So, Blatter says goal line technology must come in after the Ukraine got robbed of a blatant goal. They were unlucky as everyone could see from the replay that it did cross and the comparisons to frank lampard in 2010 are bound to happen. Now there is one major difference! In the build up to the goal the Ukraine player should have been flagged offside. Now that didn't happen so maybe it was fair then that they didn't get the decision that the shot seconds later was supposed to be a goal. Now this is where goal line technology could fall down as when watching the replay, England are going to argue that the guy was off side in the first place and then be really pissed off when the ref rules it's a goal. The only way I can see technology working in football is if they have a video referee. Each team are allowed 3 challenges during the course of a half or the game. During the game if a player feels the ref gets a decision wrong, he can ask his captain to challenge the decision. So if Ukraine score (but its not given like last night) and then challenge, England can also challenge the original decision of the player was offside. Both teams can clearly see that the right decision has been made. The other thing this challenge system will discourage is diving. If a player goes down easily with a view to getting a free kick, penalty or possibly a man sent off and doesn't get the decision, his captain will say did he touch you? If the player knows he was touched he will say yes and the decision will be seen on tv replays. I don't know many people who if they've taken a dive would want everyone watching on tv as they look like a tit for diving and then lying to his captain who just wasted a challenge. Anyway I don't know what anyone else thinks but I think goal line technology in its self may not be the answer.
Look if a bloke standing on the line cannot tell when a ball is over it then why bother ? UEFA stupidity strikes again. What do the goal refs actually do except stand and posture themselves ? Payback for the Lampard goal 2 years ago but 2 wrongs dont make a right. FIFA and UEFA have got to get the tried and tested hawk-eye system approved in there July meeting. The PL are ready to go with it next season. England got lucky last night for a change. Thankfully 1-0 or 1-1 made no difference in the end as the Frogs lost. haha As for Septic Bladders stupid comments, LAMPARDS GOAL was a much easier decision to make Yet the linesman still got it wrong. Hence why Uefa use goal refs. Still they screw up and Bladder comes out with more rubbish. Get hawkeye in now, ffs.
It's been my argument all along that many goals are dubious for reasons that goal line technology would provide no help at all. It's a massive red herring taht shouldn't even get discussed.
I think hawk eye would be great just like in tennis. Hawk eye would have seen it crossed the line unlike the **** refs and assistants. my point is is that the decision leading up to the incident was also wrong so even if we introduce goal line technology or hawk eye there is still going to be other possible problems
Except hawkeye doen't work in tennis or cricket (according to the top players) and tests show it's even less use for football. In fact, tests seem to indicate that it's not as effective as the current human system in any of the sports. But yes, there are plenty of issues that occur far more often than the occasional dubious goal line decision.
All last night did for me was prove that bringing goal line technology in would be completely pointless unless they go the whole hog and use a video referee. All or nothing for me and I vote nothing!
As you have pointed out, goal line technology alone would have awarded the goal which would be the wrong decision. It's not needed, these incidents are few and far between and discussing them afterwards is part of sport. They should focus on consistent, fair referees instead, that's more of a priority.
I thought at the time it has crossed the line and the replay proved the point. Why O why the goal line ref. did not see that is beyond me. Whatever other issues there were leading up to that point is irelavant, part of the game as some say, imo. The chap who was stood on our line should be sent home via spec savers,, imo. Hawkeye does work for the goal line, which is what its been tested to do. One of todays morning papers has a freeze frame showing daylight sorry green between the ball and line.
Would these test be a contradiction to the report which stated on field umpires have a 95% correct call rate compared to the 99% correct call rate with the assistance of hawk eye? Only batsmen (and backwards cricket boards) argue it doesn't work because umpires are more inclined to give a decision knowing it can be reviewed and overturned if they are wrong. Batsmen dislike this for obvious reasons and the cricket boards that disagree are usually those from the sub-continent, about to tour in the U.K, where the conditions don't suit their batsmen and thus any leniency from the umpire would be helpful.
Why is it irrelevant? The whole point of this is we are trying to get the right decisions made in football. So to give the goal knowing that a player was offside in the build up would be incorrect. Lino missed the offside, the unnecessary ref behind the goal missed the ball crossing. Justice was done.
So far, tests have shown that it doesn't work to a suitable standard for goal line technology. Just to save replying to other points, Hawkeye doesn't prove where the ball was, all it it does is calculate where it expects the ball to go. It's recognised that these are not the same thing and needs to be taken into account when comparing human or video evidence in comaprison to hawkeyes findings.
I agree with this last line. The goal line decisions are only close because the attacker didn't do enough to force the ball into the goal properly, it's their own fault in a way. It should be more of a priority to give refs strict instructions to clamp down on blatant cheating which we just idly allow in the game. For example the bloke that got booked for taking out Gerrard on a counter last night, that kind of challenge is generally accepted to be a booking but if it becamse a red card offence it'd soon stop and we'd see less tactical, professional fouling and more action and goals. That's just one example of many types of obvious cheating which goes on but the ref can do nothing about because the current protocol is to allow it to carry on. Penalties for wrestling at corners is another one, that'd soon stop it. I don't see why so many committed and fair, if clumsy, challenges warrant red cards but completely intentional attempts to bend the rules and cheat are ignored.
As for those blokes behind the goal, they're a ridiculous idea. They do nothing at all, it must bean incredibly boring job standing doing nothing for 90 minutes and did I mention they do **** all? Did Blatter really say thart goal-line tech has to come in now because England didn't get cheated out of another game? If true the guy is an absolute ****ing loon and his bias really should see him out of the job. EDIT: Just read his comments. How is this guy still in such a powerful position when his agenda is so ****ing obvious? GLT was demanded after England's goal at WC 2010, which was a good yard over the line and was a completely fair goal but he insisted it didn't matter. Now he's saying because England survived a missed offside call through a goal which was about an inch over the line not being awarded, GLT is a necessity? How can he possible justify such a massive turnaround in his comments? Is there any possible way people won't see after this that he has such a massive anti-England agenda? He's a complete joke and should probably die.
With regard to the Lampard goal the linesman when interviewed later said the ball was travelling so fast that he did not see it cross the line. In Australia we have just introduced video technology into Australian Rules Football to assist with decisions. The other major TV covered sports in Australia Rugby and Rugby League have used the technology for years. Football is a minor sport as far as TV watching is concerned but almost all our pundits want video technology introduced. It's introduction is inevitable and the case against is best described as a floccinaucinihilipilification! Always wanted to use that word.(longest in the dictionary)
Look, IF football had a video ref like they do in egg chasing the video ref. could have told the match ref that the Ukraine player was offside long before the ball crossed the line. No need to stop play Just have the video ref wired to the match ref. ONLY. It takes seconds in reality. The new hawkeye system has cameras fitted into the bar and posts leaving no doubts about it crossing the line. Its been tested and it works. Fifa are having a meeting in early July to discuss its intrroduction. The PL are ready to roll with it next season if Fifa allows it. What better stage than the PL then to put it into use ?
You lot just can't see the logical and common sense approach to this can you? Robot refs with a hawk eyes for eyes that can run as fast as a leopard or even a cheetah would sort this out. It would also cut out any language barrier as they could be programmed to speak loads of different languages . They might sound like Stephen Hawking but the players would get used to it eventually. They should really be hover robots so as not to damage the grass but that's a minor detail that can be sorted at a later date. Upstairs for thinking and all that. Time for my first Stella of the day me thinks.
