Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[Safeway]

They tried the additonal officials, it didnt work.

The additional officials are rather like ushers at weddings. They mince around in a posh outfit but don't actually DO anything.

 

[The Large One]

I saw the Argie one and it was a farce, everyone in the world and in that stadium knew that before Mexico kicked off again that Tevez was so offside and yet the goal almost had to stand, it was embarressing (as was the England no goal) and it does make a mockery of the game.

But football - in fact, every sport - has ALWAYS been like that.

It's just that some sports lend themselves to stop-start. Others don't.

The other issue is think how much more players would be empowered to hassle the officials for anything mildly contentious such as a possible handball (when the ball clearly smacks the chest), level of intent on a foul (cue Swan dive), or the ball over the touchline even. Now that would be a farce and make a mockery of the game.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The additional officials are rather like ushers at weddings. They mince around in a posh outfit but don't actually DO anything.

I do like a good mincer.

The problem is we are running out of officials as it is, our league cant cope with have an additional 92.

 

[sten_super]

Is it not quite telling that you used the example of Hawkeye though, something that isn't used by the officials?

What do you mean? Hawkeye is used by officials in tennis and cricket.

As I understand it, the two proposed technologies for football are either Hawkeye (which they reckon can work out within a second or two whether the ball has gone over the line) or the alternative (I forget the name) which involves a chip in the ball and an automated (0.5 second delay) buzzer going off if the ball crosses the line (I assume they have some way of making sure it's the whole of the ball crossing the whole of the line, but I'll leave that to the experts).

 

[Mellotron]

We talk a lot about it making the game too stop-start, but how long would it REALLY take each time? 2 or 3 seconds to see the right decision? This sort of thing probably happens maybe 2 or 3 times a game (at most), so we're talking an extra 10-15 seconds (at absolute maximum) added on.

I can handle the game slowing down by 15 seconds per game if it means it's as fair as possible. Refs constantly stop the game/slow the game down for FAR FAR less important things than this.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

But football - in fact, every sport - has ALWAYS been like that.

It's just that some sports lend themselves to stop-start. Others don't.

The other issue is think how much more players would be empowered to hassle the officials for anything mildly contentious such as a possible handball (when the ball clearly smacks the chest), level of intent on a foul (cue Swan dive), or the ball over the touchline even. Now that would be a farce and make a mockery of the game.

limit the amount of 'appeals' for each team

if they appeal and get it wrong, they lose one (maybe 2 or 3 a game?)

 

[Easy 10]

I cannot undersatnd why with all the technology that they have that the 4th official cannot have the right to call over the referee to a TV monitor to check ANY contentious issue i.e sending off, goal line incidents, offside goals, penalties anything that may have a huge effect on the game and that the officials on the pitch have got wrong (they practically did this with Zidane's headbutt, but at least they got the right decision). You know the 4th official really does have pretty much nothing to do he could recheck with a monitor that what is happening is right. You may say where does this end, but you can legislate that the 4th official has no say on bookings, throw ins, corners that is left to the ref and the ref only to keep the game flowing.

I saw the Argie one and it was a farce, everyone in the world and in that stadium knew that before Mexico kicked off again that Tevez was so offside and yet the goal almost had to stand, it was embarressing (as was the England no goal) and it does make a mockery of the game.

Its the thin end of the wedge though. At EVERY marginal incident, you'll have players and managers charging over to the 4th official demanding he take another look at it on the monitor. Offsides, penalty appeals, handballs, the frigging lot. It would become absolutely farcical.

We do NOT have the technology to make a black-and-white call on every decision in the game, it will always oil down to an officials INTERPRETATION of the incident, and there will be two sides to the argument. Even after various replays, people still often disagree on the decision that was made. Therefore, TV replays cannot be introduced to referee a match. It just can't.

Quite apart from the fact that its one thing to have 20 camera angles at a Premier League or World Cup game, but whats supposed to happen at Withdean or Spotland, with ONE camera angle somewhere aound the halfway line for the whole game ? Are we going to start relying on that to give decisions ? Lunacy.

"Did the ball cross the goal-line ?" - there are only 2 possible answers to that, and there IS the technology to confirm the answer to that question. Thats why its the only technology that could and should be brought in.

 

[simmo]

But football - in fact, every sport - has ALWAYS been like that.

It's just that some sports lend themselves to stop-start. Others don't.

The other issue is think how much more players would be empowered to hassle the officials for anything mildly contentious such as a possible handball (when the ball clearly smacks the chest), level of intent on a foul (cue Swan dive), or the ball over the touchline even. Now that would be a farce and make a mockery of the game.

I agree but surely now there is so much TV technology at the World Cup/Euros/Prem etc. for this not to be so. I mean most other sports now use it, tennis, cricket, rugby union, rugby league, this is the 21st Century you know.

They showed a replay of the Argie goal before Mexico kicked off and everyone in the stadium including the lino and the ref knew it shouldn't stand and yet to make themselves not look fools they talked to each other and tried to find out a way not to give it but in the end had to give a goal that everyone in the world knew shouldn't stand, what a joke.....yet if the 4th official had the right to call over the ref to look at a monitor it gives them an easy way out to reversing this and therefore making the correct decision

 

[beorhthelm]

i'm no technological wizard, but surely all you need is something in the ball, and something on the goal line (in the crossbar or in each post), and when one crosses the other a big f*** off KLAXON goes off or something

it is simple in theory. theres a company thats devloped something like this, apparently £300k an installation. theres another that uses cameras to judge if it over the line, i suspect cheaper.

it seems striaight forward enough, but how far down the pyramid do we want this to go? WC? Premier? League 2? Unibond...

