That "goal"

[robbieBB]

I don't know what you guys think, but the attached photo on the BBC website seems to show, contrary to all the media-and-'Arry-stoked furore, that the ref, Martin Atkinson, called it right. He was standing in the penalty area close to the line along which this photo was taken, and this would have been pretty much his view of it. From that photo the whole ball was almost certainly past the line, or if it wasn't it could only have been by a few millimeters.

I was listening to the commentary on R5 Live. Alan Green, in his summing up at the end, said that someone had seen a photo which clearly showed the ball had NOT crossed the line. Was this that photo? If it was, nobody interested in the facts of the matter could possibly have said that it clearly showed that the ball wasn't over the line; if it wasn't the photo Green was referring to, the evidence of this photo suggests whatever other photo was taken, the word "clearly" is gross exaggeration. When will commentators learn that giving instant verdicts on refereeing decisions, even with video playback from their studios, is a fool's game that brings them into disrepute and very often does a gross injustice to the officials? I am all in favour of using technology. I think it will show just how few "howlers" the officials actually make when properly reviewed.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

sorry mate, i've seen that photo before and it didn't cross the line. photos can be deceptive

 

[Walsh.i.am]

I've seen two photos, taken from different angles, of course, and in one (yours) it looks over and in the other it looks nowhere near.
Unless it is clearly 100% over, the official(s) had no right to award it.

But all this begs the everlasting question :- if rugby, tennis and cricket can all use some form of third umpire/review system, where the hell is it in our sport?

The three I've mentioned are all fast paced - indeed cricket and tennis, the ball moves way faster than in football. Everyone accepts the 3rd umpire decision and so they would in football after a 'teething', or bedding in period

It really is that simple, Blatter, oh you twatter.!

 

[robbieBB]

sorry mate, i've seen that photo before and it didn't cross the line. photos can be deceptive

Yes, photos can be deceptive, and they can be doctored. What is your statement that it didn't cross the line based on Superman? Another photo from another angle?

 

[Dazz19]

But all this begs the everlasting question :- if rugby, tennis and cricket can all use some form of third umpire/review system, where the hell is it in our sport?

The three I've mentioned are all fast paced - indeed cricket and tennis, the ball moves way faster than in football. Everyone accepts the 3rd umpire decision and so they would in football after a 'teething', or bedding in period

It really is that simple, Blatter, oh you twatter.!

All those sports are very stop start though. Tennis stops after every point, Cricket stops after every delivery, nine times out of ten rugby uses the video ref to check on a try so the game would've stopped anyway as the ball is technically 'dead'.

Football is far too free flowing. What would've happened if the ref had asked the fourth official to check if the ball had crossed the line and while it was being looked at Spurs blasted down the other end and scored? The game hadn't stopped so would he allow the Chelsea the goal, the Spurs goal, both or neither? If he stops the game and the ball hasn't crossed the line how does he restart it? A drop ball on the Spurs goal line? Goal kick? Indirect free kick to Chelsea?

So, no it really isn't that simple, although I agree that Blatter is a twat.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

Yes, photos can be deceptive, and they can be doctored. What is your statement that it didn't cross the line based on Superman? Another photo from another angle?

i watched the game and saw the close up where it clearly hit terry who wasn't even in the goal himself. it was never, ever, ever a goal. i saw it with my eyes. it was closer than many in the media would have you believe but it was nowhere near to fully crossing the line

 

[Dazz19]

From this view it quite clearly hasn't gone anywhere near the line, let alone over it

You must log in or register to see images

So even with photo's we still have a difference of opinion as to whether the ball crossed the line. So would goal line technology help or would it just provide more high tech argument?

 

[tipsycanary]

Don't buy the argument that says football is too free flowing to have video technology. If something like a goal being awarded happens players complain for a minute or 2 anyway so plenty of time to review. In yesterdays game ITV has shown a reply of the 'goal' before they kicked off again due to complaints

 

[johnnywarksmoustache]

The only thing that is stopping the law makers from bringing in video technology is how do you restart the game? From the centre circle or from where the incident happened, what would happen if by the time the ref signalled for a video replay the other side whent up the other end and scored? It is not an easy thing to sort out

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

From this view it quite clearly hasn't gone anywhere near the line, let alone over it

You must log in or register to see images

So even with photo's we still have a difference of opinion as to whether the ball crossed the line. So would goal line technology help or would it just provide more high tech argument?

i really don't think they'd have had any problem calling that one dazz. it was clearly not a goal. world cup final 66 might be trickier. thats why i would propose that any video official is given say 60 or 90 seconds to view an incident and if still not clear then the original decision would stand.

