at ot, it hits the bar comes down on the line , and is given by video reply. Is sir Alex going to say fair play, or are we going to get the line "why use cameras for one incident and not others, and the cameras are there why not use them". You'll then end up with subjective decisions as well as factual ones. Did Suarez deliberately handle against Mansfield?

 

What about an offside goal, that's a line decision,throw ins lead to goals. We'll end up with cameras for every incident because managers will push and push for it by moaning when non camera stuff goes against them

Edited 20 February, 2013 by Lord Duckhunter

[The Kraken]

Goal line stuff is the thin end of the wedge. What happens if Ricky punches one in ala maradona style at ot, it hits the bar comes down on the line , and is given by video reply. Is sir Alex going to say fair play, or are we going to get the line "why use cameras for one incident and not others, and the cameras are there why not use them". You'll then end up with subjective decisions as well as factual ones. Did Suarez deliberately handle against Mansfield?

 

What about an offside goal, that's a line decision,throw ins lead to goals. We'll end up with cameras for every incident because managers will push and push for it by moaning when non camera stuff goes against them

 

What a ludicrous statement and justification to not use technology that will make not a single difference on the way the game is played by the players and seen by managers.

[david in sweden]

What a ludicrous statement and justification to not use technology that will make not a single difference on the way the game is played by the players and seen by managers.

 

of course wider use of cameras won't make it 100% foolproof, but it would make it a lot more reliable if we get the majority of those decisions correct.

 

If anyone thinks it won't make any difference ...try watching MOTD for a few weeks and count the mistakes....oh but don't worry lads, it's only another 3 points we lost ..yeah sure

[The Kraken]

of course wider use of cameras won't make it 100% foolproof, but it would make it a lot more reliable if we get the majority of those decisions correct.

 

If anyone thinks it won't make any difference ...try watching MOTD for a few weeks and count the mistakes....oh but don't worry lads, it's only another 3 points we lost ..yeah sure

I've got no idea what point you're trying to make, Dave. Much less care, to be fair, if you're carrying on with your quest for TV replays in football which is a recipe for disaster IMO.

[Whitey Grandad]

of course wider use of cameras won't make it 100% foolproof, but it would make it a lot more reliable if we get the majority of those decisions correct.

 

If anyone thinks it won't make any difference ...try watching MOTD for a few weeks and count the mistakes....oh but don't worry lads, it's only another 3 points we lost ..yeah sure

Judging by the drivel that gets spouted on MOTD I doubt that anybody would be satisfied. The majority of these so-called mistakes are nothing of the sort, and one team's loss is another's gain. Football is an imprecise sport played by a load of softies with a big soft ball on a rough patch of grass with white lines painted on it. There never will be 100% accuracy and in many cases the decision is never black and white but a matter of opinion and I prefer an independent official to a load of nerds in a tv studio. I find this blind faith in technology disturbing.

[Scudamore]

Goal line stuff is the thin end of the wedge. What happens if Ricky punches one in ala maradona style at ot, it hits the bar comes down on the line , and is given by video reply. Is sir Alex going to say fair play, or are we going to get the line "why use cameras for one incident and not others, and the cameras are there why not use them". You'll then end up with subjective decisions as well as factual ones. Did Suarez deliberately handle against Mansfield?

 

What about an offside goal, that's a line decision,throw ins lead to goals. We'll end up with cameras for every incident because managers will push and push for it by moaning when non camera stuff goes against them

 

Yeah the only problem with all that is your misunderstanding of how the goal line technology will operate. It's not going to be some fella scrutinising footage to see if its crossed the line. It's technology that will near instantaneously tell the referee if the ball has crossed the line.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yeah the only problem with all that is your misunderstanding of how the goal line technology will operate. It's not going to be some fella scrutinising footage to see if its crossed the line. It's technology that will near instantaneously tell the referee if the ball has crossed the line.

