Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Goal Line Technology

Will be introduced shortly.
Given the comparative rarity of really contentious decisions, either for or against a goal, and given the seemingly escalating number of dubious offside decisions - either he was or wasn't offside when a goal was scored - , should there be more emphasis on developing technology, or a better system, to determine offside as well as or indeed instead of goal line technology to ascertain when and if a goal has been scored or not ?.
Or should we have no technology and just let the game flow and treat bad decisions as merely part and parcel of our great game ?
«1

Comments

  • I suspect offside is probably trickier to detect via technology. Goal line technology however should have been introduced years ago.
  • Offsides would never be able to be caught by technology. There's no many rules (for example interfering with play or not). Plus sensors would have to go on every player.

    Good idea to introduce technology for goal-lines though. Never understood the whole 'debate' thing, you should never allow bad decisions to just be a part of the game with no attempts to rid them.
  • Your last sentence sums it up for me Lincs.
  • As the signal is only sent to the referee, will we ever know when the technology has managed to award or disallow a goal when the official initially was going to decide the other way ?
  • Offside technology could be bought in. They could use the same replay system sky sports use.
    But of course you'd have to refer back to someone in the stands like Rugby.
  • edited April 2013
    The simple answer, and far cheaper than expensive systems, would be to tell linesmen to always give the benefit of the doubt to the striker and when a goal is scored a quick check for offside is done via replay.

    Offside, like too many rules these days, simply isn't enforced as written. Or if it is enforced that way, the way it's described/discussed by pundits is completely wrong. You hear them on TV and radio going on about phases of play, and the rules simply don't mention that entire concept.

    Similarly with 2 footed tackles, the rules on dangerous tackles don't mention anywhere the number of feet, yet that is what commentators bang on about every single time. It doesn't help that the rule as written is farcical. It's so vague that 80% of tackles could conceivably be covered.

    Also, the more things that are punishable by yellow card the more inconsistant refereeing will be. It simple really, you get booked for mistiming a tackle even slightly these days, but if every mistimed tackle were equally punished we'd end up with 4 v 5 most weeks. So referees, by necessity will dish out a lot of yellows, but be far more hesitant with second yellows.

    It seems to have started in the 90s, rules were introduced without much thought and then implemented completely wrongly.

    Examples would be the players going off the pitch. This was introduced for World Cup 94, the rule clearly states players must leave the pitch to get treatment, but referees have decided they know better than the written rules, so allow treatment on the pitch, then force the player off afterwards. The whole point of the rule was to stop time wasting and keep the game flowing, which the way the rule is enforced doesn't do.

    Next is professional fouls. The rule was brought in to say professional foul = red card, but it soon got changed to "denied a clear goal scoring opportunity". Why? Well it's impossible for us that aren't mind readers to decide if the foul was professional (i.e. deliberate/cynical) or just a results of bad timing, superior ability from the fouled player. As the rule was originally written it was unenforcable, and as it's now treated it is incredibly harsh when the foul results in a penalty.
  • It's a start, and it's an area that's black and white, unlike some of the other scenarios mentioned. Yes, there aren't many incidents but this is the type of decision that should not be called incorrectly.

    Still, it's not in the Championship, so Charlton won't have to fork out any harded-earned cash just yet.
  • How much is it?
  • Goal line technology has been available since the seventies. The trouble is it makes for a really sterile game. Best to put it back in the cupboard and "just let the game flow and treat bad decisions as merely part and parcel of our great game".

    image
  • Can't believe some people are hating on goal line technology. I bet when Lampard had his OBVIOUS goal denied against Germany in the last World Cup you were all bitching about how its heinous that we don't use technology when sports like Tennis and Rugby do. I say bring it on, with the technology we have available to us it would take seconds to check, a team can't argue and scream at a referee for 5 minutes after he's made the decision if its undeniable by video link can they so surely it would help the game flow. Plus, bad decisions are always going to be a part of the game when we have a mere mortal in control of the whistle, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and eek them out with the opportunities that technology give us surely

    I say bring it on. If there was a plausible and quick way to secure offside decisions i'd want that technology brought in too.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Is this technology from next season in the Premiership only? Let's hope Premiership clubs won't be able to refuse to play at lower league club grounds in the FA and League Cups because 'they ain't got the technology, so their ground ain't up to standard'. Will the authorities allow that?
  • edited April 2013
    Not at all LNA, for every Frank Lampard there's a Tofiq Bahramov. It's all swings and roundabouts and you have to take the crunchy with the smooth. If every decision was made perfectly, a major source of post-match chat would be denied us, funny moments would be minimised and there'd be no more schadenfreude. Some rivalries might not even exist or would at least have nothing much fresh to boost them; there's nothing like a poor decision to boost a sense of injustice. Half of all topics on 606 would be ruled out making that particular programme 50% more dull; in case you didn't realise just how very dull that is, it's so dull that Hawkeye Innovations could design a machine to measure it's change in dullness.

    How funny it was at the weekend when Millwall had their goal denied and the officials had to make up what was going on between them. And what about the one that Colchester scored against us - or didn't score - or whatever really happened. What amusement we'd be missing if things like that never happened. And don't think for a minute that goal-line technology would be the end of it. Those that wan't to cleanse our game and purify it from all acts of chance will not be happy until all decisions are made by silicone chip, because to them it's all about money. You hear them talking about how much promotion, relegation or a particular cup run is worth. And frankly, I don't give a toss about that. I don't care for the things that the bean-counters care about. I just want my football to be fun and that's why I am so opposed to goal-line technology or any other form of lets-pretend-that-machines-are-better-that-people technology.
  • NO TECHNOLOGY

    So a goal is not given for not crossing the line. The game stops we go to TV and it is proved 100% to have crossed the line. Goal given. Fine.
    Later in the same game the other team have a goal disallowed for off-side. Half time analysis in the studio shows it was NOT offside, 100%. But the goal doesn't count.

