Is using technology in the game a good idea?

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

New blog posted - see link below.http://www.pinkun.com/content/pinkun/blogs/woman-in-the-stands.aspxAt the end of the blog  I have asked a question - please post answers and opinions to generate discussion, thankyou.As usual, feedback welcome

[Jacko 0]

Depends on what area of the game. I would say that technology should be used when there are disputes about whether the ball has crossed the line. Obviously such a decision can potentially change the outcome of the game thus must be correct. It would also have to be clear up to what level in the football pyramid this technology would be used.

For issues such as handball and penalties I think you are treading into very dangerous waters because two people can look at a handball or penalty incident and justifiable argue that the decision could go either way. I would not like to see it used for offsides because it would break up the flow of the game.

 

My two cents

[The Walking Man 13]

I''m against all technolgy being used during a game and affecting the outcome of a match. Fot me at what point will it stop or should it stop if introduced, and a second point is that at what point in the football pyramid should technology not be used? For me keep it as it is.

[Canary Jay 0]

I like the idea of having goal-line technology but all-in-all how often REALLY do we get the ''66s in a game? I bet you''d be lucky if it was once a game.

I realise that sole event could change the shape of the match, so how about adding the concept of "challenges", like in tennis? Say, 3 a peace over 90 mins? Captain''s call, ref goes to 4th (or 5th official) and Bob''s your proverbial...

[William Darby 0]

I don''t think the football league has any intentions of bringing in modern technology.  They''ve already sowed the seeds of the game will stop in their leading question.  Automatically fans will think ''aaahh the game will stop that''s terrible''. Think about this before the traditionalists try and tell you the stopping the game to look at important events in a game the ref may be uncertain about.  Is the end of football as we know it.Football in general is stopping for all sorts of reasons during a match.  Fouls, bookings, players getting ticked off, time wasting by players, injuries, substitutions, retrieving the ball, swapping a defective ball, there''s loads more.  Out of 90 minutes,  I''m sure a study was done that said only about 60 minutes was actual play.Then think about how quick TV can reply an incident, it''s practically instant.  So how long do you think the forth official could could view a dodgy dive/goal line clearance/whatever?  I reckon in less than 60 seconds he could pass on a decision to the ref via a mic.  About the same amount of time it takes for a defender to waste time taking a throw in.IMO we should embrace it for important events and not worry about the ''what ifs''.

[Syteanric 1]

in ice hockey there are 2 lights.. one behind each goal..

when all the puck crosses all the line the light goes green.

nothing stops the flow of the game.

use the same in football... a sensor inside the bladder of the ball... Light goes green, everyone trots back to the center circle, no time lost spending ages wtaching a video where you still wont be sure.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

You should definitely strip the game of all technological advances.  Those mics the refs talk into, they can go, and those wireless communication broadcasters, what are they called now ?  That''s it - flags.  Linesmen don''t need ''em, they can just shout to the ref.  Then there''s watches - anyone who has watched Man Utd play at Old Trafford knows you don''t need them.While you''re at it, 11 a side isn''t really how the game was played traditionally, and as for grass pitches, well, who needs ''em ?  Just get 5,000 or so sweaty blokes to kick an old pigs'' skull through the cobbled streets of a village, 2,500 a side.  Now that''s football, isn''t it ?

[Gingerpele 0]

Something on the goal line, to detect if the ball has gone all the way in.....

and maybe have another official, watching the game properly (and having a TV to watch replays on) if there are any off the ball incidents ect (or just to tell the ref, if it was a two footed tackle/stamp ect)

[morty 0]

Goal line technology I agree with, also I''m sure that if they wanted to they could put a passive sensor in each footballers shinpad and have some sort of monitoring on the sidelines that could give an instant and accurate offside decision.The rest they should leave alone.

[Ginja 43]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

in ice hockey there are 2 lights.. one behind each goal..

when all the puck crosses all the line the light goes green.

nothing stops the flow of the game.

use the same in football... a sensor inside the bladder of the ball... Light goes green, everyone trots back to the center circle, no time lost spending ages wtaching a video where you still wont be sure.

[/quote]this [Y]Personally technology should only be introduced for decisions that decide the answer to "is it goal?"  and should not take more than a few extra seconds to make the decision.

