Use of goal-line technology approved by FIFA

[Teasy]

Sorry removed my post when I realised I was replying to something you said last year..

 

 

It's one important area, it's not the one important area.

 

I said its the one important area where it can be used easily without interfering with the game, not that its the one important area full stop (as in the most important one).

 

Yeah, I suppose you're right on that. It is the easiest place to introduce technology, but it doesn't really make a significant impact on fairness in the game. Which would be my reason for wanting technology.

 

Personally I would use no technology and educate people to accept the decision of the ref, but I realise that won't be happening.

 

I know it doesn't happen to any one persons team very often so can easily be seen as not very important by some.  But it happens to one team or another reasonably often (which can effect the whole tournament/league for every other team) and when it does happen its certainly not seen as insignificant by anyone effected by that game.  I know I wouldn't have seen it as insignificant during the World Cup.

 

When it comes to areas where technology would only help make a decision and would possibly delay the game then I can understand not wanting it because their's a downside as well as a possible upside.  But if we have a way to make a decision 100% correct every time that has no negative effect on the game (as in a instant signal to the referee that the ball has or hasn't crossed the line) then why not do it?

[Kaizero]

Sorry removed my post when I realised I was replying to something you said last year..

 

 

It's one important area, it's not the one important area.

 

I said its the one important area where it can be used easily without interfering with the game, not that its the one important area full stop (as in the most important one).

 

Yeah, I suppose you're right on that. It is the easiest place to introduce technology, but it doesn't really make a significant impact on fairness in the game. Which would be my reason for wanting technology.

 

Personally I would use no technology and educate people to accept the decision of the ref, but I realise that won't be happening.

 

That's just idiotic. It's as black and white a thing you can get. Either it's in or it's not.

 

I've gone into greater detail regarding the subject on page two of this thread or something. It's nothing like other decisions in the game where it's about the ref making a wrong call. A goal is a goal is a goal. A wrong offside decision is a wrong offside decision and does not have the same impact even if a goal is wrongly ruled out because of it because at least we know if the ball was in or not. If a ball is in the net and there's no offside/foul play, the ball is in the net. It's not a human decision anymore like if a ref pulls back advantage based on his own mindset even if a player gets through split seconds after. It's a goal or it's not a goal. It's not video reffing, it's not taking out the human aspect of the game. It's just helping the referee, who can't really see if a ball cross the line or not unless it's quite clear, if it's a goal or not. Normally a referee should be able to see if there's an offside (with help from his linesmen) or if there's a foul as he's in the situation. It's not comparable situations regarding solutions whatsoever.

 

[Teasy]

By the way, do we know which technology they've gone with?

 

They've name Hawkeye and Goal Ref, but also said other companies are free to bid.

 

Oh I thought they would have come to a decision on which technology they're using considering they've approved the use of it and confirmed when its going to start being used.  Hopefully they don't go with Hawkeye as that seems like the wrong technology to use IMO.

[Taylor Swift]

Sorry removed my post when I realised I was replying to something you said last year..

 

 

It's one important area, it's not the one important area.

 

I said its the one important area where it can be used easily without interfering with the game, not that its the one important area full stop (as in the most important one).

 

Yeah, I suppose you're right on that. It is the easiest place to introduce technology, but it doesn't really make a significant impact on fairness in the game. Which would be my reason for wanting technology.

 

Personally I would use no technology and educate people to accept the decision of the ref, but I realise that won't be happening.

 

That's just idiotic. It's as black and white a thing you can get. Either it's in or it's not.

 

I've gone into greater detail regarding the subject on page two of this thread or something. It's nothing like other decisions in the game where it's about the ref making a wrong call. A goal is a goal is a goal. A wrong offside decision is a wrong offside decision and does not have the same impact even if a goal is wrongly ruled out because of it because at least we know if the ball was in or not. If a ball is in the net and there's no offside/foul play, the ball is in the net. It's not a human decision anymore like if a ref pulls back advantage based on his own mindset even if a player gets through split seconds after. It's a goal or it's not a goal. It's not video reffing, it's not taking out the human aspect of the game. It's just helping the referee, who can't really see if a ball cross the line or not unless it's quite clear, if it's a goal or not. Normally a referee should be able to see if there's an offside (with help from his linesmen) or if there's a foul as he's in the situation. It's not comparable situations regarding solutions whatsoever.

