Use of goal-line technology approved by FIFA

[Kaizero]

I sort of get it, but if a player is offside and makes a shot that may or may not be over the line, it just seems strange to use technology to award him a goal when the offside is an equally important factor in whether the goal should stand.

Yes but it's two complete decisions. The decision of weather the player is offside or not needs to be made as soon as the player receives the ball, what happens next shouldn't be down to the referee or linesman, the linesman needs to make the offside decision before and regardless of what follows.

 

They are two separate incidents, the outcome of one shouldn't determine the outcome of the other.

 

But it clearly does. If he's offside, then what happens next is automatically nullified. If he's not, then it isn't. They're obviously not separate.

 

What Stifler is trying to say is that the offside incident is something that can go one of a million different ways one can speculate in for ages after a match. A ball across the goal line is a ball across the goal line, it's not something that can be discussed for ages. The issue is, for me, how definite something is/should be in its effect on the game.

 

Say, AC got a pen for his horrific dive against us earlier this year. It'd be a human error from the ref. An LFC player would still need to put the pen away. If Krul got sent off it could have a galvanising effect on the rest of the players battling together and winning regardless. See what I'm getting at? It's all theories regarding what could happen due to these incidents. There's probably hundreds more that could be made. A ball in the goal is a ball in the goal. It's not debatable with proper technology.

 

However, I see the point in that it's a gateway technology and people could start saying all other controversial incidents should get non-human "reffing". But it should be a nonsensical debate. It's the definite side of it that makes goal line technology different from someone saying someone's offside or not.

[Dinho lad]

Ooooh, so it HAS to happen to England to finally something to be done. 

Yes, exactly. 2 years ago FIFA were laughing because it happened against, no tech, you are sore losers, now though it's went our way, whats the betting their stance changes?, well Ukraine were robbed of a equaliser (if you accept the referees decision to allow play despite and offside infringement) which could have potentially lead to a Ukraine fight back and sent out England.

 

It's like only a month ago, Chelsea and English club won the CL on penalties against a German team, all of a sudden the head of FIFA was saying penalties should be scrapped, non of this had ever been mentioned before, many teams have won and lost on penalties, Italy won the world Cup on penalties in 2006 and nothing was mentioned against them, Germany sending England out in tournaments over the years.

 

 

[toonpete1892]

The commentators said it themselves, 'you win some, you lose some'. As much as I want goal/touch line technology introduced (and I draw the line at that), its part of football and it gives us one more thing to talk about.

What happens if you lose it in say the FA Cup final in the dying minutes when you score but it isn't allowed and you needed that goal to win but instead you lose on penalties, next year though your in the 3rd round of the FA Cup and you are cruising 4-0 up and you get a goal given to you that never crossed the line to make it 5-0 with only minutes left to play.

 

Now would you consider that balancing itself out?

 

Don't get me wrong, decisions in different games can have major differences in outcomes.

 

Having looked at the different technologies (my degree was partly in this field) I have a good understanding of how the different  solutions work. The only problem is FIFA/UEFA/FA want a system that works both in the top tournaments and also in your Sunday leagues. The extra officials was the only sensible suggestion and has already proved that it doesn't work - not only tonight, but also the pen that never was in the Ireland game, the pen that never was in the Denmark game and the numerous decision in the Europa this year. It simply hasn't worked.

 

A dedicated system for stating whether a ball is out of play or not requires many staff to config, sustain and monitor and is not appropriate for the lower leagues. HawkEye for example needs 2+ people for each tennis court where the technology is being used. Apply this to the PL and thats suddenly 40 people each weekend, a huge financial cost for an outcome that is generally quite rare. That is where I feel 50/50 about it. It would be great for tournaments and finals (it would be fair for both teams competing on that particular day) but anything beyond that and it becomes too expensive. Its like India, I think, deciding not to use the technology in cricket.

[Stifler]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

[Guest neesy111]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

 

Tonight's decision didn't even need new technology.  A replay 10 seconds after showed it was over!

[Interpolic]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

 

Tonight's decision didn't even need new technology.  A replay 10 seconds after showed it was over!

 

Yes but they'd have to pause the match every time there was a marginal decision, whereas the new technology is meant to give the ref a signal as soon as the ball is in.

[Guest neesy111]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

 

 

 

Tonight's decision didn't even need new technology.  A replay 10 seconds after showed it was over!

 

 

 

Yes but they'd have to pause the match every time there was a marginal decision, whereas the new technology is meant to give the ref a signal as soon as the ball is in.

 

And how many times during a match does a ball come off the line?

