Goal Line Technology

[TrentVilla]

The votes till now are 3:1 in favour of technology.

Yet those who have voted in favour of it can't put across a method for it to actually work without damaging the game.

[maqroll]

-You limit the kinds of situations where a team can challenge to the 3 major ones I listed.

But these aren't the only decisions that deriously change the game? Your idea is fatally flawed from this very point on.

-If the captain doesn't see, but another player does, that player tells the captain who then decides to challenge (or not).

That player could be miles away from the incident, all while play goes on. The system, because of the nature of the game and it's flow, has to allow an appeal, if you must have such an idiotic system, to be done practically instantly, there isn't time universally to have the captain be informed and then get to the ref. You've basically suggested a system that only works when plays already stopped, which doesn't solve the problem, which we already know because of point 1 but nevermind, lets humour ourselves.

-If there is more than one poor decision in a half, and a team has already used their challenge, they must suffer the decision, just like they do now.

So again, you've not solved a thing... and made a pointless sop to a)ruining the game and b)appeasing the mob desiring this who clearly haven't thought it through at all.

-Losing a substitution/getting booked acts as a deterrent from challenging calls, that's all. The idea is to employ the technology, but limit it's intrusion into the flow of the game.

So you've not solved the problem and opened a new tactical problem, that potentially punishes teams for trying to do right.

-After reviewing the disputed play, the team on the right side of the call, gets a goal kick, simple enough.

What if it was wrong and the team who were in the right were already in an advantageous position?

-Yes, it's 12 minutes of stoppage of play IF both teams use both their challenges, which would be unlikely even without the deterrents in place.

Disagree wholeheartedly.

Have I solved the problem?

That's not for me to determine. But I think my idea is pretty sound.

What do you think should be done?

No, you haven't solved it at all.

I don't consider it sound.

I would require a higher standard of referees, better training, more monitoring of performance and much more harsh 'punishment' for failure, and make it a requirement the ref justifies his decision making post game in a publically available report.

And keep technology to the games that suit it.

Jesus Christ, smoke a spliff and relax, man, I'm just toying with ideas in a thread about ideas!

**** hell....

[maqroll]

Chindie, this is a post I made yesterday in the "Referees, etc." thread, which shows you how I feel about the issue--

I'm really on the fence about this topic. I like the tradition of football, and the simplicity of it, and the introduction of technology to the game kind of pollutes it's purity in a way.

Players and officials making game changing mistakes are an accepted part of the sport, and always have been.

It just seems that with so many more games shown on television, and so much money riding on outcomes, the scrutiny of officiating is heightened, and decisions are magnified.

From the League Cup, to the FA Cup, the Ireland-France match, the two mystery calls against the USA, the disallowed Lampard goal, and so many more, it seems like it's actually getting worse.

FIFA has benefitted greatly from the modern technological age. They are now able to rake in unthinkable sums of money.

But you could argue that their officiating, among other aspects of their business practices, remain stubbornly stuck in a bygone era.

If the viewers in the stadium, at home and in the bars all have the benefit of seeing the replay in slow motion from five angles, surely the referee could take a look too, if the call/non-call is disputed?

The Ireland team, it's fans and country were robbed of a World Cup by a blatant double hand ball "goal". That's millions of dollars and immeasurable excitement and national unity LOST.

And we all saw the disgrace that masqueraded as a football team that took Ireland's spot.

It was an injustice that could have been corrected on the field of play within seconds using video replay.

If you could implement it in such a way that is quick and efficient and doesn't detract from all the reasons why we love the game, I suppose I'm all for it.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

The votes till now are 3:1 in favour of technology.

Yet those who have voted in favour of it can't put across a method for it to actually work without damaging the game.

Explain how reviewing an offside decision if a goal is scored can't work.

Goal is scored. If the goalscorer is offside when he scores the goal, goal doesn't stand. If it is a goal, goal stands. Takes about 20-30 seconds max, in that time, the team are celebrating anyway.... :?

That would cut out I reckon about 10 bad decision per premiership season.

[kidlewis]

controversy isn't footballs greatest asset, otherwise it's a shit sport with nothing to offer.

of course video replays are needed for offsides, goal line decisions and handballs.

each team gets 3 appeals per game which is made from the bench of each team. a simple press of a button allerts the referee and the game stops straight away.

whoever has the ball in posession at the time will get the ball back if the appeal is denied, if upheld then appropriate action is taken, free kick, goal, yellow card, whatever.