 

 

Absolutely spot on. Whenever this gets implemented, it won't be soon enough.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It's not idiotic at all, I'm talking about the idea of football as a human game judged by a fallible referee.

 

Obviously it's in or it's not - but it's offside or it's not, it's a handball or it's not, it's a dive or it's not. Obviously those other decisions involve more opinion, but it's a sliding scale. They could still all benefit from the chance to review the situation in slow motion.

 

I'm not necessarily against goal line technology, it'll probably not make any difference either way because the incidents are so rare. I just don't understand the people who argue that they want to use technology for this bit let all the other stuff go.

 

Also confusing in situations where, for example, hawkeye signals a goal but a replay showing the forward committed a handball or was offside is ignored.

[Guest neesy111]

It's not idiotic at all, I'm talking about the idea of football as a human game judged by a fallible referee.

 

Obviously it's in or it's not - but it's offside or it's not, it's a handball or it's not, it's a dive or it's not. Obviously those other decisions involve more opinion, but it's a sliding scale. They could still all benefit from the chance to review the situation in slow motion.

 

I'm not necessarily against goal line technology, it'll probably not make any difference either way because the incidents are so rare. I just don't understand the people who argue that they want to use technology for this bit let all the other stuff go.

 

Also confusing in situations where, for example, hawkeye signals a goal but a replay showing the forward committed a handball or was offside is ignored.

 

Players accept the referee's decision in Rugby but still use video referees.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

They do, yeah. They accepted the decision before video refereeing as well though.

 

Also, the video ref is restricted to fairly limited situations. Football is very difficult because once an offside or something is given and the game has stopped, it's impossible to rectify.

 

I would review diving etc after the game, but in game technology is much more difficult to decide on.

[mrmojorisin75]

i agree with ian, should be all or nothing really

 

only proviso i'd ensure was not implemented in football was an appeal like they have in tennis, or anything of that nature...should just be an official or two sat with some video experts who can overrule a decision based on clear video evidence

 

mind you, implementing something like that below the top levels of the game would be impossible

[LFEE]

This news is the slippery slope...

[Matt]

Sorry if already posted, but here is the better option (German, naturally): http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/bf/ln/referenzprojekte/goalref.html

 

I cannot see why anyone can think this is a bad thing. It's a no-brainer. Human eyesight is not a good way to tell if a ball has crossed a plane 30 or 40 metres away. This technology is very good at it. Equally there is nothing as good as the human mind at interpreting the complex issues which go into judging a foul. Use the best tool available for the job.

 

One of the stipulations of these technologies is that it doesn't interrupt the flow of the game and as such I don't think this in any way signals that we're going to introduce replays or video refs. If we do, it won't be because of goal-line tech.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The human mind is obviously the best tool to judge matters of opinion, but that's not the point. The human mind is even better when assisted with many angles and slow motion replays.

[Matt]

The human mind is obviously the best tool to judge matters of opinion, but that's not the point. The human mind is even better when assisted with many angles and slow motion replays.

 

And you can do all that instantly in your mind? Impressive.

 

I would use a chainsaw to chop up massive logs, but I wouldn't then feel obliged to use it when making dinner.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the fact the human mind is the best tool for some decisions is not a reason not to assist it with technology.

[Matt]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the fact the human mind is the best tool for some decisions is not a reason not to assist it with technology.

 

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up.

[mrmojorisin75]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the fact the human mind is the best tool for some decisions is not a reason not to assist it with technology.

 

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up.