[Indy_Bones 444]

I''m all for technology usage, and I fail to see how we can justify a team essentially being ripped off with a poor decision, just so that we can discuss it ad nauseum after the game.Funny how it was used in the Masters football and worked perfectly and fairly, leading to this statement from the ref in charge (John Underhill):"It appeared messy at first but the amazing thing for me was that it

only took 30 seconds or so to decide there had been a handball, and

long after the decision was made everybody saw it as a useful and

usable technique."30 seconds to clarify an important situation is nothing, it takes longer than that for players like Drogba et al, to pick themselves up after another theatrical dive!With the current speed of the game in England, it can be very difficult at times for the officials to keep fully up with play and be in a position to say with absolute certainty that something did, or did not happen, so why not remove the ambiguity where possible and sensible?Amazing that it''s deemed acceptable to get better boots which strike with more power and curve, kits that increase airflow and help players regulate temperature, and balls which move faster and more erratically then they''ve ever done, but suggest using technology to help deal with suprious and unclear incidents and everyone is up in arms.For those against the technology, remember that stance if we happen to be a cup/play-off final, and the ref disallows a perfectly good goal that costs us the game, and don''t dare have the temerity to rage at them, when you were deliberately against them using something that would have won us the game for the sake of a slight delay...

[Webbo118 0]

Technology is creeping in through the back door. There are numerous occasions when the referee gets guidance from the fourth official who has watched a replay of an incident on a screen. According to the current regulations, this shouldn''t happen, but it does.

[CJ 1]

When compared with nearly every other sport Football is still in the dark ages. If you have watched Tennis and Cricket recently you willsee how many very poor decisions have been corrected by technology.Judging if a ball (spherical) is over an imaginery vertical projected line from ground level is a nightmare and I can assure you most refsget it wrong even when the ball is on the ground so technology would help greatly there.Just remember the Henry incident which is a disgrace and proves how a player can cheat and get away with it in the present game. It isa pity he wasnt banned from the World Cup that at least would have sent a message, no doubt lawyers would have had a field day though!As has been indicated there does not need to be interruptions and I would ensure that the 4th official had far more influence on game. Too many gameshave been won or lost by cheats who know they can get away with it

[Suffolk exile 0]

Talksport commentary on the Portsmouth game. They said that it wasnt a sending off - Colymore went off on one about how they should use technology. I watch it and I think he did clip him and even colly''s co commentator couldnt make up his mind. Faffing about and still getting the wrong result. So no, not for me. Though they should be able to overturn red and yellow cards after the game if it is clearly wrong.

[Bill 1,788]

That this ''Luddite'' drivel regularly crops up is a tribute to the stupidity of those who have attached themselves to the game. I

It is not about using technology in football it is about how much control media outlets can have over televised games they have paid to broadcast. Of course it is in their interest to have stoppages whereby they can slot in adverts. And only somebody with an

[Bill 1,788]

That this ''Luddite'' drivel regularly crops up is a tribute to the stupidity of those who have attached themselves to the game. I

It is not about using technology in football it is about how much control media outlets can have over televised games they have paid to broadcast. Of course it is in their interest to have stoppages whereby they can slot in adverts. And only somebody with an

[Brendo 0]

I dont know about technology as such. But in important decisions, e.g red cards, pens etc I think the other 3 officials should put their input in alot more often! It may delay the game about a minute, but those big decisions are what change games.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

Yes!

With the amount of time taken with players faking injury, celebrating and arguing decisions I don''t think using technology would disrupt games very much!

Also the fact that a sport like speedway which considers 1000 a good crowd uses technology and football doesn''t is odd! -No disrespect to speedway, I used to be a regular at the Firs in the 60''s and have been to King''s Lynn lots of times!

[Bill 1,788]

That this ''Luddite'' drivel regularly crops up is a tribute to the stupidity of those who have attached themselves to the game. I

It is not about using technology in football it is about how much control media outlets can have over televised games they have paid to broadcast. Of course it is in their interest to have stoppages whereby they can slot in adverts. And only somebody with an IQ in single figures could imagine that play would allowed to be continued whilst a decision was being made. The pig bloke, who appears in favour of this nonsense, even accepts that it would be for sixty seconds.

It would only be feasible whereby an outside source BBC, ITV, SKY etc have provided the equipment. Given how much is subjective then so much would be taken away from the referee and be subject to endless dispute.