 

[Walsh.i.am]

Dazz, Sky used to have a stat at the end of a match "ball in play". Frequently it was between 65 and 75 minutes. In the crowd, waiting for a wall to be assembled prior to a free kick, dragging said wall back to 10 yards etc etc. The ball is not actually 'in play' at those junctures.
And after the 'goal' had been awarded, the ref was surrounded by livid Spurs players for 3 or 4 minutes - ample time for the decision to be reviewed by a 4th official.
Plus events like these (thank the lord) only happen occasionally, not every match.
In the interests of fair play and the technology being much more reliable than the naked eye, I have to take issue with you.
This was a domestic cup semi-final, don't forget, not a kick around in the pub car park (although Spurs seemed to treat it like that for much of the time )

 

[Dazz19]

Dazz, Sky used to have a stat at the end of a match "ball in play". Frequently it was between 65 and 75 minutes. In the crowd, waiting for a wall to be assembled prior to a free kick, dragging said wall back to 10 yards etc etc. The ball is not actually 'in play' at those junctures.
And after the 'goal' had been awarded, the ref was surrounded by livid Spurs players for 3 or 4 minutes - ample time for the decision to be reviewed by a 4th official.
Plus events like these (thank the lord) only happen occasionally, not every match.
In the interests of fair play and the technology being much more reliable than the naked eye, I have to take issue with you.
This was a domestic cup semi-final, don't forget, not a kick around in the pub car park (although Spurs seemed to treat it like that for much of the time )

I actually agree with all that but you've glossed over one point I made, and that JWM made as well, how would you restart the game? Atkinson gives the goal, the game stops. The decision is reviewed and they decide its not a goal. Where do you go from there? If you start from a kick off who takes it? If its a drop ball is it contested or uncontested? Do Chelsea get an indirect free kick so they don't lose their attacking advantage? Do Spurs get a goal kick?

i really don't think they'd have had any problem calling that one dazz. it was clearly not a goal. world cup final 66 might be trickier. thats why i would propose that any video official is given say 60 or 90 seconds to view an incident and if still not clear then the original decision would stand.

The point I was trying to make was that Robbie's photo looked like the ball crossed the line, the one I posted quite clearly showed the ball hadn't. If you allowed it Redknapp would say 'but this angle shows it didn't' if you disallow it Di Matteo says 'but this angle shows it did' and you're back to square one with managers saying we need improved video technology because there's too much room for error with what we have.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

i think that photos, as i mention above, can be deceptive. the video footage was very clear that the ball wasn't over the line from every angle they produced. on a photo, perspective and angles can play tricks. also agree with cromer that it wouldn't slow the game down. it might speed it up when you get a controversial moment because there would be no need for all the arguing - just go to the video ref and you'll get a factual response, and if not, you go with the original decision - it must have been debatable if the video ref isn't sure.

 

[canary-dave]

All it would take is a camera on the goaline side of each goal post and a couple under side of the cross bar! At least one would have a clear view!

 

[robbieBB]

From this view it quite clearly hasn't gone anywhere near the line, let alone over it

You must log in or register to see images

So even with photo's we still have a difference of opinion as to whether the ball crossed the line. So would goal line technology help or would it just provide more high tech argument?

A photo captures the situation at an instant, a few milliseconds. It is clear from a comparison of the two photos that the one posted by Dazz was taken after the ball been kicked out by Assou-Akotou. Look at Assou's legs in the two photos, in particular his left leg. In Dazz's photo it is more or less straight; in the first photo it is bent. IMO the second photo tells us nothing about whether the ball had crossed the line or not. It was taken several seconds too late.

 

[ncfcwonky]

I think they should apply what they do in rugby into football where if a try is not 100% certain they should not award it. Take for example England's disallowed try in the 6 nations this year. The England player had gone to the ground but it was inconclusive on the TV replays as to whether it was a try and so a try wasn't awarded.