 

Once max, so hardly stopping play.  Play is stopped more for a Rory delay throw in!

[Adam]

Just bring in video referrals so each team gets two. If you call for a referral it happens once the ball is out of play. This would mean Ukraines chance today wouldn't of stood as the guy was offside. Would take maybe a minute but would solve the problem with existing technology rather than Fucking about with sensors in balls. You could also use this if you get someone sent off, penalty should of been given against you etc.

 

I know people on here will hate this but it's 2012 football needs to get with the times.

[Heron]

Goal line technology sucks. Just keep it the same man.

[Guest neesy111]

Goal line technology sucks. Just keep it the same man.

 

 

It's allowed to suspend players so it must be brought in for all areas of the game!

[Ronaldo]

Quite agree. The game needs to evolve.

[Interpolic]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

 

 

 

Tonight's decision didn't even need new technology.  A replay 10 seconds after showed it was over!

 

 

 

Yes but they'd have to pause the match every time there was a marginal decision, whereas the new technology is meant to give the ref a signal as soon as the ball is in.

 

And how many times during a match does a ball come off the line?

 

Once max, so hardly stopping play.  Play is stopped more for a Rory delay throw in!

 

But that's the point though neesy, we're trying to take advantage of technology to resolve definitive decisions that will not disrupt the pattern of play.  If you can appeal these decisions with a replay then you're opening up a can of worms, imagine a situation where a team's 1-0 up towards the end of an important game and they get a chance quite obviously cleared off the line, they'll probably choose to appeal that decision to disrupt the momentum of the game, much like late subs which I also hate.  This would also potentially stop the opposition's opportunity to break away and score.

 

The big appeal on the side of the goal line technology debate is that it's clear and definitive and it doesn't affect the flow of the game, the ref gets a beep in his ear and that's the end of it.  The more marginal decisions we can think about later, but to say we can decide goal line decisions via replay right away is daft IMO.

[Guest neesy111]

The fact people are happy for incorrect decisions to happen ahead of "well it makes a good talking point after the game" is complete lunacy.  Sport is all about fairness and this will make football fairer.

[Guest neesy111]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

 

 

 

Tonight's decision didn't even need new technology.  A replay 10 seconds after showed it was over!

 

 

 

Yes but they'd have to pause the match every time there was a marginal decision, whereas the new technology is meant to give the ref a signal as soon as the ball is in.

 

And how many times during a match does a ball come off the line?

 

Once max, so hardly stopping play.  Play is stopped more for a Rory delay throw in!

 

But that's the point though neesy, we're trying to take advantage of technology to decide definitive decisions that will not disrupt the pattern of play.  If you can appeal these decisions with a replay then you're opening up a can of worms, imagine a situation where a team's 1-0 up towards the end of an important game and they get a chance quite obviously cleared off the line, they'll probably choose to appeal that decision to disrupt the momentum of the game, much like late subs which I also hate.  This would also potentially stop the opposition's opportunity to break away and score.

 

The big appeal on the side of the goal line technology debate is that it's clear and definitive and it doesn't affect the flow of the game, the ref gets a beep in his ear and that's the end of it.  The more marginal decisions we can think about later, but to say we can decide goal line decisions via replay is daft IMO.

 

Lunacy.

 

1). The flow of play is complete daft arguement.  There are decisions now that take more than 30 secs to happen after a linesman confers with the referee I.e.  bartons sending off v city is a good example.

 

2). The referee would have the power only and it would only be for goal line decisions. So how would that be unfair?

 

3). It's a million times cheaper than hawk eye and would only require a 5th video judge to be at games.

[Interpolic]

The fact people are happy for incorrect decisions to happen ahead of "well it makes a good talking point after the game" is complete lunacy.  Sport is all about fairness and this will make football fairer.

 

Goal line decision-wise, if we can do it immediately so the ref knows straight away then great I'm all for it.  Replays and I'm not so sure.  Has the potential to be manipulated by cynical teams and open the door to every little decision being decided by replay, depending on the wishes of the team involved.

[Guest neesy111]

The fact people are happy for incorrect decisions to happen ahead of "well it makes a good talking point after the game" is complete lunacy.  Sport is all about fairness and this will make football fairer.

 

Goal line decision-wise, if we can do it immediately so the ref knows straight away then great I'm all for it.  Replays and I'm not so sure.  Has the potential to be manipulated by cynical teams and open the door to every little decision being decided by replay, depending on the wishes of the team involved.