The sad thing is not only is football as a spectator sport littered with these witless fools but they would have it reduced to something akin to wrestling. Contrived tosh at the beck and call of the money men who have done much to spoil the game as it is.

"Ah", they will bleat " what about cricket and tennis" dimly overlooking that both these sports have defined and certain stoppages - end of overs and of points. Also that as they are played overa set amount of overs and matches then there is no loss of play due to dispute based stoppages.

The game is about it being live and unpredictable. It is a shame that those that wish to ''sasnitise'' the game and add as amny extra features to titillate their feeble minds don''t join hands with Sepp Blatter and change the size of the goals, reduce the game to four quarters and maybe add an extra column in the league table for ''assists''.

You could even have some moron to shout over the tannoy when you should sing as you will have the same such endlessly shouting if you allow the advertisers to take over. Any idea why the arranged pantomime that is American Football takes so long and is no more than a litany of set pieces choreographed for the advertisers ?

Players get it wrong, managers get it wrong. Referees are part of that drama so lets keep it live and real.

If you want staged performances then maybe football is not for you, maybe you should spend your saturdays monitoring the CCTV at the Castle Mall shopping centre.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

If you read the blog City1st, you will see it is not ''luddite'' drivel (IMO) but a genuine attempt to understand and promote discussion around something that I''m very much afraid we''re likely to have to embrace at some point in the future of the game. I''ve questioned the rationale behind the use of technology as far as I can without writing a lengthy essay on it. I don''t think this is something that''s going to go away if we bury our heads in the sand.Many examples where it would have benefitted results have been given. Equally, there are examples where it wouldn''t help at all.Thankyou for all comments made so far and I''m sure this is a discussion that will rumble on for some time to come.

[YankeeCanary 0]

WITS, this discussion has been intiated many times and discussed by various posters on this message board. No new ground here I''m afraid. You are right about one thing. It will continue to surface in the future. By the way, it''s "benefited", not "benefitted."

[Indy_Bones 444]

[quote user="City1st"]That this ''Luddite'' drivel regularly crops up is a tribute to the stupidity of those who have attached themselves to the game. I

It is not about using technology in football it is about how much control media outlets can have over televised games they have paid to broadcast. Of course it is in their interest to have stoppages whereby they can slot in adverts.[/quote]That you''ve responded with your own brand of drivel is interesting.You''ve put 1 and 1 together and got 13...Why do you naturally assume that if the technology was implemented, we''d be skipping to ad breaks whilst they consult footage??? We don''t go to ads when players are down injured, or when the ref is sorting out an aggravated situation that can take a minute or two to resolve, but apparently if we use footage to help with a decision, it''s going to mean endless ad breaks and the game turning into American Football!!!WTF have you been smoking???The subject IS about using technology to benefit the sport, and IS NOT about media opportunities and diluting the game. If we were told that the only way that the technology would be implemented was if the changes you are so adamant will happen, were also introduced, then I''d fully support your stance, but that''s just not the case.Comparing the idea to wrestling is beyond ludicrous, because we''re not talking about staged, choreographed entertainment, but a live sporting event with no pre-arranged victor. All the technology would do is help reduce injustices and poor decisions that can ruin an otherwise good game of football, and in some cases can be disastrous for one of the teams involved. It''s one thing to get relegated on the last day by getting spanked like we did by Fulham, but imagine if we''d outplayed them for 90 mins, but then the ref had given them a pen for the most blatant dive ever seen from outside the area. We go down because Biggles has an off moment...It''s not about constantly stopping play for every single thing, but making sure that the big decisions are correct, the technology is there to support the officials - not undermine them.But because you want to chat with your mates in the pub afterwards about how so and so should have been sent off, or that such and such an incident was a stonewall pen, then the game has to suffer for it. That''s the true ''dark age'' thinking right there.Still, thousands of years ago people were banging on about introducing some newfangled contraption called a ''wheel''.........

