Goal-line technology,good or bad ?

[ali jenkins]

But it wont be used to make a negative into a positive,... the referee still makes the decisions, he asks for confirmation once he has already made a decision,.... it would be impossible to have a mechanism to turn a non-decision by a referee into a decision, that's not what is being discussed here and that would indeed interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily.

No, simply as a support or confirmation of the refs decision that he has already made.... ie. Is his decision correct?

Ok so we are at Wembley in a few weeks time. Zaha has burst towards the edge of the box and Greer dives in to make a challenge. Zaha does 20 somersaults and lands inside the box and the ball pops out to Bridge who then starts an attack with half the Palace team at the wrong end of the pitch.

The ref stops the game because he knows that he can check on the TV and asks for clarification if it was a foul and it turns out to be a great last ditch tackle. The game has been stopped (where he might have given the benefit of the doubt to the defending team) and we have lost all the advantage that we had because the Palace players have had time to get back and into good defending positions. What is fair about that? We are penalised because the ref knows that he has the back-up of a replay and will be under more pressure to use them. If he did give us the benefit of the doubt and we go up the other end to score and TV replays show that it was a foul and the ref didnt use the replay, how much stick do you think the ref will then get?

It is just opening up a HUGE can of worms that I can't see benefiting the game in ANY way.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

If that is a simple scenario, I am a monkeys whatsit...

The way it works in rugby is that at the point the try is scored, the touch judge and the referee look at each other for confirmation that they could see no issues ( or otherwise), only if one or both of them think there is some doubt about the validity of the try do they refer upstairs. At that point the question is usually "Is there any reason this try cannot be given?" or something along those lines. Its really not that complex, its all about the immediate leadup to the score, not something that happened several phases before the score.

My point exactly. The only issues in football that have a natural break in play where the play HAS to stop are the ball going out of play. An offside is a decision which does not involve the ball going dead, neither is a foul. Both of those can have a result in which play continues, i.e it's not offside so carry on, or its not a foul so carry on.

You can ask, was it a thrown in to A or B. You can ask, was it a corner or a goal kick. You can't ask "Was it a foul" because if it wasn't a foul then the play should never have stopped in the first place.

It just DOESN'T work.

 

[ali jenkins]

And this argument of "It works in Rugby, Football should learn a thing or two"... Well why not allow the players to catch the ball? Why not allow them to have a scrum to restart the game?

They are different sports and just because it works in one doesn't mean it will work in the other.

 

[pork pie]

Right so say it's Brighton against Manchester United.

In the middle of the pitch, Bridcutt puts a tackle in on Anderson which the ref is not sure is a foul or not, however the ball falls to Man Utd. Anderson is limping claiming its a foul but United run up the pitch and a shot is blocked py El Abd, the ball now breaks Bridcutt. He runs away from the limping Anderson and who plays it over the top for Ulloa who scores.

So does the ref now stop the game, review whether it was a foul by Bridcutt 1 minute ago and disallow Brightons goal as there was no stoppage in play since the original foul?

That ones one of the more SIMPLE scenarios. I could make these REALLY difficult.

Easy. The play leeding up to the goal is reviewed. The critical tackle would not take long to review, and the rest in fast-forward. HArdly likely to be a minute's play either.

My point is, that even if you came up with a complex senario, it does not make dealing with the easy ones wrong does it? Something is better than nothing, and the mess we have now.

Without commenting on the Barnes Red Card for tripping the Ref's validity. But, the Ref made his judgement based upon his impression of the incident in a split second. IF a replay had shown that it was a genuine clash as neither were aware of the others position, don't you think it would have prevented the game being spoilt?

Or another. If Kaz had been sent off at Forest, which could have happened, would it be fair that the two who kicked him on the ground were not punished as well? There are loads of incidents that would be better reviewed before match-turning wrong decisions are made.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Ok so we are at Wembley in a few weeks time. Zaha has burst towards the edge of the box and Greer dives in to make a challenge. Zaha does 20 somersaults and lands inside the box and the ball pops out to Bridge who then starts an attack with half the Palace team at the wrong end of the pitch.

The ref stops the game because he knows that he can check on the TV and asks for clarification if it was a foul and it turns out to be a great last ditch tackle. The game has been stopped (where he might have given the benefit of the doubt to the defending team) and we have lost all the advantage that we had because the Palace players have had time to get back and into good defending positions. What is fair about that? We are penalised because the ref knows that he has the back-up of a replay and will be under more pressure to use them. If he did give us the benefit of the doubt and we go up the other end to score and TV replays show that it was a foul and the ref didnt use the replay, how much stick do you think the ref will then get?

It is just opening up a HUGE can of worms that I can't see benefiting the game in ANY way.

There you go.

My FAVOURITESTEST thing in footy is watching the COUNTER ATTACK.

Players STREAMING up the pitch. Imagine if the ref then blows his whistle and stops it to check if there was a foul.. only to decide there wasn't. Cue RIOT.

 

[Mellotron]

But Anderson was injured from Bridcutts illegal challenge which should have been ruled a foul. Anderson could not get back and challenge Bridcutt leaving him and easy run through midfield.

