Goal line technology delay

[CJ 0]

Well what a surprise the good old FA once again delay any move to the 21st century again, and await trials which apparently will take months if not years. Its amazing that cricket and tennis are so far ahead. Oh no sorry forgot we are talking our beloved FA who think introducing the word "respect" to players will change everything and stop Mr Rooney etc clearly swearing at refs and walking away, no why not simply introduce the rugby rules no one apart from the captain can address the referee otherwise they get a yellow and spend time on the touchline.Sorry but as a Ref of many many years the rubbish that comes from the FA is unbelievable I think they still think we have an empire!Why not say introduce it in some matches here where the club agrees and it is used as "advisory" role and this will give plenty of testing in real world, knowing the vendors of this tech they would fall over themselves to install it for free. The ref could then get an audible signal if the ball crosses the line which he could overrule, couldnt be any worse than the lottery we get now when bounces near line.I have also been an assistant many times and I can tell you even if you are near the line it is a nightmare what with players goal posts etc and like the England world cup can be over in an instantSorry rant over

[shefcanary 2,388]

Hey i share your rant.  FIFA is the problem though.  FA have to wait for FIFA to give the all clear on this "new" technology.  For some reason they won''t be in a position to do this until after the 2012 championships.  To go ahead without such clearance could risk the FA getting expelled from FIFA.  If the FA comprised the right people on their board I''d say go ahead and call FIFA''s bluff ''cos I think they need us more than we need them - but FA board is hopeless so that won''t happen.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

There is no point in rushing the trials to only find the technology isn''t reliable. Clubs will have to pay for the installation of whatever system is put in place and none of them want to spend thousands of pounds on something which is replaced a year later.Also, this has nothing to do with FIFA.

[Bill 1,788]

"The ref could then get an audible signal if the ball crosses the line which he could overrule"

Which pretty much sums up the stupidity that underpins this idiocy. If the ref over rules the ''signal'' and it is later shown on TV to have been over the line then we are back to where we are now.

Comparisons with cricket and tennis further

demonstrate that stupidity. Interfering with the integrity of the game will not enhance anything other than to allow breaks for adverts to be slotted in.

When a decision is referred to cameras in cricket and tennis, it is usually at a point of a natural break. Players will remain pretty much in the same position as do the umpires who are in a permanent static position in relation to the game. That is not the case in football. Does anyone seriously think that if a referee overules/ignores this idiotic beep that players will not surround him at some point in protest ? Why would a linesman be able to rule that a ball has or has not gone over the line for a corner or goal kick but not a goal.

If this technology is to be used then it has to be absolute. No being subjective, no having the ref having the last say and logically, it has therefore to be used on all touchlines.

At a time when there is talk about how much TV companies are dictating more and more on how the game is run it is rather disturbing to see folk ever willing to devalue the game further simply to appease those sponsors and advertisers.

The cameras are there to record the game not run it. And thank god the bl000dy FA, FIFA etc are at last standing up to Sky, Disney and lord knows who else who would see our game reduced to some formulatic, contrived nonsense such as wrestling, American ''football'' or synchronised swimming.

[BW 0]

Our sport is not rugby and if football became as transparent as a sport as rugby and tennis have become i would get bored watching it every week.

[CJ 0]

I do give up with some of the replies that you get here. If City1st had done any research he would know that the vast majority of officials managers and players want this technology. Also he would know it has already been trialled and proven to be successful. Also he would know there is little delay in the audible signal to the ref is within a second or two AND it only goes to him at present, with the idea that there is no riot etc.AND yes if he overrules it he had better be pretty certain he is right just like he / she can overrule an assistant flag etc. Clearly I was also indicating he should only do that if a glitch occurs not when it is close to or over line.Technology in cricket and tennis has proven how fallible officials can be especailly with ball to line judgement.As for the all touchlines bit (shows City1 is watching wrong sport too or knows nothing about football), no one is suggesting it should be used for throw ins goal kicks etc!!! There is no such thing as absolute with technology but likely to be way better than officials , remember the World Cup match do we!!!FA and FIFA stand up to no-one who has money as Qatar bid demonstrates and the way Sky is now running our Premier League, remember last time City had home game on Saturday.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="City1st"]"The ref could then get an audible signal if the ball crosses the line which he could overrule"

Which pretty much sums up the stupidity that underpins this idiocy. If the ref over rules the ''signal'' and it is later shown on TV to have been over the line then we are back to where we are now.[/quote]so if there''s a push in the build up, a hand ball or a striker pops the ball in the net when offside the ref shouldn''t over rule it?Think before you post!