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="City1st"]That this ''Luddite'' drivel regularly crops up is a tribute to the stupidity of those who have attached themselves to the game. I

It is not about using technology in football it is about how much control media outlets can have over televised games they have paid to broadcast. Of course it is in their interest to have stoppages whereby they can slot in adverts.[/quote]That you''ve responded with your own brand of drivel is interesting.You''ve put 1 and 1 together and got 13...Why do you naturally assume that if the technology was implemented, we''d be skipping to ad breaks whilst they consult footage??? We don''t go to ads when players are down injured, or when the ref is sorting out an aggravated situation that can take a minute or two to resolve, but apparently if we use footage to help with a decision, it''s going to mean endless ad breaks and the game turning into American Football!!!WTF have you been smoking???The subject IS about using technology to benefit the sport, and IS NOT about media opportunities and diluting the game. If we were told that the only way that the technology would be implemented was if the changes you are so adamant will happen, were also introduced, then I''d fully support your stance, but that''s just not the case.Comparing the idea to wrestling is beyond ludicrous, because we''re not talking about staged, choreographed entertainment, but a live sporting event with no pre-arranged victor. All the technology would do is help reduce injustices and poor decisions that can ruin an otherwise good game of football, and in some cases can be disastrous for one of the teams involved. It''s one thing to get relegated on the last day by getting spanked like we did by Fulham, but imagine if we''d outplayed them for 90 mins, but then the ref had given them a pen for the most blatant dive ever seen from outside the area. We go down because Biggles has an off moment...It''s not about constantly stopping play for every single thing, but making sure that the big decisions are correct, the technology is there to support the officials - not undermine them.But because you want to chat with your mates in the pub afterwards about how so and so should have been sent off, or that such and such an incident was a stonewall pen, then the game has to suffer for it. That''s the true ''dark age'' thinking right there.Still, thousands of years ago people were banging on about introducing some newfangled contraption called a ''wheel''.........[/quote]It''s because like I said earlier, the seed of a ''break in play'' has already been sown in some heads. 

[PurpleCanary 6,463]

I''m agnostic on this but one point to make is based on the experience of cricket. There technology was brought in on the basis that it would be used only for "line" decisions - run-outs and stumpings. Now pretty much every kind of decision is getting referred to the third umpire. The likelihood is that a similar extension of the use of technology would happen in football, once started.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]WITS, this discussion has been intiated many times and discussed by various posters on this message board. No new ground here I''m afraid. You are right about one thing. It will continue to surface in the future. By the way, it''s "benefited", not "benefitted."[/quote]Oops, sorry YC, that''ll teach me to post after a lot of wine! hic [D] Not being a cricket fan, Purple Canary, I can''t refer to what''s happened there so I bow to your knowledge on the subject. From what you say, it sounds like a road to be avoided.

[Herman 11,178]

WITS,when you have a spare few minutes google ''cricket refferal system''.It was brought in recently and sort of works,but has also brought in its own controversies.One problem is that the guy using the tecnology has to know what he is doing,like having the volume turned up[:S]

[HazzaJet 275]

I think that it should definately be introduced for the World Cup this summer. The number of players that dive for spot-kicks now is incredible, and also there have been unfair goals in the past - 1966, 1986. I won''t be that bothered if it isn''t introduced to the league, but I feel that a world tournament is a different matter.

[ZLF 342]

I am uncomfortable with in game technology advances.  Perhaps I am odd but I like the controversy the human element gives us with wrong decisions etc.  Its a sport not a science and debating the possible errors (esp when so many remain unclear after multiple reviews) and feeling robbed or gaining some benefit are part of what I love about the game.

However I am more comfortable with increased use post much,  with stronger penalties, for blatant and guilty beyond reasonable doubt cheating or foul play that is missed or misjudged by the ref mid game.  Not to amend results or replay games,  but suspension of players or potentially points penalties for sustained abuse over a season say.

[Syteanric 1]

also, you could spend billions on technology.. if referees dont swallow their pride and use it then whats the point? the green light i mentioned earlier would mean they HAD to give the goal, because everyone would see the ligh.. and only offside or a foul would dictate other wise...

People mention Cricket and tennis.. how long is the delay i play between each bowl or serve? You dont get that gap in football to review a decision im afraid.

 

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

Given the outcome on the appeal to Rusty''s red card last week, where watching tv replays was involved, I think we can safely say that the use of technology isn''t really a guaranteed way to improve referees decisions and the overall game. MITS also refers to this incident, saying how everyone at the ground saw the incident and was outraged at the sending off. Just goes to show it all depends of the positioning of the cameras and the angles for replays. Tricky....