Goal Line Technology

[Mr_Dogg]

Directly influence a game, i.e. a goal.

A foul could not in the box could not be appealed, that would be in the rules.

So a decision inside the box directly influences a game but one outside the box doesn't directly influence the game?

What about decisions when its not clear if a foul happened inside the box or outside? Can they be appealed? Do they directly influence the game?

So can teams appeal things in their own penalty area? At what point can they appeal them?

Say something happens which isn't a foul but a manager sees the ball drop to a player who is about to knock it in so appeals. What then? How immediate is the appeal?

How does the game restart? A drop ball? What if the appeal fails, there was no foul but then the opposition has been stopped from scoring a goal? You still think thats a simple system that improves the game?

You are the one making things more complicated whereas I am the one saying the appeal system would be limited to goal or not, offside goal or not, something completely tangible.

Anyway I am not one for internet arguments so I might drop out of this.

[TrentVilla]

Directly influence a game, i.e. a goal.

A foul could not in the box could not be appealed, that would be in the rules.

So a decision inside the box directly influences a game but one outside the box doesn't directly influence the game?

What about decisions when its not clear if a foul happened inside the box or outside? Can they be appealed? Do they directly influence the game?

So can teams appeal things in their own penalty area? At what point can they appeal them?

Say something happens which isn't a foul but a manager sees the ball drop to a player who is about to knock it in so appeals. What then? How immediate is the appeal?

How does the game restart? A drop ball? What if the appeal fails, there was no foul but then the opposition has been stopped from scoring a goal? You still think thats a simple system that improves the game?

You are the one making things more complicated whereas I am the one saying the appeal system would be limited to goal or not, offside goal or not, something completely tangible.

Anyway I am not one for internet arguments so I might drop out of this.

Its not an arguement mate, its a discussion or at least it is from my part.

I'm not making things more complicated I'm simply illustrating its a little more complexed than just saying 'yes bring it in' because everything I've thrown up could and would happen.

[Chindie]

I understand your POV but I like to think football is about the players and not a man in black making decisions, rightly and wrongly.

Football isn't just about the players.

It's about the players, the officials, the managers, the rules, the game itself, and the fans, the culture.

And if you introduce any form of tech, you will undermine vital aspects of that structure that makes the game what it is.

[TrentVilla]

Interesting thoughts from Howard Webb.

I certainly don't feel in any way at all that additional systems would undermine my position thats something that I don't feel. We work closely in England with the officals from other sports, from rugby union, league, cricket tennis and we try to learn good practise from each of those bodies of officials.

But we have to consider that we are dealing with different sports here, you know, and football is uniquely fluid in the way its played and we have to take care that we don't change that. I can think of situations I did last season in games were a goal was scored were within 8 seconds of the ball being at one end its at the other and in the back of the goal and we need to be careful that we don't introduce a stop start culture to football. We need to protect what is the basic way that the game is played.

Sorry no link as he said it on TV, I've tried my best to get it word for word. I for one totally agree with him.

[Chindie]

Just about managed to catch that myself.

He's right, although I'm unsure how much he's right with the opening gambit. It would undermine his position just by effectively replacing him. Or placing far more pressure on him to use it, effectively reducing his own worth to the game.

But otherwise, in the nature of the game, he's bang on.

[RunRickyRun]

You are the one making things more complicated whereas I am the one saying the appeal system would be limited to goal or not, offside goal or not, something completely tangible.

Anyway I am not one for internet arguments so I might drop out of this.

Thing is you've gone from saying that any controversial decision could be solved with a thirty second replay to dropping out of the debate because you cannot explain clearly how you would implement this process without opening it up to all sorts of abuse.

Therin lies the problems with a challenge system. It would be abused and it would not be fair however you tinker with it. You would still be left with controversy (on top of an inferior product.)

For example, imagine the Manchester derby. The score is 0-0 in the last minute. Utd take a corner, City clear and score on the break. City fans go wild. Ferguson issues a challenge and the video ref notices a slight shirt pull on Vidic in the penalty area from the original corner. City's goal is wiped out and Utd score is the penalty to win the game.

I can't see this as being a better system

[TrentVilla]

Just about managed to catch that myself.

He's right, although I'm unsure how much he's right with the opening gambit. It would undermine his position just by effectively replacing him. Or placing far more pressure on him to use it, effectively reducing his own worth to the game.

But otherwise, in the nature of the game, he's bang on.

Totally agree. Although as a ref you kind of expect him to say the first bit, he has to really if he wants anyone to actually take his opinion seriously.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

All I believe is challenging something when the game has stopped....We don't need to bring in a stop/start culture if the game has already been stopped surely!?

Okay, for example. Free-kick into the box, headered goal. Team challenge the lack of offside call. Challenge either won or lost. If the challenge is correct, free-kick in offside position, if the challenge is lost, then obviously it's a goal. Should take no more than 20/30 seconds to review MAX. Sometimes quicker. In that team, a team have celebrated anyway.

The rule only applies to the scorer, I.e. if in the build up, someone is offside, this cannot be appealed.

Then for goals.....camera's done in the goal. It's said that they can have the information in upto 0.5 seconds of the goal. Quickly tell the ref it's a goal or not a goal depending on the original decision. Then that is sorted.

These two ways, wouldn't slow the game down unless one team produces the quickest ever 5 second counter-attack goal.

Now this won't cut out every bad decision in the game, but at least it makes the chances smaller.

For example from 100 big mistakes, this technology would cut it down to say 80.....without stopping the game.

[maqroll]

Team captains could be allowed to challenge any goal line dispute, any offside dispute that allows/disallows a goal, or any red card infraction.

Each team could be allowed 1 challenge each half.

Upon the challenge, the referee would quickly head to a designated review area near the touchline.

