Goal line technology

[Medwayseagull]

According to SSN it is likely to be approved by FIFA possibly in time for the premiership next season. I am sure the vast majority will agree it is long overdue but how foolproof will the new system be ?
Can you imagine the outcry if the technology fails in a high profile game.

 

[strings]

I think it will be better than 99.999% accurate. These systems have already been tested to death in anticipation of this system. I seem to remember had the goals on their training ground rigged up with one of the systems for a test, back when they were in the top flight.

 

[ees complicated no?]

I dont get why football wasnt the 1st sport to have it.

 

[k2bluesky]

Easy to implement and hardly any break in play needed.
If a goal is scored which is disputed by the opposition a 4th official views it on TV while the celebrations are going on, by the time they get back to the centre circle it's either:
a. Kick off as normal after a goal
b. Drop ball on the centre spot (if the ref is incorrect that the ball crossed the line)
c. A red card if an attacker has dived (in case of a penalty)

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

c. A red card if an attacker has dived (in case of a penalty)

So goal line technology is going to monitor diving AND change the punishment for it? hmm...

 

[NickBHAFC18]

I think the only thing holding the idea back is the cost. To make it fair, it would have to be implemented across the EPL, and the football leagues. Its not so much a problem for Premiership or Championship teams, but the cost for the lower league teams could be tricky. But lets hope it happens sooner rather than later!

 

[k2bluesky]

Not goal line technology but TV reviews inside the box to stop all the cheating, if they know a straight red will be given, with cameras on them it would stop 99% of diving.

 

[Triggaaar]

According to SSN it is likely to be approved by FIFA possibly in time for the premiership next season.

Wow, I didn't know FIFA had any intention of moving with the times. This is great news, and hopefully the thin end of the wedge.

I dont get why football wasnt the 1st sport to have it.

Makes sense for ice hockey to have it before football, it's impossible to see the puck.

 

[strings]

[MENTION=12330]k2bluesky[/MENTION] - your proposed system is not quite what FIFA are investigating.

The systems they are looking at all involve a tone being heard in the referee's ear within a second of all-of-the-ball crossing all-of-the-line. Video technology is a no go. Basically because in the time it takes to look at the replay (5 seconds), the ball could be up the other end of the pitch with the opposite team attacking.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

Long overdue. When the likes of Rugby, Cricket & Tennis have moved on to 21st Century technology, Football is refusing to budge with the times. Far far too many vital decisions are being incorrectly called by the officials in split seconds.

The officials need help with goal line technology. Video evidence should be used more to decide decisions such as the Ashley Young penalty yesterday. What is wrong with a 'fifth official watching a screen & then calling the ref via his headset to inform him: "That cheating twat Young trailed his leg & dived"? Or if the Ref is 50/50 about a decision, him calling for a second opinion?

The sooner it happens, the better.

 

[BensGrandad]

Could a bleep not be placed a ball circumference behind every goal at Prem Championship and FL games and give the ref an earpiece if this sounds it would mean that the ball has completely crossed the line wherever on the ball the bleep is inserted as the receiver isa complete ball behind the line. The cost to implement this through out football would be minimal in relation to transfer fees and wages.

 

[skipper734]

Cheap goal line technology has been around for years, have you ever tried to walk out of a Supermarket with something you haven't paid for?

 

[strings]

The system FIFA are looking at is designed by HawkEye - the same people that do the Cricket and Wimbledon. The system is based upon multiple ball-tracking cameras.

 

[Aadam]

Long overdue. When the likes of Rugby, Cricket & Tennis have moved on to 21st Century technology, Football is refusing to budge with the times. Far far too many vital decisions are being incorrectly called by the officials in split seconds.

The officials need help with goal line technology. Video evidence should be used more to decide decisions such as the Ashley Young penalty yesterday. What is wrong with a 'fifth official watching a screen & then calling the ref via his headset to inform him: "That cheating twat Young trailed his leg & dived"? Or if the Ref is 50/50 about a decision, him calling for a second opinion?

The sooner it happens, the better.

The problem with using video technology with occasions of diving is when do you break up the play? And this is the argument that has been around for ages now. Because of the free flowing nature of football, compared to Rugby and Cricket it's not as easy to stop play and ask someone to check it out.

Unless a dive is an offence punishable by a free kick to the opposition with a yellow/red card with it. In which case it would work. I'm not too sure on the rules, but had the referee deemed Ashley Young to have dived and Villa cleared the ball, would play be brought back and Villa awarded a free kick, or could they theoretically have run up the other end and scored? I don't know the rules on diving.

If it carries a free-kick then it could work. Where the ref is unsure a video could be used.

Another problem you will have though is that there are times when even following video footage it's not always clear if it was a dive, if the contact wasn't enough to be a foul, or it was a foul. Plus, do you use it for just those dives in the penalty area, around the area or the whole pitch?

For goal line technology I'm amazed this isn't in yet. And it has to be a beeper system. There has to be something in/around the ball so that it beeps when over the line. You cannot stop games to watch a video to see if the ball had crossed the line, this would be too difficult to implement in my opinion.

Diving = cheating
Drug taking = cheating

Should they carry the same punishment?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Not goal line technology but TV reviews inside the box to stop all the cheating, if they know a straight red will be given, with cameras on them it would stop 99% of diving.