 

how so? in pretty much every contentious decision in a game such as a disallowed goal for offside, a dodgy foul that may or may not be a red card, or a goal-line question there's inevitably a period of arguing (plus the ball will have gone out of play or whatever) that lasts 30 seconds anyways...plenty of time for a video tech to wind it back and let the 4th ref decide imo

[Matt]

how so? in pretty much every contentious decision in a game such as a disallowed goal for offside, a dodgy foul that may or may not be a red card, or a goal-line question there's inevitably a period of arguing (plus the ball will have gone out of play or whatever) that lasts 30 seconds anyways...plenty of time for a video tech to wind it back and let the 4th ref decide imo

 

There are certainly incidents where you could review without impacting the play (where the game is stopped for a goal or offside), but equally there are others where it would. Referring challenges for red/yellow is a good shout.

 

I don't have any issue with the concept, but I'm just sceptical that it would be implemented correctly.

 

But none of this is a reason to not use GoalRef.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the fact the human mind is the best tool for some decisions is not a reason not to assist it with technology.

 

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up.

 

I'm not really making the all or nothing argument, I'm countering the 'goal line should be it' argument.

 

I see your point obviously, but I don't think the interrupting the game thing is that clear cut. As other people have posted, there are many other points when the game stops and things could be looked at.

 

FWIW I just think that football is such a fluid game that technology is quite difficult to get right. For example, what about the situation I mentioned where the ball is flagged to have crossed the line but a replay shows the striker offside when scoring?

[Stuy_O]

I'm probably in the minority but i'm not really keen on the idea of it. Maybe a split second thing where the tech would instantly know if it's over the line or not, but not some referral to a 4th official or owt like that. I'm aware of the pro's but I really would find that a tedious solution to it all, however fair it may be. 

 

Yes rugby is a good example of how it's used well, but it's been in place for a long time there. Maybe i'm old fashioned but imo football still relies on a bit of controversy.

[Taylor Swift]

Matt is spot on. It's about the flow of the game. You can't have offsides always being reviewed because Cisse is offsides ten times a game. But goal line technology doesn't need a human operator. It will signal when there's a goal. It's a matter of fact whether it did or not. There won't be any disruption to the game.

 

All of Ian's other suggestions require stopping the game to review the decisions. I sincerely hope that never happens because it's far too much.

 

I think once we get past goal line technology, we'll go for all in-out balls, which again is a matter of fact.

 

Stuff is like offsides and fouls and penalties are all a matter of opinion. You can see this forum for a good example of the different reactions that people have from viewing the same footage. See how many people think Bale dived or was fouled. Those decisions are opinions. It's not a fact that technology can resolve without disrupting the flow of the game so I'm against it at this moment of time.

[Stuy_O]

Matt is spot on. It's about the flow of the game. You can't have offsides always being reviewed because Cisse is offsides ten times a game. But goal line technology doesn't need a human operator. It will signal when there's a goal. It's a matter of fact whether it did or not. There won't be any disruption to the game.

All of Ian's other suggestions require stopping the game to review the decisions. I sincerely hope that never happens because it's far too much.

 

I think once we get past goal line technology, we'll go for all in-out balls, which again is a matter of fact.

 

Stuff is like offsides and fouls and penalties are all a matter of opinion. You can see this forum for a good example of the different reactions that people have from viewing the same footage. See how many people think Bale dived or was fouled. Those decisions are opinions. It's not a fact that technology can resolve without disrupting the flow of the game so I'm against it at this moment of time.

 

Key bit for me, would make things incredibly boring.

[Taylor Swift]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the fact the human mind is the best tool for some decisions is not a reason not to assist it with technology.

 

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up.

 

I'm not really making the all or nothing argument, I'm countering the 'goal line should be it' argument.

 

I see your point obviously, but I don't think the interrupting the game thing is that clear cut. As other people have posted, there are many other points when the game stops and things could be looked at.

 

FWIW I just think that football is such a fluid game that technology is quite difficult to get right. For example, what about the situation I mentioned where the ball is flagged to have crossed the line but a replay shows the striker offside when scoring?

 

The technology is not supposed to handle offsides so what's your point? It handles goal line stuff and it will do so better than a human referee and cause no disruption to the game. What's there to discuss? If the assistant ref made the wrong offside decision then it would still be wrong whether the goal line technology exists or not. Implementing this would result in an end to controversy regarding goal line stuff. Whether a goal should or shouldn't have been given because of offsides or fouls in the lead up aren't important because those things already exist and can't be fixed without interrupting the game.

