Technology.

[Yellow Wal 314]

I can see a few thousand groundsmen thanking you for that idea!

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"]http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/video-technology-confirms-england-are-very-bad-at-football-201006282855/[/quote]That''s brilliant Lord F! I''m going to bookmark that site.

[spencer 1970 207]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"]http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/video-technology-confirms-england-are-very-bad-at-football-201006282855/[/quote]

i was just about to post this - great isnt it - summed it up for me.

[norfolkchance1 0]

We should boycott the next World Cup unless it is brought in, in my opinion. FIFA need England more than England needs FIFA, it might focus a few minds if that were to happen. The time for change to happen is now, that decision didn''t cost us the game we were poor enough besides but it still leaves a bitter taste. It isn''t the linesmans fault as he was doing as he should - keeping up with play so he couldn''t see for definite.

If we do the above we might drag a few other countries to do the same and therefore force a change. Nobody in europe will win the next world cup anyway- way too hot and bound to be won on home soil by Brazil.

[Houston Canary 0]

morty is wrong again. Using tech to judge questionable offsides is not difficult, at least not in this country. Within seconds, we were shown a picture that has the pitch behind the player one shade and the rest of it another at the moment the ball was passed.

The sand would only work if the keeper never stepped behind the line and if there was no rain.

Boycotting the next WC will only work (if at all) after you qualify.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

The FA could also get the keepers to build sandcastles during periods when they have nothing to do and judge them for originality at the final whistle. Marks would be deducted for any damage caused by the ball knocking into the design [:P]For example, we''d expect Calamity James to build his to look like a Saloon Bar in the Wild West

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Woman in the Stands WITS"]I raised this in my blog of 10th February 2010 and there were wide-ranging opinions on the subject
[/quote]

WITS, wide ranging opinions regarding this subject on this forum have been expressed for many years. Your blog was just another single opinion following ( rather than leading ) a long list of inputs. Your blog also received zero comments. Nothing wrong with you wishing to write a blog but it''s disingenuous to suggest your input led discussion and generated wide-ranging opinions. 

[norfolkchance1 0]

We could have a paddling pool in each goal net so when the ball bounces the linesman referee''s and everyone could see the splash when the ball goes in.

Joking aside though I''ve always thought if you sloped the inside of the goal slightly downwards from the line any balls that bounced behind the line would have more chance of bouncing in the net rather than back out.

Technology is the best solution though not the UEFA idea of two blokes looking like spare parts at either end.

[Houston Canary 0]

Cameras would be far more reliable and far less expensive than two employees, too.

The sloped ground could cause injury to a back-pedaling player, and because the entire ball has to be over the line the slope would need to be about a foot back of the line.

In the NHL, they put chips in the puck to make it easier for the cameras to keep up with it, and they have replay for disputed goals. This could be applied to a football sooner or later. Until then, just have cameras to show obvious offsides and actual goals should appease we mob.

[Brendo 0]

Technology works in Tennis, Cricket, Rugby etc. to make it a fair game for everyone involved. Why should it not work in football? It would take 20 seconds to come to a decision, even Tennis takes longer some times.

It should be made abailable to anyone who is willing to pay. [Y]

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Good Touch For A Big Man"]

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.

[/quote]

Absolutely correct. You don''t get goals scored straight from goal kicks in the Sunday Leagues.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Brendo "]

Technology works in Tennis, Cricket, Rugby etc. to make it a fair game for everyone involved. Why should it not work in football? It would take 20 seconds to come to a decision, even Tennis takes longer some times.

It should be made abailable to anyone who is willing to pay. [Y]

[/quote]

The inventor of Hawkeye claims that his system, consisting of six cameras in each goal, is 100% accurate. When the ball crosses the goal-line, the referee receives a sound in his ear-piece. This takes about half a second. He has been banned from doing any more work on this by FIFA.