That is certainly not being looked at - factual decision only, over the line or not - is all they are looking at.

 

[TheJasperCo]

I dont get why football wasnt the 1st sport to have it.

Three words: Monsieur Sepp Blatter.

 

[Dirk Gently]

A big no to anything that involves replays or winding the game back, because you have to stop for a replay and that brings the choice or either artifically stopping the game or cancelling what happened after the incdient in question.

A big yes to the system they're looking at, Hawkeye, which will give a "buzz" in the ref's earpiece if the ball has crossed the line.

But a massive, massive no to any technology that isn't just used for line decisions - using replays to judge subjective things like (fouls, handballs, diving etc, where intent and context have to be taken into account). That will irreparably change the nature of the game.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

So. What happens if the ball bounces around the six yard box for a few seconds, and is toe-poked towards goal by a striker and cleared (questionably) on the line by a defender. That striker claims it's over the line, the defender clearly says it hasn't, so the referee blows his whistle to stop play. In more or less the same instant, another striker pokes the ball home for what, under any normal circumstances would be a clear goal.

The replays are viewed, and the decision taken that the ball didn't initially cross the line. Then what happens? A drop ball? The attacking side claim that their striker should have been allowed to play on as his shot into "goal" was almost instantaneous with the whistle being blown, whereas the defender says it clearly can't be a goal because they stopped playing believing the whistle to have gone (whether that's true or not).

Don't say it couldn't happen, as there are numerous examples of games being stopped for penalty awards the split second before a player puts the ball into the back of the net. The decision would presumably be a drop ball, which still leaves the attacking side with a huge grievance and claiming that they'd have been allowed to score if it wasn't for the technology interfering. Technology isn't the be all and end all.

Frankly I'd be more interested in stopping the incessant diving and cheating that goes on these days (I include some of our own players in that), as well as the completely unreasonable abuse of officials by players and managers. I don't give a toss if Arsenal, or Spurs, or Chelsea occasionally don't get the benefit of a refereeing decision as to whether a goal is awarded, to be honest it happens so infrequently that I really can't see it affecting us all that much either. And why should the rules be changed for Premier League teams only, as you can bet your bottom dollar that Barnet, or Torquay, or Port Vale won't be getting the benefit of this. Do lower league clubs not deserve to play under the same rules as their top flight brethren? The biggest blight on the game is not the occasional screwed up goal line decision, it's the downright cheating that seems to have become the norm, and the absolute acceptance of this by the likes of SkySports ("well, there was contact, to be fair". Oh, so that makes it OK then?). But the FA will never crack down on that because they're too in thrall of the big clubs whose players are so regularly guilty of abusing the game.

 

[Acker79]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/42/87/09/11.05.03_ifab_glt_specifications_en.pdf

2. Requirements
- The GLT system must work automatically and independently for the entire duration of the
tests, without any interference by the technology provider.
- The GLT must be able to be used without any problems on both natural grass and football
turf.
- The system must work in lighting conditions of at least 800 lux.
- Balls
- FIFA will provide the balls (adidas Jabulani) for the tests.
- The technology provider is allowed to conduct the tests with its own balls. A minimum
of five balls, in colours for normal and inclement weather, must be sent to the
independent test institute two months before the test date. The balls must be
- either “FIFA approved,” or
- approved by the independent test institute.
· Referee’s watch
- Optical display and vibration of a goal for at least ten seconds and for a maximum of
20 seconds must be communicated to the referee’s watch within 1s
- Battery life: more than 4h
- At least six watches must be available (for referee and assistant referees)

3. Pass/fail criteria (to proceed to testing phase 2)
• Goal indication to the referee’s watch must be automatically displayed within 1s, by vibration
and a visual signal;
• Range: full coverage of pitch (and technical area surrounding the pitch)
• 100% of free shots on goal (or “no goal” for near misses or shots into side-netting) must be
correctly recognised (point 4b);
• Sled test: 90% of all goal situations must be displayed correctly within a tolerance of -3/+3cm
of the goal line (point 4c);
• Shots against impact wall: 90% of all goal situations must be displayed correctly within a
tolerance of -3/+5cm of the goal line (point 4d);

Based on the results from the criteria specified above, the IFAB (together with the test institute) will
decide whether or not a technology provider qualifies for testing phase 2. The technology provider
must waive all rights in relation to such decision, in particular the right to initiate legal proceedings
against FIFA or the test institute and/or to receive test results or further information.

 

[Fef]

Could a bleep not be placed a ball circumference behind every goal at Prem Championship and FL games and give the ref an earpiece if this sounds it would mean that the ball has completely crossed the line wherever on the ball the bleep is inserted as the receiver isa complete ball behind the line. The cost to implement this through out football would be minimal in relation to transfer fees and wages.

Despite FIFA's previous weasel excuse that all-of-football must use the same technology, it won't be implemented throughout football. The lino's flag radio thingy that causes the referee to go beep isn't widespread outside the FL, and neither are the lino/referee headsets whereby they can talk to one another. I can't see clubs in the lower leagues stumping up the cash, or being donated the sums of cash, to install the number of cameras and IT gear that would be needed to implement the system. It'd be cheaper to pay a couple of rookie refs a tenner to stand by the goal.