Time for Hawkeye.

havnt they dropped that though now, just used by the TV pundits?

 

[sam86]

You can see why they've decided not to use it at all, can't you.

 

[Easy 10]

limit the amount of 'appeals' for each team

if they appeal and get it wrong, they lose one (maybe 2 or 3 a game?)

And when exactly is the referee supposed to stop the game to review the appeal ?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Im with easy on this.

Its should only be for goals.

I think think the only time off side would work is when a goal is scored and there is a natural break in play.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

And when exactly is the referee supposed to stop the game to review the appeal ?

And who makes the appeal ? The captain ? the captain after talking to his manager ? It gets mroe complicated.

 

[The Large One]

limit the amount of 'appeals' for each team

if they appeal and get it wrong, they lose one (maybe 2 or 3 a game?)

We're moving into a fairly seismic shift towards refereeing by consensus here. I don't go with that at all.

In the case of Lampard's goal, let's assume (and for the sake of this argument) the technology (via a video replay for instance) was available, it should be down to the referee - and the referee alone - who decides whether he would want to review the incident. And any decent referee in that instance surely would - 'f***, that was close, I'm going to look at that again...' . Only the arrogant, incompetent wankers wouldn't.

But to give the players/managers the RIGHT to challenge? No, not for me.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

But they have video replay in cricket, and Hawkeye IS used in Tennis.

In fact virtually all other sports have multiple officials, golf, athletics, swimming, even formula one, they all have officials assigned to specific roles or competitor judgements.

Yeah, luddite Blatter sticking his head in the sand and refusing to progress the game, the old fool should just retire and let someone with some common sense take on the job.

 

[simmo]

Its the thin end of the wedge though. At EVERY marginal incident, you'll have players and managers charging over to the 4th official demanding he take another look at it on the monitor. Offsides, penalty appeals, handballs, the frigging LOT. It would become absolutely farcical.

We do NOT have the technology to make a black-and-white call on every decision in the game, it will ALWAYS boil down to an officials INTERPRETATION of the incident, and there will be two sides to the argument. Even after various replays, people still often disagree on the decision that was made. Therefore, TV replays cannot be introduced to referee a match. It just can't.

Quite apart from the fact that its one thing to have 20 camera angles at a Premier League or World Cup game, but whats supposed to happen at Withdean or Spotland, with ONE camera angle somewhere aound the halfway line ? Are we going to start relying on THAT to give decisions ? Lunacy.

"Did the ball cross the goal-line ?" - there are only TWO possible answers to that, and there IS the technology to confirm the answer to that question. Thats why its the ONLY technology that should be brought in.

Ok not the 4th official then a TV ref/umpire like they have in cricket or rugby league in a booth. I just thought off the 4th official it doesn't have to be that. The TV ref/umpire says to the on the pitch ref on those mikes that they all have, hang on a minute, that ball was a metre over the goal line or that Tevez is actually two players offside. Go and have a look at a TV screen that everyone in the world can see and make the correct decision.

Also you have TV replays available where they are available like at cricket, some of Sussex games are some aren't it just depends if it is covered by TV (of course all WC,Euros/CL's/EPL's have enormous TV coverage) Where you don't have a major TV presence you don't have a TV umpire/ref/adjudicator like at most games at the Withdean, you just don't have one.

 

[Easy 10]

We're moving into a fairly seismic shift towards refereeing by consensus here. I don't go with that at all.

In the case of Lampard's goal, let's assume (and for the sake of this argument) the technology (via a video replay for instance) was available, it should be down to the referee - and the referee alone - who decides whether he would want to review the incident. And any decent referee in that instance surely would - 'f***, that was close, I'm going to look at that again...' . Only the arrogant, incompetent wankers wouldn't.

But to give the players/managers the RIGHT to challenge? No, not for me.

Exactly. Christ, they challenge the officials enough already as it is. Can you just imagine the CARNAGE if they were actually ALLOWED to drag the ref over to a monitor x number of times in a game, even if the appeal(s) were limited. They'd be appealing every time a goal goes in, just on the offchance of having it reviewed and overturned on a perceived shove here, or a tug back there in the build-up.

We'd never be able to celebrate a goal. We'd be waiting for the 4th official to give it the thumbs up first.

 

[keaton]

What do you mean? Hawkeye is used by officials in tennis and cricket.

As I understand it, the two proposed technologies for football are either Hawkeye (which they reckon can work out within a second or two whether the ball has gone over the line) or the alternative (I forget the name) which involves a chip in the ball and an automated (0.5 second delay) buzzer going off if the ball crosses the line (I assume they have some way of making sure it's the whole of the ball crossing the whole of the line, but I'll leave that to the experts).

It's not used in cricket by the officials. I forgot about tennis

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

I cannot undersatnd why with all the technology that they have that the 4th official cannot have the right to call over the referee to a TV monitor to check ANY contentious issue i.e sending off, goal line incidents, offside goals, penalties anything that may have a huge effect on the game and that the officials on the pitch have got wrong .

I can't understand why this is not generally accepted and implemented at the soonest opportunity.
It takes a bloke with a tv monitor and a sprinkling of common sense.
The game is only stopped when there has been a major mistake and that's it. Why is everyone trying to overcomplicate it?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

We'd never be able to celebrate a goal. We'd be waiting for the 4th official to give it the thumbs up first.

Sometimes, that actually adds to the atmosphere in cricket - usually on run-outs or stumpings, but wouldn't work in Football.