 

 

You've lost the whole point.  The referee would have the power for a reply on goal line decisions that's it.  No one has said to use it for everything else.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Even if only the ref had the power, the 'thin end of the wedge' argument still applies. Suddenly the key decision is shifted from the goal line to what happens elsewhere (e.g. today's offside) and the discussion begins again.

 

FWIW I wouldn't necessarily be against a video official being in constant contact with the on-pitch ref to help him. The thing I don't buy is that the goal-line decision is uniquely important enough to be exceptional.

[Interpolic]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

 

 

 

Tonight's decision didn't even need new technology.  A replay 10 seconds after showed it was over!

 

 

 

Yes but they'd have to pause the match every time there was a marginal decision, whereas the new technology is meant to give the ref a signal as soon as the ball is in.

 

And how many times during a match does a ball come off the line?

 

Once max, so hardly stopping play.  Play is stopped more for a Rory delay throw in!

 

But that's the point though neesy, we're trying to take advantage of technology to decide definitive decisions that will not disrupt the pattern of play.  If you can appeal these decisions with a replay then you're opening up a can of worms, imagine a situation where a team's 1-0 up towards the end of an important game and they get a chance quite obviously cleared off the line, they'll probably choose to appeal that decision to disrupt the momentum of the game, much like late subs which I also hate.  This would also potentially stop the opposition's opportunity to break away and score.

 

The big appeal on the side of the goal line technology debate is that it's clear and definitive and it doesn't affect the flow of the game, the ref gets a beep in his ear and that's the end of it.  The more marginal decisions we can think about later, but to say we can decide goal line decisions via replay is daft IMO.

 

Lunacy.

 

1). The flow of play is complete daft arguement.  There are decisions now that take more than 30 secs to happen after a linesman confers with the referee I.e.  bartons sending off v city is a good example.

 

2). The referee would have the power only and it would only be for goal line decisions. So how would that be unfair?

 

3). It's a million times cheaper than hawk eye and would only require a 5th video judge to be at games.

 

1) I don't know the incident like the back of my hand but wasn't the ball out of play when such decisions were being made?  If so your point is redundant / you haven't read my post properly.  It doesn't really matter if the ball's out of play and they're making decisions about red cards and the like, that's commonplace.

 

2) The ref would have the power only?  So there's a marginal goal line clearance situation and the ref can choose to ignore the opposition breaking away in a likely goalscoring situation late in the game only to find out the ball never crossed the line?  And the opposition gets a free kick in its own box for its troubles?

 

3) I don't know about the expense of fixing up a few microchips in the ball / goalposts VS paying an extra professional official each game, I doubt you do either.  It shouldn't be important anyway if you're that arsed about getting the decisions right, in theory the proposed technology should be able to do that better than cameras.

[Interpolic]

The fact people are happy for incorrect decisions to happen ahead of "well it makes a good talking point after the game" is complete lunacy.  Sport is all about fairness and this will make football fairer.

 

Goal line decision-wise, if we can do it immediately so the ref knows straight away then great I'm all for it.  Replays and I'm not so sure.  Has the potential to be manipulated by cynical teams and open the door to every little decision being decided by replay, depending on the wishes of the team involved.

 

 

You've lost the whole point.  The referee would have the power for a reply on goal line decisions that's it.  No one has said to use it for everything else.

 

Don't be condescending you absolute knacker. Read my post.  I said it would open the door to other decisions.  And read my other post.

[Guest neesy111]

You also have to remember that Hawk-eye needs about a dozen or so camera's from stadium roofs etc from all different angles. Goal ref which is the chip in the ball would be a lot easier to implement. All it needs is a replacement of the two goals with two goals that have the system installed. That can be provide at pretty much any ground or field of play. It means non-league clubs could implement it.

 

With Hawk eye lower league clubs don't always have stands or roofs on stands at one end of the ground, a few football stadiums currently being built in the USA and Canada don't have roofs on some ends of the grounds, the same is true for a lot of international stadiums.

 

Hawk eye can't be implemented to every stadium due to stadium designs and and facilities, Goal ref can be installed in any stadium or pitch of grass that has access to a plug socket.

 

 

 

Tonight's decision didn't even need new technology.  A replay 10 seconds after showed it was over!

 

 

 

Yes but they'd have to pause the match every time there was a marginal decision, whereas the new technology is meant to give the ref a signal as soon as the ball is in.

 

And how many times during a match does a ball come off the line?

 

Once max, so hardly stopping play.  Play is stopped more for a Rory delay throw in!