[Taylor Swift]

Eventually technology will handle offsides as well. When a computer program is powerful enough to be able to spot the difference between players on both teams and can 'identify' when passes are made, it's a matter of simple calculation and observation whether the recipient of the ball was offsides or not. Within the next ten years, someone will have developed a viable solution to this and the assistant will only be there to 'overrule' it when it's extremely subjective.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the fact the human mind is the best tool for some decisions is not a reason not to assist it with technology.

 

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up.

 

I'm not really making the all or nothing argument, I'm countering the 'goal line should be it' argument.

 

I see your point obviously, but I don't think the interrupting the game thing is that clear cut. As other people have posted, there are many other points when the game stops and things could be looked at.

 

FWIW I just think that football is such a fluid game that technology is quite difficult to get right. For example, what about the situation I mentioned where the ball is flagged to have crossed the line but a replay shows the striker offside when scoring?

 

The technology is not supposed to handle offsides so what's your point? It handles goal line stuff and it will do so better than a human referee and cause no disruption to the game. What's there to discuss? If the assistant ref made the wrong offside decision then it would still be wrong whether the goal line technology exists or not. Implementing this would result in an end to controversy regarding goal line stuff. Whether a goal should or shouldn't have been given because of offsides or fouls in the lead up aren't important because those things already exist and can't be fixed without interrupting the game.

 

My point is that you've just moved the controversy to another part of the play, one that could be equally important to whether the goal should stand. And you've also struck a blow against the whole idea of technology in sport, which is presumably to ensure the correct outcome of the game. And also against the idea that technology is protecting the referee and linesman. TV replays will still show up a number of things which could have invalidated the goal that has been given by hawkeye.

 

None of this necessarily means we shouldn't use the goal line technology, we were just discussing what it might/should lead to and the validity of saying 'this should be it for technology'.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Matt is spot on. It's about the flow of the game. You can't have offsides always being reviewed because Cisse is offsides ten times a game. But goal line technology doesn't need a human operator. It will signal when there's a goal. It's a matter of fact whether it did or not. There won't be any disruption to the game.

 

have you thought this through?  think about when you'd be asking the ref to review an offside........................................it'd only be in the event that the striker goes through and scores in a marginal situation, if the ref gives offside you're not going to have someone sitting and overturning that ffs as in the cisse case you've mentioned above

 

so basically as i've said earlier in this scenario the ball is in the back of the net, the players are complaining and moaning to the ref and then the game has to restart from the centre circle, 30 seconds easy for a guy in the stands to review the footage and if the person was offside overrule it and send it back for a goal kick

 

how does that impact or disrupt the flow of anything?

 

same for a penalty a ref doesn't give, in most cases the complaining and restarting will buy enough time for the guy in the stands to sit and say "aye penalty"

 

things need introducing to ensure game-changing decisions that cost clubs money and chances of success are as close to correct as can be

[Taylor Swift]

In that case, the linesman will let more offsides go rather than signal because if you signal, the game comes to a stop. Are you going to give a goal to the striker when he was incorrectly ruled offside but when he shot, the keeper had already stopped moving? It introduces far too much confusion and would inevitably lead to way more disruption in the game. You say 30 seconds as if its a short amount of time. In actual fact, it's a substantial amount of time that would seriously affect the flow of the game. I am all for technology to help but not when it disrupts the game. The technology available today that fulfills this criteria is goal line and ball in ball it. Everything else will definitely disrupt the game.

 

The penalty thing is even more fraught with problems. First of all, not even everyone on here agrees with penalty decisions even when given three or four views. You can never really solve this problem without stopping the game, and that is something that should never be done. And of course, players complain when they don't get penalties but the other team usually plays on quick enough that the delay is in the order of seconds, not half a minute or so which would be required to view multiple replays from different angles. You can only use it to overrule penalty decisions that are given but again, the game will be subjected to significant delays. The next time there is a controversial penalty given, try timing it and you'll see that it's a relatively short amount of time, even taking into account all the players bitching.