[SwindonCanary 455]

All this talk about technology, the main complaint is that it would slow up/stop play, I don''t see why it should.Goal line technology that let''s the ref know in an instant, should be introduced ASAP. More complex decisions could be overcome by giving the ref some aid. We all remember the 2006 World Cup Final where Zidane headbutted Materazzi. It was clear that the ref and assistant had missed the incident, but they still came up with the correct decision because, as reported afterwards, the fourth official saw it on a monitor and reported it to the ref. FIFA have since denied that it happened and have taken away monitors from the dugout areas due to managers pointing out mistakes made by refs. WHY ?  Would it not be better if the fourth official sat and watched a monitor (they seem to do very little at the mo) and had a word in the refs ear, to help him out ? Think about it, last weekend Rodwell''s sending off, TV showed it straight after the ref produced the red card, it could have been before the card was shown, similarly the Wolves match where Jamie O''Hara was fouled in the box and Halsey deemed it to be outside the box. The time they took arguing over it, they could have replayed it half a dozen times.   

[smooth 114]

Why don''t we have that extra official monitoring the 18 penalty box as they do now in the champions league?

I agree with technology for this and for penalty decisions given. The arguement that it is a game that flows is rubbish once a penalty is given. There is usually some barging, cards given out, stalling of the kick plenty of time to look at a replay.

But I just think have an official monitoring the penalty area. From what I recall few penalties were given in the UEFA cup last year and those that dive can then be given a yellow card.

For those grounds that have big screens the replay can go up, but there is a monitor for the fourth official. It would would not add time at those grounds without a big screen. Yes some lower league teams would miss out but they can eventually put in monitors.

How can it add time to what normally is a few minutes craziness after a penalty is given.

Ball crossing the line again, very rare but a with an official in the goalmouth area he can judge.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="smooth"]Why don''t we have that extra official monitoring the 18 penalty box as they do now in the champions league? I agree with technology for this and for penalty decisions given. The arguement that it is a game that flows is rubbish once a penalty is given. There is usually some barging, cards given out, stalling of the kick plenty of time to look at a replay. But I just think have an official monitoring the penalty area. From what I recall few penalties were given in the UEFA cup last year and those that dive can then be given a yellow card. For those grounds that have big screens the replay can go up, but there is a monitor for the fourth official. It would would not add time at those grounds without a big screen. Yes some lower league teams would miss out but they can eventually put in monitors. How can it add time to what normally is a few minutes craziness after a penalty is given. Ball crossing the line again, very rare but a with an official in the goalmouth area he can judge.[/quote]

The problem isn''t whether it is a penalty - then as you say no delay would be noticed - but what if it is judged not to be a penalty? A drop ball in the box?

 

The extra officials to monitor the boxes is a good idea and hopefully this will start to be put into play in the Premier and Football Leagues - the main problem in England is the fact there is already a shortage of match officials. But these could be a good way of giving experince to younger refs.

[smooth 114]

Behtnal for me you answer your question at the end, you would get more officials trained up and hence the debate on that bad call would disappear.

In regard to a penalty given and then after review seeing that it is not. This usually means that the attacking player dived, hence a free kick to the defending team and a yellow card to the attacker.

It means the ref has to be pretty certain to give a pen. because it will come up for review. Ball to hand situation for me again just needs to be ref''d better and a better understanding of ball to hand.

The arguement that the ref hasn''t given a penalty is always going to be there. But with another official in the penalty area there is a set of eyes for exactly that call

[Panic 0]

I''m rather anti-technology in football for the following reasons:

a. The argument that other sports have it is rubbish. Football is a massively different game from rugby (particularly regarding stoppage in play, the respect for the ref''s decision etc.) and to compare soccer to cricket or tennis is laughable; they are entirely different sports.

