Goal line technology

[dougdeep]

I don't understand this arguement. Of course it will be not be affordable everywhere, but this is the f***ing world cup. You cannot get matches of any greater magnitude, why should we have to accept such bad decision making at such big occasions?

Wouldn't you rather it happened to England than Brighton?

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I don't understand this arguement. Of course it will be not be affordable everywhere, but this is the f***ing world cup. You cannot get matches of any greater magnitude, why should we have to accept such bad decision making at such big occasions?

Indeed. Presumably we are talking some sort of sensor that buzzes in the referees ear if the ball crosses the line, hence he awards a goal. This doesn't equate to stopping the game or making appeals, therefore I don't see that it is a rule change as such, just an enhancement in accurate decision-making.

What about the extra officials in the UEFA Cup? They're not at every level. And I've never played in a Sunday League game where the ref is miked up to the linesmen...

 

[Dirty Dave]

I just think sitting here at home we can see a replay within SECONDS of the incident. It's not difficult to simply have a 'fith' or 'video' official to say "yes" or "no" to it being a goal (or not)

 

[Acker79]

The technology is already up and running in tennis, cricket and rugby. It's a no-brainer. Blatter should accept it or be consigned to the dustbin of history sooner rather than later.

If we had the service line technology like in tennis the thing would go off every time the keeper or a player stood on the line, and ironically, the ball would have been so far over the line it wouldn't have set it off. If you're talking about the cg replays, the technology is so cost effective it's only on two courts at wimbledon.

Rugby and Cricket take the decision away from the referee, and one of the basic key laws of the game of football is that in any given match the referee has total control. It's why FIFA are so reluctant to overall referees, overturn red cards etc.

Introducing technology isn't just about putting a camera or sensor in the goal, it will require major changes to the game, and I don't think all of them are good.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If we had the service line technology like in tennis the thing would go off every time the keeper or a player stood on the line, and ironically, the ball would have been so far over the line it wouldn't have set it off. If you're talking about the cg replays, the technology is so cost effective it's only on two courts at wimbledon.

Rugby and Cricket take the decision away from the referee, and one of the basic key laws of the game of football is that in any given match the referee has total control. It's why FIFA are so reluctant to overall referees, overturn red cards etc.

Introducing technology isn't just about putting a camera in the goal, it will require major changes to the game, and I don't think al of them are good.

Sorry, but I think you are in a minority of near enough one here. Your arguments make no sense. And cost is not an issue in football of all sports. Give each manager three appeals per game/half and the issue goes away immediately. Simples.

 

[S'hampton Seagull]

Wouldn't you rather it happened to England than Brighton?

It shouldn't happen to either. Are you are saying we don't have it in League one then you can't have it at the World cup?

I really don't see the problem of using technology at televised / high profile events, and not at Barnet vs Hereford.

What's the worst that could happen? Bad decisions continue to be made at a low level, but corrected at a higher one. Surely that's better than bad decisions continuing to be made at all levels.

 

[Acker79]

Sorry, but I think your in a minority of near enough one here. Cost is not an issue in football of all sports.

Two. Sepp Blatter's on my side*, I think he'll be along to vote in the poll after the argentina/mexico game.

I didn't say it was too expensive, I said it wasn't cost effective, and that was just one issue. The big issue for me is the sea change in the laws and structure of the game. Time being added on, challenges being made and used simply to waste time/interrupt opponent's momentum, where the line is drawn, referee's being undermined, and so on.



*Yeah, I don't feel good about that association. I'd prefer if it was just me.

 

[Gwylan]

I'm still against it. It was introduced in cricket a few years ago and it hasn't helped, there are dozens of controversial decisions - even after slow-motion replays. Teams are given the choice of opting for replay technology and often don't opt for them.

As someone pointed out, goal line technology would not have helped today, that goal would still not have been given.

And that's before we decide when the game should be stopped, what happens if the ball bounces back into play to the attacking team, do you stop when they have a chance to score? It's used in cricket and rugby when play has already stopped - that's not the case in football.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Sorry, but I think you are in a minority of near enough one here. Your arguments make no sense. And cost is not an issue in football of all sports. Give each manager three appeals per game/half and the issue goes away immediately. Simples.

No he's not.

Three appeals based on what?

If a manager thinks his player has been brought down in the area can he appeal? What if we don't have the camera angle?