 

Maybe so, but what if the goal comes from a cross made that was clearly behind the line and should have been a goal kick. Why should one line decision be made using technology and not another one? Its like having Hawkeye on the base line but not the service line in tennis. I bet there are more result altering mistakes made after erroneous corners and off sides than there ever are goal line stuff.

 

It will lead to more and more and eventually reviews.

 

In cricket it started for line decisions only and has now spread to lbw. In my opinion the same will happen in football. It can't be right that a man can be 5 yards offside but have goal given after Hawkeye confirms his effort crossed the line. It's like Hawkeye giving the batsmen out caught behind off a no ball, where you use the technology to establish he hit the ball, but can't use it to determine it was a no ball.

 

Once you accept one form of technology, who seriously believes it'll end there?

[tpbury]

In Rugby League, they will often call the TV ref to check the ball is grounded for a try, but then if a prior offence is spotted (eg taking out a defender without the ball), then the try is disallowed even if the ball is grounded. This can take 3 or 4 minutes, but I guess the ball is dead anyway - again, in soccer a goal can be scored at the other end straight after goal line decision. What's to stop the ref playing on and then awarding the goal 2 mins later? He can signal that this period of play is 'Subject to Alteration' or whatever.

[Whitey Grandad]

In Rugby League, they will often call the TV ref to check the ball is grounded for a try, but then if a prior offence is spotted (eg taking out a defender without the ball), then the try is disallowed even if the ball is grounded. This can take 3 or 4 minutes, but I guess the ball is dead anyway - again, in soccer a goal can be scored at the other end straight after goal line decision. What's to stop the ref playing on and then awarding the goal 2 mins later? He can signal that this period of play is 'Subject to Alteration' or whatever.

 

But what if playing on involves the other team scoring a legitimate goal (or two)?

[tpbury]

But what if playing on involves the other team scoring a legitimate goal (or two)?

 

Well, I should think a maximum of one goal could feasibly be scored in the review period. If the original goal line/offside decision was legit in the first instance, then the breakaway goal is scrubbed. It never happened. Tough, but if the rule is implemented, that's the way it goes.

[Thedelldays]

In Rugby League, they will often call the TV ref to check the ball is grounded for a try, but then if a prior offence is spotted (eg taking out a defender without the ball), then the try is disallowed even if the ball is grounded. This can take 3 or 4 minutes, but I guess the ball is dead anyway - again, in soccer a goal can be scored at the other end straight after goal line decision. What's to stop the ref playing on and then awarding the goal 2 mins later? He can signal that this period of play is 'Subject to Alteration' or whatever.

 

FIFA have given strict instructions that a goal (or not) decision has to be given to the referee in 1 second or under

[The Kraken]

FIFA have given strict instructions that a goal (or not) decision has to be given to the referee in 1 second or under

 

I think lots of people don't actually realise this, or its implications. Which are: yes, this is technology being introduced in to game. How much difference will it make to the way the game is played? None. None at all. Except for the fact that any doubt is removed for close goalline calls, the players will know that any call is 100% accurate so if a goal isn't given within the 1 second timeframe then they need to play on.

 

All of this "ooh, it'll only lead to more technology" nonsense completely ignores the fact that FIFA have continually said they'll only introduce technology if it doesn't disrupt the current flow of the game, which this doesn't. Video replay would disrupt the game, which is why FIFA have refused to consider it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

All of this "ooh, it'll only lead to more technology" nonsense completely ignores the fact that FIFA have continually said they'll only introduce technology if it doesn't disrupt the current flow of the game, which this doesn't. Video replay would disrupt the game, which is why FIFA have refused to consider it.

 

Believe it or not FIFA have been known to say one thing and do another. They used to refuse to consider any technology, including the goal line.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/7385130/Fifa-rule-out-goal-line-technology.html

[trousers]

Lee Clayton ‏@LeeClayton_11m

BREAKING: Hawkeye win the contract for Premier League goal-line technology. More from @laura_mail soon on the site @MailOnlineSport