If something similar happens in football whether or not technology is introduced the ref shouldn't give the goal. Therefore as in the situation yesterday the ref shouldn't given it unless he is 100% certain.

 

[robbieBB]

....... If something similar happens in football whether or not technology is introduced the ref shouldn't give the goal. Therefore as in the situation yesterday the ref shouldn't give it unless he is 100% certain .......

And while we are at it, the same standard should apply to other possibly match changing situations, including penalty awards. Far too many penalties are awarded nowadays; given the prevalence of diving and other forms of cheating, IMO only the most blatant penalty box fouls should result in a penalty.

 

[robbieBB]

i think that photos, as i mention above, can be deceptive. the video footage was very clear that the ball wasn't over the line from every angle they produced. on a photo, perspective and angles can play tricks. also agree with cromer that it wouldn't slow the game down. it might speed it up when you get a controversial moment because there would be no need for all the arguing - just go to the video ref and you'll get a factual response, and if not, you go with the original decision - it must have been debatable if the video ref isn't sure.

Are you talking about the video footage shown on ITV Superman? I too saw that, and in my opinion it was far from conclusive. Your comparison of photos v video is IMO disingenuous. Exactly the same sort of distortions can occur with video.

 

[Phuketcanary]

From this view it quite clearly hasn't gone anywhere near the line, let alone over it

You must log in or register to see images

So even with photo's we still have a difference of opinion as to whether the ball crossed the line. So would goal line technology help or would it just provide more high tech argument?

The ball got closer than this photo shows though. Ekotto rocks back in goal before bringing his foot down to block the ball. At the point of contact the ball has very partially crossed the line. Nowhere near the full ball needed to be a goal mind.The angled shots show that the ball doesnt go under his foot but makes contact with it, so the deciding angle worth looking at is the linesmans, and this is as far as it gets.

You must log in or register to see images

for the doubters, try to find the frame of the ball even half over the line around the 50 second mark. His foots in shot, and so is the ball, so it didnt cross unseen. Hence! Never happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC1n7UCEleo

 

[1950canary]

John Terry who was struck by the ball and whose eyes were only 2 feet away says it never crossed the line - you can't get more conclusive than that. It never crossed the line, the ref was 15 yards away, his view was hindered, he took a guess and got it wrong. As far as I am aware Rugby only uses technology to decide whether a proper try has been scored after the ball has crossed the line. Whether it has or hasn't the ball is dead and there is a natural break so a short delay is possible. That does not always apply in football so the comparison is misleading. It is interesting to see that none of the pro-technology people have answered the question as to how you restart the game or, more importantly, how you write a rule to cover all situations. After all we are also looking at situations where, originally, the goal might not have been awarded and a goal might have been scored at the other end before the video ref has made his decision. Going back to yesterday - the goal is given and the decision is reversed. How do you restart the game? You can't give a corner or a goal kick because the ball has not crossed the line. You can't give free kick as no offence has been committed. You can't have a drop ball on the goal line as that would be ludicrous. You can't have a drop ball on the halfway line as that who be unfair to Chelsea as at the time of the refs error the ball was still in the Spurs penalty area and they were still attacking. When considering this case bear in mind that the wording of any rule has to cover all situations. We also have to bear in mind that there are only a few cases of this nature in a season unless of course you are suggesting wider powers for the video ref for such things as offsides and penalties. If you are then I cannot see how you can write a rule to cover all eventualities. Take a hypothetical example. Young dives, the ref gives a penalty, everybody stops, including Rooney who could put the ball in the net, and then the video ref says ' no penalty. If you say that Rooney should put the ball into the net then you are openly saying don't play to whistle and just keep playing on if the ref makes a decision in case he is overuled by the video ref. Who would have the final decision. As an example look at the Spurs goal. The ref gave the goal but in the same situation a couple of years ago another ref gave a penalty and a red card. What if the video ref thought that giving the penalty was the correct action. Could he have overuled the ref? If he could then who decides if it was a red card or not? Would we have the unseemly sight of the ref standing on the pitch arguing with the video ref? I am not against technology per se but think that you do have to seriously consider the implications and the rules that have to be written to cover all eventualities and also write those rules to be fair to both sides and the authority of the match officials. I personally think that technology could bring as many problems as it solves. The authorities messed about with the offside rule and now nobody understands it. The old interpretation might have been unfair in some situations but everybody understood it.