As you say, different sports. Rugby isn't a game I know much about, but cricket I love and I've never been 100% convinced about the use of technology their either. However, the cost-benefit analysis is clearer in that cricket is a game with natural breaks in play, meaning that the use of repalys has virtually no impact on the spectacle, and cricket is also massively more dependent on umpire decisions than football is. The same is true of tennis, I think. Plus, neither sport has the same issues over breadth and depth that football does. In any event, I'm not against technology in sports as such - I just take a lot more convincing than most, and I'm definetely not convinced that the benefits of goal technology outweigh the negatives.
I gave up on RU as I could not understand some of the Rules, they make the Offside Rule in Football seem simple. As you well know Fran!
Actually technology makes cricket more interesting. Don't get me wrong, I love cricket but there used to be longeurs in the game which can now be filled with analysis, challenges and waiting for the umpire's decision. The problem with rugby is that there are so many fouls that are not obvious to the uninitiated and quite a few of the initiated. It's possible to win a game of rugby without scoring a single try.
I think Allotted Time has made some very good points and basically expressed the position far better than I could have done. There is another comment in this thread which refers back to the ethos of the Corinthians which is an extreme position by today's standards but perhaps indicative of how far the game of football has migrated from it's original sporting ideals. The fact that so much money is now involved in football and media coverage is so extensive, these decisions take on a greater degree of importance with each passing season. It seems almost comical nowadays to consider that there was a lot of opposition to the introduction of penalties in the 1880's as it was believed that football was a gentleman's sport and, as such, no one would do anything to bring a player down in the box in order to prevent a goal-scoring opportunity. Had the Bolotn v QPR incident occured back then, you would have imagined that the Bolton players would have conceded that the ball crossed the line. If players were more honest, you could probably do away with the technology but this is not the way that managers groom their players these days where, I think, the people on the pitch have becomee more cynical in this respect. I would have to sit on the fence on this one. Like Allotted time, I am generally against too much technology being introduced into the game and would be in agreement with Alan Hansen that you need incidence like yesterday's to make the game more interesting. I think sometime the people calling for more technology forget that football is about entertainment. However, yesterday's mistake was so bad ( and there was a similar one in a cup tie a few years back) that the call to reject technology seems a very luddite approach which is difficult to defend in such blatant mistakes. Wondered if the solution would be better refererees and education for players? Ian
Completely disagree with goal line technology, being a traditionalist. Quoting the author's comments...'this could ultimately be the difference between multi millions of pounds and a football club's future' - not my problem that the Premier League/SKY have decided to turn our game into a millionaire/billionaire playground. If a club fails or falls because of a goal line decision, it will be more through their own financial incompetence than a referee's decision. I say stop messing about with our game, these wrong decisions have been made for many more decades than most people have been around. Past terrace and pub arguments have always been the 'if only' and 'what if' scenarios the only difference today is greed and the introduction of your arm chair supporter.
I know this is an old subject but I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, anyway FIFA have moved onto the next stage of testing with two of the eight companies that had successfully passed the first stage of testing. One of them is Hawk-Eye, who are based in Romsey and test their system at Staplewood.
The constant cry of "And the ref/linesman was looking right at it!" has never cut it for me. How can you know for sure what a ref/linesman was looking at? Humans are fallible and adding to an already difficult task by throwing in things like active, non-active, interfering and not interfering makes the roles practically impossible for a human to police with any degree of accuracy. The reason that we have automated production lines and post rooms etc is to eliminate human error. By and large these things deliver a far more consistent result and are free from errors. They add value. Technology that can add value to the game should be welcomed. Even the purists should acknowledge this as by definition, something that is pure is free from taint!
Didn't a english company create a chip that went inside the ball. The goal posts and crossbar had sensors which when the ball crossed the line would send a buzz straight to a watch the ref would wear. FIFA dismissed it tho.
Yep. Problem is, how do you keep the chip in the centre of the ball without affecting the characteristics of the football..? And, how do you stop it from being affected by impact, and how do you keep the cost of the system down..? On the other hand, accurate camera systems are relatively cheap.
Nicely argued, but you can't put the genie back into the bottle. We have the multi-million business, we have the armchair viewer. Pretty soon, some club is going to sue FIFA for allowing incorrect decisions to be made, and argue that a key incorrect decision affected a negative outcome to a game, for that club. Big deal..? That one game could be a European or World Club Final. I'm actually surprised Ireland didn't kick up more fuss when Henry handled the ball to send France into the World Cup. That was a defining moment. And goal line technology would have no affect on those clunkers.
Relatively cheap, but what if someone is in the way? The problem with this is that you still need an actual human being in the stand, which FIFA do not want.
Yep, good point Qwerty [le god, your name is so easy to type..! ] but if cameras are embedded at strategic points in the posts and crossbar, there's precious few areas that won't allow a clear sight. OK, not 100% foolproof, but far, far better than what we have now.
Even in hockey, where you have a goalkeeper who is practically wearing a sofa and thus obscuring much of the net, there are few calls left in doubt. Would imagine that three cameras would be definitive 99 times out of 100 in football. I really dislike the argument that human error is tradition...it's traditional only because the technology wasn't in place. I've heard the argument with baseball, with basketball, with American football, and with hockey, all of which have since went to replay for critical moments; in each case, people argued strenuously against it before it was instituted, but few if any want replay eliminated after it has proved its usefulness.
Probably, I am just concerned about what would happen if Hawk-eye (or whatever) came back with a "don't know", hence why FIFA want something which gives an instant signal to the referee (so no other humans). I suppose we are talking about a tiny proportion of something which already happens very rarely. Personally as a certified techno-geek I would be more than happy if someone could meet FIFA's criteria, but there are still a couple of unanswered questions in my book. Until then we will have to put up with those dastardly additional assistant referees who will also be making an appearance at EURO 2012.