Why should it have been a foul, if the ball fell to United? As it is now, if advantage is played, that's the end of that.

 

[ali jenkins]

Easy. The play leeding up to the goal is reviewed. The critical tackle would not take long to review, and the rest in fast-forward. HArdly likely to be a minute's play either.

My point is, that even if you came up with a complex senario, it does not make dealing with the easy ones wrong does it? Something is better than nothing, and the mess we have now.

Without commenting on the Barnes Red Card for tripping the Ref's validity. But, the Ref made his judgement based upon his impression of the incident in a split second. IF a replay had shown that it was a genuine clash as neither were aware of the others position, don't you think it would have prevented the game being spoilt?

Or another. If Kaz had been sent off at Forest, which could have happened, would it be fair that the two who kicked him on the ground were not punished as well? There are loads of incidents that would be better reviewed before match-turning wrong decisions are made.

Are we really in a mess now?

 

[Mellotron]

I think the reason people are looking at this debate with differing views, is that one side feel football is PERFECT now (which is surely what they said 100 years ago, and we've had massive changes since then) and the other side can see that football is badly lagging behind most sports now, in terms of use of technology for a fairer game.

The issue is slowing down the sport. Football IS and should always be a fast-paced, exciting game. I believe eventually (not now) we will have the tech at our fingertips to aid the game massively without slowing it down by more than about 20 extra seconds over an entire match. Once we get to that point, there would be no reason whatsoever not to use tech. But we're not there yet.

 

[pork pie]

Are we really in a mess now?

A matter of opinion. But I think so. Any wrong decision that could have been prevented (but there would still be some, as there are still in rugby) is a waste of an opportunity to get things right, and these things ruin our game. I am not suggesting that Manure should not be top of the Premiership, but we all know that they are helped by the amount of marginal decisions that go their way because of who they are, and the fact thay Strawberry Nose will moan like hell to the press if it is not the case.

 

[somerset]

Are we really in a mess now?

Many times there have been pens given for outside the box incidents.....or given as free kicks on the edge when it was inside the box,..... why not take 30 secs to confirm,.. free kick or penalty......

 

[pork pie]

I think the reason people are looking at this debate with differing views, is that one side feel football is PERFECT now (which is surely what they said 100 years ago, and we've had massive changes since then) and the other side can see that football is badly lagging behind most sports now, in terms of use of technology for a fairer game.

The issue is slowing down the sport. Football IS and should always be a fast-paced, exciting game. I believe eventually (not now) we will have the tech at our fingertips to aid the game massively without slowing it down by more than about 20 extra seconds over an entire match. Once we get to that point, there would be no reason whatsoever not to use tech. But we're not there yet.

Not at Brighton with Poyet as Manager! lol

 

[Mellotron]

Are we really in a mess now?

Sometimes football is embarrassingly behind other sports in terms of the ref's hands being tied to change a massive f*** up he has made. See the Uruguay v Mexico game at the World Cup.

Carlos Tévez scored from an offside position from within the Mexican penalty box when the game stood at 0–0. Although against FIFA's ruling, the big screens inside Soccer City showed replays of Tévez more than a yard offside when Lionel Messi played the ball towards him. The goal stood, causing uproar and protests from the Mexican players. Referee Roberto Rosetti stuck with his decision. Argentina subsequently won the match 3–1.[17] Following the Argentinian goal, BBC commentators wrote that "linesman Stefano Ayroldi [...] somehow allowed Carlos Tévez's goal to stand before a ridiculous situation developed where he, referee Roberto Rosetti and everyone in the stadium watched replays on the huge screens show exactly how far offside Tévez was"; pundit Alan Hansen added: "Before today I was not an advocate of technology in football, but now I am a convert."[18]

Associated Press sports columnist John Leicester reacted to match between England and Germany by writing:
"FIFA fears that technology would undermine the authority of referees and their assistants. But the reverse is in fact happening. Match officials are being made to look like idiots because they are not getting the help that they need. [...] alls, as Lampard proved, can bounce in and out of goal so quickly that a linesman can miss it if he's not paying attention, blinks, is screened or for whatever reason is looking away. That's why technology is needed. And the time to introduce it was yesterday. Blatter has some explaining to do."[19]

That game was a complete joke, and made football look very, very stupid.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

A matter of opinion. But I think so. Any wrong decision that could have been prevented (but there would still be some, as there are still in rugby) is a waste of an opportunity to get things right, and these things ruin our game. I am not suggesting that Manure should not be top of the Premiership, but we all know that they are helped by the amount of marginal decisions that go their way because of who they are, and the fact thay Strawberry Nose will moan like hell to the press if it is not the case.

But would you be happy sitting there at the Amex whilst the ref checks over all these small marginal decisions? It would drive you mad.

Rugby has a natural break point as does American football. The flow is not ruined by it.

I could JUST cope with technology being used on corner kick/goal kick arguments but that's about it. The ball has gone dead anyway regardless of the outcome.

