Technology.

[Good Evening Neil 0]

Come on FIFA (well that * Blatter) what the hell is wrong with it!? Shearer, i think, summed it up, everyone can see that it is needed apart from 1 man. 2 cases that would have been solved easily by 1 replay. For * sake!

[NCFC_Thain 0]

All it needs is the 4th official to be able to watch a screen and advise the ref on what he''s seen. They''re miced up anyone so how hard can it be to implement?

[Mister Chops 3]

The question is more around the boundaries of how you implement it.Goal-line technology only? - yes.  The cameras are already in place, it takes maybe 10 seconds to check.Blatter''s argument is that the sport would be unfair to the lower leagues, but cricket and tennis don''t employ Hawkeye/video replays at lower level professional games and nobody complains.  His second argument is that it would slow the game down, but that''s nonsense too if it is only used for goal-line checks as above.  Nobody wants it for throw-ins, corner vs goal kicks, penalties etc. - a goal is a massive game changer and that''s the limit of where it should be used.

[Resident Leeds Fan Jonny! 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]The question is more around the boundaries of how you implement it.Goal-line technology only? - yes.  The cameras are already in place, it takes maybe 10 seconds to check.Blatter''s argument is that the sport would be unfair to the lower leagues, but cricket and tennis don''t employ Hawkeye/video replays at lower level professional games and nobody complains.  His second argument is that it would slow the game down, but that''s nonsense too if it is only used for goal-line checks as above.  Nobody wants it for throw-ins, corner vs goal kicks, penalties etc. - a goal is a massive game changer and that''s the limit of where it should be used.[/quote]Same with Rugby too, they don''t have it at lower leagues.That fat twat Blatter needs to shift his fat arse out of FIFA and let someone else do the job, someone who doesn''t think he''s some sort of President of a country.....I''d love to kick him in the sponge.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

I raised this in my blog of 10th February 2010 and there were wide-ranging opinions on the subject

[grantroederdisaster 0]

[quote user="NCFC_Thain"]All it needs is the 4th official to be able to watch a screen and advise the ref on what he''s seen. They''re miced up anyone so how hard can it be to implement?[/quote]

Correct!

If speedway which struggles at many tracks in this Country to get a crowd of 4 figures uses video technology then so should football!

[Lambert is King 0]

Here are Mr Blatters comments on technology, which still today head their information page ( bet it wont tomorrow ). My view is that Mr Blatter is not in touch with the modern game. If he is he should come out and protect these officials from this afternoon and tonight by taking the blame himself saying that it is his decision not to use technology. Bet he wont though the officials will get the blame 100% for his decisions by not being given another game in international football.

 

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/index.html

[Lincs CR 0]

Much with tennis, and with rugby, you have to work your way to becoming one of the best players (tennis) or a team in one of the best leagues (rugby) in order to be treated to goal line technology.

It has worked at the highest levels only in other sports and if used simply for was the ball over the line situations, or simply have a referral system where each side can call on a video replay 3 times maximum each match, this will stop sides from using it unnecessarily just to waste time or for silly decisions.

[Unhinged Canary 320]

Just as a sort of ''sideways'' angle. If extra ''behind goal'' officials were being used in the Europa league, why could they not have been utilised in the World Cup? Which is fairly plain to see, FAR more important than a fairly mediocre European competition.An official behind/beside goal would have seen that ''goal'' today.

[Good Evening Neil 0]

[quote user="Clipped Canary"]Just as a sort of ''sideways'' angle. If extra ''behind goal'' officials were being used in the Europa league, why could they not have been utilised in the World Cup? Which is fairly plain to see, FAR more important than a fairly mediocre European competition.An official behind/beside goal would have seen that ''goal'' today.[/quote]and clearly have noticed Tevez being offside!

[Lambert is King 0]

[quote user="Clipped Canary"]Just as a sort of ''sideways'' angle. If extra ''behind goal'' officials were being used in the Europa league, why could they not have been utilised in the World Cup? Which is fairly plain to see, FAR more important than a fairly mediocre European competition.