    How is that fair?

    We've managed for 150 years. Just leave it alone.
  • All this crap about "it gives fans something to talk about" is crazy. Has cricket debate got worse since DRS? Do American Football fans and Rugby fans not discuss their game? I'd far rather talk about the football played than the refereeing decisions every single time. What's better; "What a great performance by my team" or "What a poor decision by the ref"? The answer should be easy, and if technology enables me to enjoy a battle between two sides, rather than the mistakes of a third party than I say bring it on.
  • ...What's better; "What a great performance by my team" or "What a poor decision by the ref"?...

    That's a completely irrelevant argument because the technology would not alter the quality of play in the slightest. I agree with you that it would be better to be able to talk about a great performance, but that doesn't always happen does it? Having controversial incidents (and it doesn't always follow, that they'll the decisions will necessarily always be worse) give us something else to talk about when, all to often, the team don't play as well as we'd like.
  • All this crap about "it gives fans something to talk about" is crazy. Has cricket debate got worse since DRS? Do American Football fans and Rugby fans not discuss their game? I'd far rather talk about the football played than the refereeing decisions every single time. What's better; "What a great performance by my team" or "What a poor decision by the ref"? The answer should be easy, and if technology enables me to enjoy a battle between two sides, rather than the mistakes of a third party than I say bring it on.

    I agree wholeheartedly. There's 90 minutes of football being played isn't that enough to talk about? Me and my dad can ramble for a 2 hour car journey home about the game with ease and sometimes it doesn't feel like we've covered everything. Why would you want to go home dismayed to see that the goal that could've won you the game lost you 2 points, imagine if that was a promotion/relegation game. I'm not particularly arsed about the money side either, I just want a fair game, how does that not aid the sport? Plus it doesn't rule out all controversial decisions (i.e. Red cards etc) just mistakes on something that is essentially the key point of the game, goals. I guess me and people like Stig see it completely differently but (as narrow minded as it sounds) i don't see how you couldn't see it my way!
  • All this crap about "it gives fans something to talk about" is crazy. Has cricket debate got worse since DRS? Do American Football fans and Rugby fans not discuss their game? I'd far rather talk about the football played than the refereeing decisions every single time. What's better; "What a great performance by my team" or "What a poor decision by the ref"? The answer should be easy, and if technology enables me to enjoy a battle between two sides, rather than the mistakes of a third party than I say bring it on.

    Exactly, what I've always said. It's ridiculous to suggest we should be happy with wrong decisions, so that we can talk about them.
  • Managers interviews would be even more boring if they couldn't blame the officials for something!

  • Stig said:

    ...What's better; "What a great performance by my team" or "What a poor decision by the ref"?...

    That's a completely irrelevant argument because the technology would not alter the quality of play in the slightest. I agree with you that it would be better to be able to talk about a great performance, but that doesn't always happen does it? Having controversial incidents (and it doesn't always follow, that they'll the decisions will necessarily always be worse) give us something else to talk about when, all to often, the team don't play as well as we'd like.
    Agree with stig
  • If I had my way and if the technology was there we'd have a cyborg as ref who got decisions right 99.999999999999999% of the time with a trained referee/official to make sure that tiny mistake could be reversed.

    Would weedle out the cheats anyway
  • Sponsored links:


  • Long overdue - it works in cricket and tennis and rugby union has a video ref - it doesn't always work perfectly in other sports, but it reduces the number of incorrect decisions and eliminates the really bad calls.
  • Offside, as a rule, should be banished anyway. Why is there a rule that makes it harder to score goals? If a team want to leave a player to goal-hang, let them - it's one less player to defend for them.
  • Don't mind goal line technology but they should leave it there.
    They should look to just simplify the offside rule as it is virtually impossible to understand and enforce as it is.
  • Riviera said:

    NO TECHNOLOGY



    We've managed for 150 years. Just leave it alone.

    150 years ago there was just a bit of string between the posts. Shall we go back to having no cross bar and nets and just let the ref decide?
    Horse racing has had "technology" by way of photo finishes since the 40s so were only 70 years behind.
  • Some professor at some university did an in-depth report last year into decisions made by referees and linesmen and concluded that they got the vast majority of them correct.

    Some of the hair-line decisions that linesmen get right are staggering considering all the factors involved and the speed at which they have to make them. Of course they get some wrong,but 'to err is human.'

    See nowt wrong with GLT but it should stop there. However, I imagine in my lifetime games will be continually halted whilst the ref mumbles into a headset to have a decision authorised by a hungover 5th official.
  • Riviera said:

    NO TECHNOLOGY

    So a goal is not given for not crossing the line. The game stops we go to TV and it is proved 100% to have crossed the line. Goal given. Fine.
    Later in the same game the other team have a goal disallowed for off-side. Half time analysis in the studio shows it was NOT offside, 100%. But the goal doesn't count.

    How is that fair?

    Surely the game won't stop and have to go to TV to prove it crossed the line - it will be an instant decision, detected by a computer. There won't be some "third umpire" up in the stands checking.

  • The whole point of the technology was it had to detect and alert the referee in under a second, which it does through his stopwatch. No referals, no TV, no man in the stand, easy.
  • Knowing our luck, if Chris Powell appealed for a goal under "hawkeye", it would be considered frivolous & he'd be sent to the stands, given out lbw.
  • So we'll experience it if we play a Premier League team away from home in the FA cup next season, as it doesn't look like we'll get it in the Football League.

    The interesting thing will be whether club who drop down can retain the system.
  • Is the cost of installation to be borne by the clubs or the Premier League?

    Doubt a relegated club can use the system if other clubs dont have it installed in The Championship.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!