[Rainer]

I think a good idea would be to have an official watching the game on the touchline on a tv, with a 10 second delay, that way, if something happens in 'real time' the official watching on the tv screen on the sideline will know that its about to happen and can make the call pretty much instantly.

[kidlewis]

I think a good idea would be to have an official watching the game on the touchline on a tv, with a 10 second delay, that way, if something happens in 'real time' the official watching on the tv screen on the sideline will know that its about to happen and can make the call pretty much instantly.

that's not a bad shout at all actually.

thinking about it I don't think you have time for referals.

I think you could only look at handballs, goaline decisions or offsides which lead to goals.

whether something is a foul or not is open to interpretation and cannot be defined very easily, same as diving.

I think penalty decisions couldn't be either because that is a foul which is open to interpretation.

So there would still be plenty to talk about, just not the massive decisions.

[claret75]

We need to bring it in. I really don't see the big deal in bringing it in.

A decision made by video replay should only take 20 seconds max, if people do their jobs properly. There may be the occasional more difficult ones that may take a minute or so, but they would be few and far between.

As someone mentioned earlier, it would only slow the game down a little, if at all and tbh' it wouldn't even be needed all that much anyway.

[lapal_fan]

The play should carry on..If there is a goal then there is always a 1 minute stop in play for celebrating or whatever, whilst this is happening the 4th official should rewind the play and make the decision.

The only call you can make is 'did the ball cross the line?', not 'was it a penalty?' etc etc

imo

[snowychap]

A decision made by video replay should only take 20 seconds max

Have you watched rugby games/American football games/cricket matches?

Only 20 seconds max? Especially when things get closer and more difficult to call.

I'm not averse to goal-line technology available in a format where it is absolutely clear that the ball has crossed the line. How that is devised, however, is for as much of a discussion as the parameters of the level of technology.

For those who claim that technology will solve everything then I'll wave at them as they are flying their magic carpet around. Barmy nonsense.

[Jondaken]

This thread is hillarious!

[snowychap]

With two ls?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

A decision made by video replay should only take 20 seconds max

Have you watched rugby games/American football games/cricket matches?

Only 20 seconds max? Especially when things get closer and more difficult to call.

I'm not averse to goal-line technology available in a format where it is absolutely clear that the ball has crossed the line. How that is devised, however, is for as much of a discussion as the parameters of the level of technology.

For those who claim that technology will solve everything then I'll wave at them as they are flying their magic carpet around. Barmy nonsense.

The line for offside makes it quite clear. Not like Rugby etc...where they have to see ball is grounded. An offside decision can be cleared up in 20/30 seconds, 1 minute absolute maximum.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Football is probably the easiest sport to use this technology in which makes it absence a little bizzare.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The line for offside makes it quite clear. Not like Rugby etc...where they have to see ball is grounded. An offside decision can be cleared up in 20/30 seconds, 1 minute absolute maximum.

Unless the television official is a woman.

[lapal_fan]

Could you put 50 mini sensors in the ball and the way you know it has crossed the line is if all the sensors fire off and vibrate the refs arse or something?

it'd be easy to **** do..we put a man on the bastard moon 40 years ago but we cannot see if a bastard ball crosses a white line? in some of which cases cost a team millions upon millions of pounds.

[Kiwivillan]

I said ages ago they should do like the tennis and give each manager a number(say 2) of video-assisted challenges a match if and when he wants to use them. This would negate the argument of the game being stopped a ridiculous amount of times in a match, which seems to be detracting from moving this forward.

[MrDuck]

This idea about the game being slowed down by technology is nonsense. Watching on tv we knew within a couple of seconds that Lampard's shot had crossed the line. An official watching on a monitor could have informed the referee within ten seconds, no problem - and if we had a sensor in the ball it would have taken no time at all. Technology would waste no more time than a player rolling around on the ground feigning injury does, or than a goalkeeper does pissing around before taking a goal kick.

[leviramsey]

I'm growing frustrated, in a bad way, myself that so many don't get this at all.

Waaaah, people have different values from me, waaah

[leviramsey]

Or is it just bullshit that is easily solvable?

Only it isn't is it. Because you are struggling to demonstrate a system in which it could be solved without damaging the game.

Is there any change that could be made (in any facet) without the chance of damaging the game?

Substitutes arguably damaged the game (would Villa have won the 1957 FA Cup final had Busby been able to substitute a second keeper for Wood?). ****, introducing offsides could have damaged the game.