An official behind/beside goal would have seen that ''goal'' today.
[/quote]

Fair point but he could not have done anything about the offside in the Mexico game, not because he would not have known, but would not have been considered in a position to make the decision. The ridiculos thing was that in both games the 4th official knew a mistake had been made but could not say anything, how ridiculos.

[ca 1]

Think with the mistake in the England game and now the Argentina game too the pressure must be on to review the situation

[Bradwell Yellow 0]

The mistake was actually displayed on the big screen in the Argentina vs Mexico game weren''t it?Very childish schoolboy error. Should leave Sepp Blatter very very red faced.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

It really couldnt hurt to have a ref sat in a booth somewhere watching a television and only intervening a decision if it was blatantly obvious like todays for both Mexico and England, if it''s not obvious he could just keep quiet and the ref will make decisions as normal. This would mean there would be nearly zero slow down, as for the lower league argument i think most teams and fans accept it''s not feasible to have it everywhere. Blatter wont bring it in though, especially as us English seem to want it.

[ncfclad 0]

The only reason there is for not introducing video evidence is that it will be harder to fix football result, its as simple as that

[The Walking Man 13]

Im not in favour of it, why stop at goal line technology when it will only affect a team maybe twice a season? Why not bring in technology for offsides and fouls? After all the technology is available.

Secondly football is one of the very few sports left in the modern era that right from grass roots to the elite level the game is still the same, and for me, that is a great attraction for football. If we had a perfect game with perfect decsions they''d be a hell of a lot less to talk about in the pub afterwards. We''d all have to start reading OK magazine and talking about shoes!

[Northern Canary 0]

I agree with this. It should be used just for the goal line and depending on cost it should maybe start in high profile competitions and higher leagues.

[Houston Canary 0]

Nobody seems to be asking for it to be used for anything but offsides and goals as those 2 go hand in hand and result is game changing decisions, especially when made incorrectly.

If they want to not use technology then turn off the lights, play the games on fields with crowds of people standing around trying to see over each other, and use a pig blatter of whatever the original ball was, not this new synthetic disaster. And no TV broadcasts because TV is technology too.

[Jacko 0]

One of the major issues FIFA seems to have with technology is that the game has to be fundamentally identical whether it is played at Hackney Marshes or a World Cup. However surely you have to recognise that a tournament of this magnitude is clearly not the same as a game of Sunday league football. Thus it is important that game changing decision such as whether the ball has crossed the line is got right. I don''t personally understand FIFA''s obsession with keeping the game ''the same'' at all levels when other sports such as Rugby, Tennis and Cricket are happy to embrace technology at the highest levels of the game despite them not being available lower down the pyramid. Ultimately terrible decisions like the ones yesterday can only be bad for the game and given that the World Cup is supposed to be football''s showcase tournament that surely cannot be allowed to happen.

I also appreciate that some people believe that technology may also be a slippery slope which makes interferences in practically all decisions inevitable. For me there is a pretty easy distinction. Goalline incidents are entirely objective. The ball either crosses the line or it doesn''t. However often the idea of what constitutes a foul or a handball is subjective and based on the opinion of the referee. You could show a handball incident to a room of 10 people and they could be spilt as to whether it was or wasnt a penalty. Even the idea of offside can be seen as subjective depending on whether you believe somebody is active or passive in that particular phase of play.

England have been absolutely dire but hopefully the one legacy we can leave from this world cup is the introduction of technology. England deserved to lose on the day but if a side comes back from 2-0 they obviously have a fantastic chance to win the game. Particularly as England would not have been so susceptible to the counter attack like they were in the second half when they had to push forward to get the equaliser. However as long as Sepp Blatter somehow remains in charge I honestly can''t see it.

[Yellow Wal 292]

I fully agree with your opinion on technology and would hope that it is implemented as soon as possible.