What if the camera angle doesn't show if the ball is clearly over the line, like in the Slovakia game the other day?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I didn't say it was too expensive, I said it wasn't cost effective, and that was just one issue. The big issue for me is the sea change in the laws and structure of the game. Time being added on, challenges being made and used simply to waste time/interrupt opponent's momentum, where the line is drawn, referee's being undermined, and so on.

Funny how staunchly conservative sports have adopted replay technology without a 'sea change in the laws and structure of the game'. They don't bat an eyelid at Wimbledon, say.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

I don't think it should be introduced either so I'm with Acker79 and for pretty much the same reasons.

 

[Acker79]

Funny how staunchly conservative sports have adopted replay technology without a 'sea change in the laws and structure of the game'. They don't bat an eyelid at Wimbledon, say.

Where there is no benefit to stopping the clock to interrupt momentum, get a break, where two sides have set areas and there's no chance for you to challenge during an attack, get the game stopped, get all your team back behind the ball before the game starts again, in a game that has natural regular stopping points it is easier to introduce the technology. Not so funny, really.

 

[London Calling]

I'm still against it. It was introduced in cricket a few years ago and it hasn't helped, there are dozens of controversial decisions - even after slow-motion replays. Teams are given the choice of opting for replay technology and often don't opt for them.

As someone pointed out, goal line technology would not have helped today, that goal would still not have been given.

And that's before we decide when the game should be stopped, what happens if the ball bounces back into play to the attacking team, do you stop when they have a chance to score? It's used in cricket and rugby when play has already stopped - that's not the case in football.

The 4th official could be following the game.

In this instance he would have seen the ball go over the line and inform the ref, "goal" ref. Game stops goal awarded.

Likewise he would had seen appaling dive againgst Ka Ka and overruled ref.

Doesn't need to stop the game and only comes in on the big decisions.

 

[BensGrandad]

I think that there is a need to introduce a 2nd Lino in each half as the game now is so quick that 1 in each half cannot keep up with the pace of the game or the ball as was shown by the position of the lino today for the Lampard goal!

It could be brought in at all levels of football at virtually no extra cost. 1 patrols the goal line to edge of the penalty box from the right back position and the other patrols the area from the edge of the penalty area to the halfway line on the opposite side.

Goal line incidents and offside would be less likely to be missed or got wrong.

I voted yes rather than stick as we are but would prefer extra linos at all levels from international to Sunday morning pub teams.

 

[1066familyman]

Th best teams will still form the last 8, bad ball or not.

Exactly. There's been nothing wrong with the tournament or the ball. Some people are only happy when they're making excuses.

I also voted NO.

 

[Mr Apples]

FIFA will only give a shit when the likes of Brazil, Argentina or Germany get knocked out by a minnow nation due to a clear error.

Or some super rich bloke from the USA sues the arse off them for letting it happen.

 

[BensGrandad]

FIFA will only give a shit when the likes of Brazil, Argentina or Germany get knocked out by a minnow nation due to a clear error.

On that assumption had the same happened to Germany today FIFA would now be talking about bringing in the technology that already exists in other sports.

 

[1066familyman]

FIFA will only give a shit when the likes of Brazil, Argentina or Germany get knocked out by a minnow nation due to a clear error.

Or some super rich bloke from the USA sues the arse off them for letting it happen.

Now if you'd talked about UEFA getting ALL English clubs banned from Europe following the Heysel disaster and how UEFA had an agenda, I'd agree with you.

What you actually wrote though is, quite frankly, bollocks.

In fact you could almost say the exact opposite is true. FIFA changed the rules when West Germany and Austria effectively cheated Algeria ( your quintessential 'minnow' ) out of a place in the last 16 in 1982.

 

[beorhthelm]

As long as every ground in professional football has it too.

Why?

right there, thats the reason why it cannot and will not happen. some cant even recognise the technolgy has to apply at all levels of the professional game, let alone the principle that all level from World Cup to Sunday leauge use the same rule book.

 

[Mr Apples]

In fact you could almost say the exact opposite is true. FIFA changed the rules when West Germany and Austria effectively cheated Algeria ( your quintessential 'minnow' ) out of a place in the last 16 in 1982.

Good point about Algeria, although my original point still stands I think. If Algeria and someone had played out a contrived 1-0 to knock out the Germans there would have rather more hell to pay than was the case at the time.

Neither West Germany nor Austria actually 'cheated', however they were able to make best use of the circumstances they were presented with. A bit like the last 20 minutes of Spain v Chile the other night.