Having it on fouls would be just horrendous. ESPECIALLY as you watch MOTD or sky sports and 4 days later they themselves STILL can't decide if it was a foul or not!!! Soon we would need referees refereeing the decisions of the video ref. You're NEVER going to get 100% agreeing with if a tackle is a foul or not. You just won't. So you may as well accept that and accept human error.

People can cope with human error made in a split second. People will not accept wrong decisions (in their opinion) being made even after it's reviewed.

 

[ali jenkins]

Many times there have been pens given for outside the box incidents.....or given as free kicks on the edge when it was inside the box,..... why not take 30 secs to confirm,.. free kick or penalty......

Over how many years? Apart from the one at Southampton name me the last time that a penalty was awarded for or against us when it was outside the box?

 

[somerset]

Over how many years? Apart from the one at Southampton name me the last time that a penalty was awarded for or against us when it was outside the box?

Crickey lords,.... its not just about our games you know. As for your question, I don't know, do you?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Sometimes football is embarrassingly behind other sports in terms of the ref's hands being tied to change a massive f*** up he has made. See the Uruguay v Mexico game at the World Cup.

Carlos Tévez scored from an offside position from within the Mexican penalty box when the game stood at 0–0. Although against FIFA's ruling, the big screens inside Soccer City showed replays of Tévez more than a yard offside when Lionel Messi played the ball towards him. The goal stood, causing uproar and protests from the Mexican players. Referee Roberto Rosetti stuck with his decision. Argentina subsequently won the match 3–1.[17] Following the Argentinian goal, BBC commentators wrote that "linesman Stefano Ayroldi [...] somehow allowed Carlos Tévez's goal to stand before a ridiculous situation developed where he, referee Roberto Rosetti and everyone in the stadium watched replays on the huge screens show exactly how far offside Tévez was"; pundit Alan Hansen added: "Before today I was not an advocate of technology in football, but now I am a convert."[18]

Associated Press sports columnist John Leicester reacted to match between England and Germany by writing:
"FIFA fears that technology would undermine the authority of referees and their assistants. But the reverse is in fact happening. Match officials are being made to look like idiots because they are not getting the help that they need. [...] alls, as Lampard proved, can bounce in and out of goal so quickly that a linesman can miss it if he's not paying attention, blinks, is screened or for whatever reason is looking away. That's why technology is needed. And the time to introduce it was yesterday. Blatter has some explaining to do."[19]

That game was a complete joke, and made football look very, very stupid.

Goaline technology is fine, but how would offside technology POSSIBLY work?

The lino would live in absolute FEAR of putting his flag up even if he's sure the guy is offside. He will just be thinking "Oh, I might as well let the play continue and then we'll see after if he was off". Imagine if the lino stuck to his convictions, raised the flag and THEN found out the guy was onside all along and he stopped a goalscoring chance. People would go bonkers at him.

 

[ali jenkins]

But would you be happy sitting there at the Amex whilst the ref checks over all these small marginal decisions? It would drive you mad.

Rugby has a natural break point as does American football. The flow is not ruined by it.

I could JUST cope with technology being used on corner kick/goal kick arguments but that's about it. The ball has gone dead anyway regardless of the outcome.

Having it on fouls would be just horrendous. ESPECIALLY as you watch MOTD or sky sports and 4 days later they themselves STILL can't decide if it was a foul or not!!! Soon we would need referees refereeing the decisions of the video ref. You're NEVER going to get 100% agreeing with if a tackle is a foul or not. You just won't. So you may as well accept that and accept human error.

People can cope with human error made in a split second. People will not accept wrong decisions (in their opinion) being made even after it's reviewed.

EXACTLY!

Its all down to how people see things and OPINIONS

 

[ali jenkins]

Crickey lords,.... its not just about our games you know. As for your question, I don't know, do you?

I am not saying it is just about our games but as, presumably, Brighton are the team we all watch the most I thought it would be easier to recall.

No I dont know either which says to me that it is such a rarity that there is really no point in having replays.

I dont think I could even tell you the last time it happened in ANY game in the world!

 

[pork pie]

But would you be happy sitting there at the Amex whilst the ref checks over all these small marginal decisions? It would drive you mad.

Rugby has a natural break point as does American football. The flow is not ruined by it.

I could JUST cope with technology being used on corner kick/goal kick arguments but that's about it. The ball has gone dead anyway regardless of the outcome.

Having it on fouls would be just horrendous. ESPECIALLY as you watch MOTD or sky sports and 4 days later they themselves STILL can't decide if it was a foul or not!!! Soon we would need referees refereeing the decisions of the video ref. You're NEVER going to get 100% agreeing with if a tackle is a foul or not. You just won't. So you may as well accept that and accept human error.

People can cope with human error made in a split second. People will not accept wrong decisions (in their opinion) being made even after it's reviewed.

Do you actually watch much rugby? There are no more "natural breaks" than football, although admittedly they can sometimes be longer while the forwards sort their set pieces out. Rugby DO NOT review every incident, only tries.

Even if you do not agree with extensive use of replays, how can you say that none is preferable?

 

[pork pie]

EXACTLY!

Its all down to how people see things and OPINIONS

Indeed, and if we give the Ref the most data to form his opinion on, that is all we can expect.