On the point of Hackney Marshes ... whatever made you think ther game is ''the same'' for all. I don''t believe thay have 12 subsitutes available to them and I''m pretty sure if you called a referee a **** there you would be sent off, recieve a lengthy suspension and get a fine equivalent to, in some cases, up to 50% of your weekly income. Now in the professional game using that language to the referee results in ....... ???

As far as making it ''the same'' again are there not ground standards required throughout the pyramid before a club can be promoted? Surely the installation of goal line technology could be added to the requirements as teams progress. The level that it would start at is the only thing that would need to be decided.

[I am a Banana 0]

tennis like hawkeye, they get 3 appeals.

[HazzaJet 204]

They must bring it in before the 2014 world cup, as an unfair goal decision on a side that''s behind or drawing can have a massive effect - we saw it in 1966 and 1986. In that game, what was going to the team that lost that match - they would be out of the world cup. Those kind of incidents don''t happen very often either as controversial decisions are quite rare, especially goal-wise so to think that it would use up too much time is ridiculous. The captain should be allowed to ask the ref to re-check 3 decisions that he thinks are wrong, just like in cricket the captain can make 3 appeals for lbw claims to be reviewed if he thinks they should have been. If the ref is unsure about something, he would also be able to find it out.

[The Walking Man 13]

We''re all somewhat forgetting that the decision(s) yesterday were absolutely dreadful and a comptents linesman in both the England game and Mexico game would have given the correct decisions.

Re, the point about not using technology for offsides, would you like to tell the Mexicans that? Because that offside was more blatent than the ball crossing the line.

[morty 0]

I think that offside would be far more difficult to measure electronically, there are just too many factors involved, ie not being able to be offside from a throw in or goal kick etc.But goal line technology really couldn''t be easier to implement. Start it in the major tournaments, spread it to the leagues, and the football associations can put their hands in their pockets if lower league teams struggle to meet the cost of the equipment.

[blahblahblah 2]

I''d like to see some technology applied to the England back-four, namely ankle-tags that given them an electric shock when they go on a stroll.  Give one to Gerrard aswell, and by means of reverse-Pavlovian instruction, he will eventually learn where the left wing is.

[Syteanric 1]

and if we get a repeat of 1966 then they will be sitting there all day

still not sure if the goal went in.

Video technology is ok at big tournaments, bit will oxford united vs

Aldershot in some non televised game no one cares about really have it?

what they need is what they have in ice hockey, a sensor in the

ball, when all of the ball crosses all of the line a green light comes

on and signals a goal... anything that happened leading up to the goal

is immaterial. It could be a foul or offside but the officials will deal

with this accordingly.

Last nights Argentina game poved why video technology will NEVER

work in football.. the goal was given, the replay was seen.. the players

complained... guess what.. nothing happened! the goal stood.

Players arent stupid, if they score a contetintios goal its going to

be sprinting back to the centre circle with the ball to get the game

restarted, by the time someones viewed 10 different angles the game has

gone on 30 seconds and its a waste of tiem and money.

NO to videos. yes to green lights

[Yellow Wal 292]

Let''s be sure about one thing. the linesman in the Mexico match should have given the correct decision but the linesman in the England match, being 15 yards away from the goal line would have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible to see if all of that ball DEFINITELY crossed the goal line or not.

And that is the reason goal line technology is needed.

[donttalksquit 0]

While I agree that something needs to be done I believe that there is a much simpler way to sort this out (and it could be implemented at grass roots level too).

Why not have the goal dug out and filled with sand! when the ball bounces on the sand a lot of the energy will be taken out of the ball thus stopping it bouncing back out therefore showing clearly that a goal has been scored!

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="donttalksquit"]

While I agree that something needs to be done I believe that there is a much simpler way to sort this out (and it could be implemented at grass roots level too).

Why not have the goal dug out and filled with sand! when the ball bounces on the sand a lot of the energy will be taken out of the ball thus stopping it bouncing back out therefore showing clearly that a goal has been scored!

[/quote]that actually isnt a bad idear.

[Lord Flashheart 0]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/video-technology-confirms-england-are-very-bad-at-football-201006282855/