 

But that's the point though neesy, we're trying to take advantage of technology to decide definitive decisions that will not disrupt the pattern of play.  If you can appeal these decisions with a replay then you're opening up a can of worms, imagine a situation where a team's 1-0 up towards the end of an important game and they get a chance quite obviously cleared off the line, they'll probably choose to appeal that decision to disrupt the momentum of the game, much like late subs which I also hate.  This would also potentially stop the opposition's opportunity to break away and score.

 

The big appeal on the side of the goal line technology debate is that it's clear and definitive and it doesn't affect the flow of the game, the ref gets a beep in his ear and that's the end of it.  The more marginal decisions we can think about later, but to say we can decide goal line decisions via replay is daft IMO.

 

Lunacy.

 

1). The flow of play is complete daft arguement.  There are decisions now that take more than 30 secs to happen after a linesman confers with the referee I.e.  bartons sending off v city is a good example.

 

2). The referee would have the power only and it would only be for goal line decisions. So how would that be unfair?

 

3). It's a million times cheaper than hawk eye and would only require a 5th video judge to be at games.

 

1) I don't know the incident like the back of my hand but wasn't the ball out of play when such decisions were being made?  If so your point is redundant / you haven't read my post properly.  It doesn't really matter if the ball's out of play and they're making decisions about red cards and the like, that's commonplace.

 

2) The ref would have the power only?  So there's a marginal goal line clearance situation and the ref can choose to ignore the opposition breaking away in a likely goalscoring situation late in the game only to find out the ball never crossed the line?  And the opposition gets a free kick in its own box for its troubles?

 

3) I don't know about the expense of fixing up a few microchips in the ball / goalposts VS paying an extra professional official each game, I doubt you do either.  It shouldn't be important anyway if you're that arsed about getting the decisions right, in theory the proposed technology should be able to do that better than cameras.

 

1). Referees have power to blow up for anything.  So if a player is down injured from a 50/50 then referee play even if teams on a break then doesn't really matter much if it's going to be over a big call I.e. a goal.

 

2). I'm pretty sure as soon as the ref / linesman knew it was too close to call then it would be blown up.  And see my point above, refs blow up for players on ground during breaks despite no foul.  This would benefit decisions where goals had been given as well where it wasn't over.  So it's not just about the opposition breaking.

 

3). Hawk eye has cost 10's millions to develop and any similar technology would cost millions to roll out at multiple football grounds.

 

Also if tennis, cricket, rugby can roll it out, then why the hell can't football.  It's not a special case.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Neesy, do you have a view on whether it should be restricted to goal-line decision or used for anything at all?

[Guest neesy111]

Neesy, do you have a view on whether it should be restricted to goal-line decision or used for anything at all?

 

Goal line only, though the authorities have opened a can of worms with using it to referee games after.  I.e.  cabaye v Brighton etc.

[Guest neesy111]

The fact people are happy for incorrect decisions to happen ahead of "well it makes a good talking point after the game" is complete lunacy.  Sport is all about fairness and this will make football fairer.

 

Goal line decision-wise, if we can do it immediately so the ref knows straight away then great I'm all for it.  Replays and I'm not so sure.  Has the potential to be manipulated by cynical teams and open the door to every little decision being decided by replay, depending on the wishes of the team involved.

 

 

You've lost the whole point.  The referee would have the power for a reply on goal line decisions that's it.  No one has said to use it for everything else.

 

Don't be condescending you absolute knacker. Read my post.  I said it would open the door to other decisions.  And read my other post.

 

Agree to disagree then

[Interpolic]

Holy shit neesy, you've just completely contradicted yourself.  I agree with your last sentence when you started making sense. 

 

i.e.

 

Also if tennis, cricket, rugby can roll it out, then why the hell can't football.  It's not a special case.

 

Not one person, OK maybe one person ( ) wants goal line decisions to be decided by replays if other technology is there to be taken advantage of.  Like you say if Cricket or Tennis can afford it, why can't football?  That's what I'm saying.  Beep in the referee's ear when the ball crosses the line is the ideal scenario, anything else can fuck off.

[Guest neesy111]

Holy shit neesy, you've just completely contradicted yourself.  I agree with your last sentence when you started making sense.  Not one person, OK maybe one person ( ) wants goal line decisions to be decided by replays if other technology is there to be taken advantage of.  Like you say if Cricket or Tennis can afford it, why can't football?  That's what I'm saying.  Beep in the referee's ear when the ball crosses the line is the ideal scenario, anything else can fuck off.

 

Big difference, the tv companies rolled it out to cricket to which can only be used if both teams agree with.  In football it would mean FIFA taking a directive which I doubt will happen.

 

I didn't mean rolled out () I meant used.