[Jacko 0]

That is true Webbo. England''s defending for the first goal was just so poor it defies belief. How a supposedly ''world class'' centre back like John Terry was content to watch a ball travel 70/80 yards I will never know. Upsons attempt to stop Klose was equally woeful and the only positive was that his attempt to bring Klose down was so pathetic he couldn''t be sent off. I am not using the ghost goal as an excuse because England were dreadful throughout the tournament. However as Clarence Seedorf said today the pace of modern football is now faster than ever at the top level. This means that the referees need help at times.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]morty is wrong again. Using tech to judge questionable offsides is not difficult, at least not in this country. Within seconds, we were shown a picture that has the pitch behind the player one shade and the rest of it another at the moment the ball was passed.

The sand would only work if the keeper never stepped behind the line and if there was no rain.

Boycotting the next WC will only work (if at all) after you qualify.[/quote]Do you need to show yourself up as ignorant in every single post you make?I am aware that a video replay can be instant, but FIFA would be dead set against (as would I) games being stopped whilst officials view video replays.The use of goal line technology would not delay the game in any way whatsoever, so its implementation is far more likely.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Spot on again Morty.

Goal line technology is the ONLY technology needed if the game is not to be held up all the time.

As for the tempo of the game being so much faster these days......... well that has come about by the introduction of two dozen match balls and two dozen ball boys. Gone are the days when there was a ''natural'' break whilst the ball was retrieved. I''m not sure if I''m for or against all the balls but I am sure as hell against 12 substitutes in the World Cup, seven substitutes in League matches and even three substitutes in local leagues.

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="Good Touch For A Big Man"]

That is true Webbo. England''s defending for the first goal was just so poor it defies belief. How a supposedly ''world class'' centre back like John Terry was content to watch a ball travel 70/80 yards I will never know. Upsons attempt to stop Klose was equally woeful and the only positive was that his attempt to bring Klose down was so pathetic he couldn''t be sent off. I am not using the ghost goal as an excuse because England were dreadful throughout the tournament. However as Clarence Seedorf said today the pace of modern football is now faster than ever at the top level. This means that the referees need help at times.

[/quote]That''s incorrect, actually. If you watch it in slo mo, Upson''s arm is down by his hip as he attempts to catch Klose when Klose''s arm comes up across Upson''s neck. You then see Upson falter & grapple with Klose to try & retrieve the situation.It''s a very British, Sheareresque foul by Klose, & well worth the gamble, because at worst you give away a foul, or at best you score - or, even better, draw a despairing tackle from behind which results in a penalty & a red card for the defender.Still crap defending, though, to give Klose the opportunity.

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Spot on again Morty. Goal line technology is the ONLY technology needed if the game is not to be held up all the time. As for the tempo of the game being so much faster these days......... well that has come about by the introduction of two dozen match balls and two dozen ball boys. Gone are the days when there was a ''natural'' break whilst the ball was retrieved. I''m not sure if I''m for or against all the balls but I am sure as hell against 12 substitutes in the World Cup, seven substitutes in League matches and even three substitutes in local leagues.[/quote]Spot on[Y]  it would only take seconds to reach a decision by the 4th or 5th official and then relay it to the Ref.....Sepp Blatter is about the only person that doesnt want this(TW*T)

[morty 0]

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has apologised to the Football

Association over Frank Lampard''s disallowed goal in England''s World Cup defeat

by Germany.

Lampard was denied a goal in Sunday''s 4-1 defeat, even though his shot

clearly crossed the line.

Blatter said the debate on goal-line technology would be reopened when the

International FA Board meets in July.

Blatter also said sorry to Mexico after Argentina''s Carlos Tevez scored from

an offside position in their last 16 game.

More to follow.

Source :- BBC

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Good Touch For A Big Man"]

That is true Webbo. England''s defending for the first goal was just so poor it defies belief. How a supposedly ''world class'' centre back like John Terry was content to watch a ball travel 70/80 yards I will never know. Upsons attempt to stop Klose was equally woeful and the only positive was that his attempt to bring Klose down was so pathetic he couldn''t be sent off. I am not using the ghost goal as an excuse because England were dreadful throughout the tournament. However as Clarence Seedorf said today the pace of modern football is now faster than ever at the top level. This means that the referees need help at times.

[/quote]

That''s incorrect, actually. If you watch it in slo mo, Upson''s arm is down by his hip as he attempts to catch Klose when Klose''s arm comes up across Upson''s neck. You then see Upson falter & grapple with Klose to try & retrieve the situation.
It''s a very British, Sheareresque foul by Klose, & well worth the gamble, because at worst you give away a foul, or at best you score - or, even better, draw a despairing tackle from behind which results in a penalty & a red card for the defender.

