It's a foregone conclusion isn't it..? There can't be anyone out there anymore, short of Alan Hansen, who believes goal line technology should not be implemented, because it makes for interesting debate in the pub afterwards..? Once again, the possible outcome of a match has been decided on a mistake. If it was pub teams playing together, it might be fun to debate it over a pint afterwards, but this could ultimately be the difference between multi millions of pounds and a football club's future. Fans will point to specific matches where... it was that match where our season really kicked on, or... it was there that we really won the Championship. Nobody mentions the moments out of a team's control where... it was that cruel goal that really did it for us. We never really recovered our season after that. Or... the ref didn't award us the goal, we lost and the players heads finally went down, after trying so hard. If a team fairly loses, through correct decision making from officials, then they have only themselves to blame. Whilst major decisions are in the hands of the fallible, mistakes will continue to happen. Whilst, on the whole, officials do a marvellous job, under the scrutiny of post-match analysis, it is clear it is simply not possible for them to get every decision correct. Goal line technology will take the heat out of the most major decision of all - did the ball cross the line..? We don't have to have silicon chips in footballs, that beep to the referee. The modern video camera, in digital tape, hard disk, or solid state form is plenty fast enough for football. We can always go to something better when it is reliable, accurate enough and cheaper, to make the change. We could have had good, reliable goal line decisions made the moment the first instant replay machine came out, 57 years ago. Yes, it was that long ago, although TV football audiences have been enjoying it for around 35-40 years. The first ones weren't brilliantly fast, but by the time BBC Sport got hold of one, they were fast enough and reliable enough to probably do a better job than a referee and linesman, even today. Of course, it was hugely expensive, which prohibited its use up and down the leagues. The Beeb used a significant amount of their budget to get hold of their first one. These days, I can't honestly see an argument. The technology isn't that expensive anymore, and it is completely reliable. It has no-side to it, and it doesn't react to 30,000 baying fans. It just accurately records what it sees.
Disagree..has to be instant beep-to-referee type system. There is no natural break in game if goal isn't given. Say Kelvin really did keep the ball out of the net and passes it rapidly to Fox who plays it up the field, who calls the play back? The referee? The opposition players who want a second opinion either because they thought it was a goal or, more likely, they are worried the ball has gone too far towards their goal? And remember not every goal not given is as clear as yesterdays. People seem to want the game ruined for the sake of goals given or not given mistakenly...how many of those in a year? Instant information to the referee is the only way.
Goal line technology is a must. If the assistant is in any doubt stop the game immediately and refer it to an official in the stand. In the case of Saturday, the goal that wasn't given could (and I think it will) relegate QPR.
With yesterdays game in mind a fourth official looking at a TV monitor could have awarded that one, no need for goal line technology there.
True. But people like to have things on record. Besides, what if the 4th official made a mistake..? Now that could set back fairer play for years.
The TSS states what we have all known for years - it's a no brainer. Fran is citing the concern that FIFA have obsessed over about breaks in play. Of course, the real reason that FIFA haven't done anything is that Blatter hasn't found a way to make money out of it yet, but I digress. I'd like to take the use of TV footage even further and use it for multiple issues which are often cleared up by TV. The issue here is about implementation. Let's say you adopted the cricket style use of referrals. Each team gets a certain number and they don't "lose" one if their referral shows that they were correct. It doesn't matter who calls for the referral (manager or captain) as it would be the same for everyone, it would be clear and it would be understood by both the crowds and TV audiences. The issue I have with the beeper, is that it is inevitable that the beeper will at some point fail, the referee won't give a goal and TV will prove conclusively that the ball was over the line! TV is usually definitive and where it isn't, you stick with the original decision.
I absolutely, 100% agree that goal line technology AT LEAST must happen if our beloved game isn't to be a laughing stock, compared to other sports like rugby and cricket. Goal line cameras are, as hotbovril says, a no-brainer, but there is so much more that could be done with a referral system as in in tennis. I accept what Fran says that breaks in play must be kept to an absolute minimum, but there has to be a way of stopping the often farcical decisions that happen from changing the outcome of matches.
Agree it's vital for the game, and referees. Everyone can see now from multiple angles, within seconds, but they get no help, not exactly fair on them! Cissé's goal was offside though so it didn't really affect this game. Two wrongs do sometimes make a right!
Just watched England beat France in rugby. It had its moments with a tight finish, but all that stop start did my head in. Football works because it's a simple game with end to end stuff. This is my soapbox and I intend to stand on it till hell freezes over.
We're never going to agree on this Fran, but surely you can see that if a simple decision can be made, quickly, that a goal either is or isn't a goal, wouldn't that improve the game?
I normally just read these boards but this is a subject on which I feel strongly, and I always seem to have a different view to the majority, so it seems an ideal subject for my first post. Firstly, the decision not to award QPR a goal yesterday is not the reason they might go down. A decision might have gone against them, but another one went their way (their goal was offside) and I bet other decisions have gone their way this season too. Hughes should have been honest enough to admit their defending was very poor for at least one of the goals and that is the reason they are where they are. However good the technology you are always going to have incorrect decisions. Technology might reduce the number of incorrect decisions, but the benefit needs to be weighed against the costs. As others have said, TV replays have a cost in terms of the disruption to the game and aren't the answer. One of the biggest issues for the introduction of technology in football is the massive depth and breadth with which the game is played. This is the point FIFA make - there isn't any technology that exisits that can be effectively implemented throughout the professional game. Would it be right for goalline technology to be introduced in certain major leagues but not others? Personally, I think that would make things worse. There are only a couple of goalline decisions that stand out each season - there are countless offsides, fouls on players through on goal, handball decisions etc that replays prove after the game to be incorrect. And of course, the technology would STILL get it wrong sometimes. Focussing on goal line decisions is a red herring, we would be brutally altering our game for a miniscule benefit.
That's what FIFA are insisting on...instant decision sent within seconds to referee. But the cost will be prohibitive to any but the PL and, possibly, the Championship. A wrong decision can be important for the team concerned but willing to bet there are very few in a year...not worth the cost to lower leagues.
So, I ask AllotedTime (welcome by the way!) and Fran, why do you think cricket, rugby (both codes) and tennis, not to mention baseball etc. have gone down the road you find so difficult to swallow? Different sports, agreed, different reasons for interrupting the flow of the game, agreed, but the common factor in every sport is that the decisions made are in the harsh scrutiny of the TV cameras, the people at the game, and the players on the pitch. This may not have been the case in the days of the Corinthian Casuals, when the only issue with an incorrect decision was that a game was lost or won, albeit by a wrong decision, but everyone shook hands and said "well played old chap." Nowadays the outcomes of matches are potentially so massive that empires may crumble and the foundations of the earth may be shaken, so it is vital that the decisions on which a game hangs are correct. I don't know the best way to achieve this, but doing nothing is surely not an option.
Then don't implement it in the lower leagues. BTW, don't run away with the idea that it would be THAT expensive. And also don't run away with the idea that it would occasionally make mistakes. I've a little first hand experience of constructing and adapting security camera systems. I've never seen even the cheapest one, I've set up [which incidentally, cost less than £200] make an error. And they are all in action everyday.