If the ruling goes against the challenging team, they lose a substitution, or (if they've used a ll three subs already), the captain is booked.

If they win the challenge, obviously the decision is overturned.

Fairly simple, and wouldn't take more than 3 minutes.

Teams would be hesitant to use the challenge willy nilly because of the loss of a substitution/potential booking.

[Chindie]

Team captains could be allowed to challenge any goal line dispute, any offside dispute that allows/disallows a goal, or any red card infraction.

What about other infractions? They all affect the game, potentially, adversly.

What if the captain isn't in the position to see, but another team member (GK for example) was? They wouldn't be able to appeal quickly would they?

Each team could be allowed 1 challenge each half.

What if there is more than 1 poor decision a half?

Upon the challenge, the referee would quickly head to a designated review area near the touchline.

All the while the games stopped...

If the ruling goes against the challenging team, they lose a substitution.

What if it is a really close decision, and a perfectly justified challenge? Seems unfair.

If they win the challenge, obviously the decision is overturned.

And the game restarts how, in either scenario?

Fairly simple, and wouldn't take more than 3 minutes.

That's 12 minutes stoppage added on top of any other stoppage a half, at least.

Teams would be hesitant to use the challenge willy nilly because of the loss of a substitution.

...which means you've not really solved the problem have you?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Technology doesn't have to be used for every decision.

You can't say things like "What if there's more than 1 bad decision"...etc....because still, it cuts out 1 bad decision, if it does that every game then it's better than 1 mistake every match.

It's about cutting down the number of mistakes, not completly ruining the sport and looking to stop every decision.

[Chindie]

Bad decisions are bad decisions, you either accept them or not, so I can and will say 'What if theres more than 1 bad decision'.

And I won't be alone saying it.

[Condimentalist]

I understand your POV but I like to think football is about the players and not a man in black making decisions, rightly and wrongly.

Football isn't just about the players.

It's about the players, the officials, the managers, the rules, the game itself, and the fans, the culture.

And if you introduce any form of tech, you will undermine vital aspects of that structure that makes the game what it is.

I agree that football is not just about the players, but I don't see technology as some sort of ogre that's going to destroy everything upon it's implementation.

The ball has a chip that alerts the referee as soon as it crosses the goal line. The game is not slowed, no-one is undermined, and injustices such as Sunday can be eradicated.

[Chindie]

I agree that football is not just about the players, but I don't see technology as some sort of ogre that's going to destroy everything upon it's implementation.

The ball has a chip that alerts the referee as soon as it crosses the goal line. The game is not slowed, no-one is undermined, and injustices such as Sunday can be eradicated.

It fosters a feeling of unacceptance of poor decisions though, which would seep into other aspects of the game. It would not stop at the goal line.

And as has been argued a number of times, other decisions lead to goals as well and change games - why would you not want those corrected as well, now that we have accepted that a wrong decision isn't allowable.

Once the taboo is broken, it's only a matter of time.

And unsurprisingly, I believe that those injustices that colour the game add to the interest and to the nature of it.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Bad decisions are bad decisions, you either accept them or not, so I can and will say 'What if theres more than 1 bad decision'.

And I won't be alone saying it.

Well you can say that obviously, but I don't personally see how it makes sense.

Okay for example.

If a player scores.

The game has stopped as players are celebrating are they not? usually last 30-40 seconds. In that time, the captain can appeal to the referee and decision is quickly reviewed, again taking what, 20 seconds? goal is given, or offside is given. Don't stop the flow of the game or anything.

Will cut out several bad and key decisions over the course of the season.

Minimising is key in everything we do. Businesses jsut say "well we are losing costs rapidly, there is no point in at least cutting costs...might as well just accept our losses"......or you don't see hospitals not allowing cancer treatment because not everyone will survive the horrible disease.

Okay, obviously football isn't a matter of life or death, but heck in a game which is so much more than football and has so much money in it then surely even if throughout the season, this appeal system is only successful 2 out of 10 times, it still is correcting 2 bad decisions more than it was WITHOUT having to stop the game.

Decisions like Tevez goal could be seen on replay about 5 seconds after the goal, surely it could then be reviewed "oh he's offside"........ref stops the game and gives the offside decision.

[maqroll]

Team captains could be allowed to challenge any goal line dispute, any offside dispute that allows/disallows a goal, or any red card infraction.

What about other infractions? They all affect the game, potentially, adversly.

What if the captain isn't in the position to see, but another team member (GK for example) was? They wouldn't be able to appeal quickly would they?

Each team could be allowed 1 challenge each half.

What if there is more than 1 poor decision a half?

Upon the challenge, the referee would quickly head to a designated review area near the touchline.

All the while the games stopped...

If the ruling goes against the challenging team, they lose a substitution.

What if it is a really close decision, and a perfectly justified challenge? Seems unfair.

If they win the challenge, obviously the decision is overturned.

And the game restarts how, in either scenario?

Fairly simple, and wouldn't take more than 3 minutes.

That's 12 minutes stoppage added on top of any other stoppage a half, at least.

Teams would be hesitant to use the challenge willy nilly because of the loss of a substitution.

...which means you've not really solved the problem have you?

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

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

-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.

-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.

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

-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.

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?

[MrWeedMcGrass]

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

[Chindie]

-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.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Chindie: One point I definitely agree with you, why not have interviews for the referee's to explain key decisions. That way, at least you can understand them.

[TrentVilla]

As I've already pointed out, if you limit it to 3 challanges per game that is 6 challanges in every single game because no manager is not going to use them. I think that is a massive change in the game and one that is far bigger than the original problem. It simply doesn't make sense.

I also raise again the issue of challanges being used in the last few minutes to stop spells of pressure, it would be a total and utter nightmare.