Still crap defending, though, to give Klose the opportunity.

[/quote]

I agree it was clever play by Klose but I wasnt sure he fouled Upson. Upson had a massive problem once he allowed Klose to get his body between him and the goal. So he either had to let him run, which he eventually did or he had the option of bringing him down. Which would obviously have been a red card offence. Funnily enough it is one of the reasons Holty gets the goals he does in my opinion. He is so good at getting position over the defender marking him. A prime example was his goal at Elland Road.

[blahblahblah 2]

Someone get Blatter on the phone, because I''ve worked out the answer to the goal-line problem.All you need to do is dig a shallow incline of say 10 degrees, from the goal to the back of the net.  Then any ball that bounces will bounce into the net.No technology required, and no sand to get trodden in / soggy.

[Houston Canary 0]

Do you need to show yourself up as ignorant in every single post you make? - morty

HA HA HA HA, typical cowardly morty!! Such a shameless punk you are.

Here''s how he does his magic. Read what I write and then reply to it with nothing valid and start name calling OR (as in this case) pretend I said something different and then act like a drama queen about how wrong and offensive it is.

Why don''t you read your own comment first, idiot. You were WRONG about offside being difficult to review. You know you were wrong because in your pissy response, you didn''t even acknolwedge what I wrote.

Nobody is saying every offside should be reviewed are they? Of course not. However, it would take as long to review an offside on a goal as it would to review if the ball was actually in the net, now wouldn''t it!

morty''s response will be name calling or excuse making. There, now you don''t have to respond, I''ve already taken care of it for you.

[morty 0]

Wow.Utterly insane.

[Brendo 0]

FIGHT... FIGHT...FIGHT! [:D]I''ll go with Morty. [:)]

[blahblahblah 2]

If Houston empties the tea boxes into the river, we could be in for a bit of trouble.

[norfolkchance1 0]

BlahBlahBlah that was my idea from page 3 (with incline in goal) but I probably didn''t explain it well enough. Glad someone else thinks the same though.

I''m sure it would work.

Great Minds.........

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Someone get Blatter on the phone, because I''ve worked out the answer to the goal-line problem.All you need to do is dig a shallow incline of say 10 degrees, from the goal to the back of the net.  Then any ball that bounces will bounce into the net.No technology required, and no sand to get trodden in / soggy.

[/quote]Oh yeah !  I thought it was a good idea.  Now I realise it isn''t mine !  [:)]I quite like the paddling pool too.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="norfolkchance1"]BlahBlahBlah that was my idea from page 3 (with incline in goal) but I probably didn''t explain it well enough. Glad someone else thinks the same though.

I''m sure it would work.

Great Minds.........[/quote]And now I''m quoting the wrong post !  Time to do some work probably.  Or maybe tea first.  Sometimes I take the p out of prevarication.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="Woman in the Stands WITS"]I raised this in my blog of 10th February 2010 and there were wide-ranging opinions on the subject[/quote]

WITS, wide ranging opinions regarding this subject on this forum have been expressed for many years. Your blog was just another single opinion following ( rather than leading ) a long list of inputs. Your blog also received zero comments. Nothing wrong with you wishing to write a blog but it''s disingenuous to suggest your input led discussion and generated wide-ranging opinions. 

[/quote]What I meant was there were wide ranging opinions/comments posted on the thread when I posted the blog. Few people post comments below a blog but add to the discussion on the OP thread. In no way did I mean to suggest otherwise. I will now go and write 100 l Iines saying I must be careful not to antagonise HC with my English as he cannot infer and deduce my meanings.Once again I have been picked up for my lack of clarity when I''m sure other posters knew what I meant. Honestly there are times when I think we should all be writing university standard English on here to appease some posters who have nothing better to do than pick holes.

[Yellow Wal 314]

There are obviously too many problems with the incline idea that I think nobody bothered to explain that it would be a definite non-starter.

You were serious weren''t you?

[norfolkchance1 0]

What problems?