b. The rulebook would have to be rewritten. Now this isn''t necessarily a bad thing when it comes to clarification of, say, what constitutes foul play (like the ball-to-hand rule, the misconception that if a player ''gets the ball'' in a challenge then it can''t be a free kick, what a two-footed challenge is etc.) and the use of the yellow card. But imagine that Norwich are playing Arsenal at home and Crofts hits a piledriver that cannons off the crossbar, bounces over the line and back out into play. We all scream for the goal, and the ref knows he can check it later so he doesn''t give the goal as his assistant isn''t 100% sure. Arsenal then run up the other end and score. What then? The game is impossible to break up in that way. This is where the light on the ref''s watch idea would be good, but I genuinely believe that that technology doesn''t exist yet.

c. There are some good alternatives. I read in WSC once that in the 1950s a ground (I think it was Burnley or someone) had a slope behind the goal line so that if a ball bounced over it then it would bounce into the net. Cheap, efficient, not difficult to do. Admittedly it wouldn''t help with those ''keeper claws it back'' incidents, but stick an official next to the goal and then we''re sorted. Football has one of the lowest official to player ratios in sport (Tennis has the highest I think). There''s no reason why we can''t have more.

d. Ultimately human error is a large part of the game. Torres'' miss a few weeks ago shows us that football is a game all about error, and these can make great talking points; as well as adding to the general excitement of the game. DRS in cricket has essentially lessened the spectacle (think of the 2005 Egbaston Ashes victory - TV replays would have concluded that the final wicked actually shouldn''t have been given at all).

Personally I think the technology debate is being used at the moment in the British media as a stick to beat FIFA, with the World Cup fall out and everything. IFAB are actually in charge of the rules, and that organization desperately needs an overhaul (why do Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England have a given right to sit on it?), and the TV debate actually distracts us from those more important issues in the game - such as fan''s rights, how FIFA is run, the influence of money etc.

[smooth 114]

Good points panic.

I think the issue is the right result is VERY important, decision goes against you it can be missing out on championships, play off places or more importantly send you down a division. Human error is part of the game but some parts can be accounted for by technology.

I believe once a penalty has been given there can be time to review, yes the other games are different. But this game does not flow when a situation like a penalty is given.

There will be some decisions like you mention (hypothetical arsenal reference) but they are extreme. Most cases the ball will run dead etc. But some cases would be missed.

I def think the penalty decision is bigger than a ball crossing the line.

The rule book is often re-written with stupid offside ammendments, passback rules etc have all been done. So for me that is no point to the arguement.

Human error and some cases can''t be accounted for but technology can help referee''s get the right result. For me it is the question regarding penalties where this has most clout.

[Bill 1,788]

"If City1st had done any research he would know that the vast majority of officials managers and players want this technology."

I presume you can give verifiable eveidfence for that. I''ll happily read it if you can point to where it is.

"there is little delay in the audible signal to the ref is within a second or two "

No one claimed there was or a riot, but hey ho, why break a forum tradition of making something up to answer instead.

"AND yes if he overrules it he had better be pretty certain he is right just like he / she can overrule an assistant flag etc. Clearly I was also indicating he should only do that if a glitch occurs not when it is close to or over line"

Oh dear, it gets worse. How the hell does he know there is a glitch ? Of course he can overule the linesman, HE IS THE REFEREE ! To put up some idiocy that supposedly removes that degree of subjectivity, then waffle on about glitche and further add "There is no such thing as absolute with technology" suggest we are back to the age of trial by ordeal and throwing the witch into the water to see if she floats.

''Yes, your majesty you can get rid of the jury as this machine is better and it will tell you when someone is guilty or not aboslutely .... well sometimes. or not.'' It is worthy of inclusion in Monty Python and the Holy Grail

"no one is suggesting it should be used for throw ins goal kicks etc"

Now we have ''some definitions of the pitch are more defined than others''. The logical and possible legal ramifications will have that all the perimeters of the pitch will require equal treatment. This to deal with a problem that occurs how many times ? When was the last time this happened in a game involving City ? It is part of the game just as Torres missing a sitter, or Green letting the ball slip under him.

It is not been proven successful, as the above statements by those in favour freely admit. And as it is fallable then as has been pointed out, where are we if later video evidence proves that the whole of the ball did not cross the line ? Which if as stated there is no "absolute with technology" , will undoubtedly occur.

This does, however, focus on whether the cameras should be there to record the game (warts and all) or actually contrive to deliver a ''better experience'' for it''s audience. The latter is a very dangerous slope that we have been slowly slipping down for some good while. It doesn''t need to be pushed further towards the edge.