That fat fool Sepp Blatter now says it is a necessity http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/footba...echnology-a-necessity-after-england-v-ukraine Can't see it being introduced in time for the start of the Prem though...
I love how when England wrongly had a goal not given, Blatter said there was no need for goal line technology. Now that another team has had a goal not give, against England, all of a sudden the fat bastard wants technology introduced.
The only issue is when would you stop the game to check. England went up the other end and quickly after and what if we had scored. Would that be one goal each? Thats the only problem I think.......
They have those for ice hockey. Even when they do have it, they will have it wrong by not showing everyone in the stadium like the do with cricket appeals.
Easy. When the ball fully crosses the goal line it explodes. Also we could wire John Terry for the same thing on his heroic last ditch clearances.
VT for these decisions is the thin end of the wedge. Once it comes in for goal-line decisions where does it end? Had Ukraine been awarded that goal last night on video evidence, gone on to win and knocked us out we'd all be sat here saying we need VT for offsides. After that? Why not go back to the last "suspect" challenge in the game leading to the whole situation in the first place and appeal that on the basis of VT? Once the precedent has been set to use VT in one situation there is no end to it and why should there be? There'll be ad breaks ad infinitum on "Super Sunday" while the evidence is weighed. Time out! This is a can of worms that needs closing.
Video evidence would not slow down the game, more time is spent arguing. In this case the play would go on and it would have been a FK to England for offside when the ball goes out of play. Its used in rugby but no one complains about the delay there, its used in ice hockey too, even cricket. It took 10 seconds to realise it had crossed the line (but somehow UEFA say it didnt) but it was offside.
I don't watch ice-hockey so I can't comment on that. It works in cricket because of the pace of the game. It works in rugby because it usually takes about 5 hours for a tangled mass of muddied, heaving brutes to disentangle themselves and get to their feet. I don't think it would suit football. Cricket teams have 2 appeals per innings. Is this how it would work in football?
Every goal, pk and red card would be reviewed automatically. You could allow 1 appeal per half but I wouldnt go with that. Just review important things. Ice hockey is much faster paced and the reviews are more exciting that most of the play. Same would go for football if it showed hawkeye on the big screens. Goals would be disallowed before the teams kicked off. It would also stop cheats like young.
You are dead right loneranger.............he is a fat bas***d. Sorry guys you will have to excuse lonerangers awful language.
I agree Young is a cheat, but surely heavy - really heavy - discretionary bans are the way forward with cheats? The sanctions are in place. Fines are a joke and irrelevant to multi-millionaires. Ban him for ten games. He'd never do it again. Appeal goals, pks, red cards? How far back in the whole process do you go? In that one instance last night you'd have Ukraine poring over a video and launching an appeal. That's successful, so England go to the VT and appeal. It's a bad idea. Why one as well? What if, after that incorrect offside decision in Ukraine's favour last night, there then occurred a second injustice? Why stop at one? There would be no logical or justifiable reason not to have multiple appeals on all points of controversy in a game, based on the precedence the authorities have they themselves set. Why not just appeal to slow the game down?
You only need VT for offsides and Goals.....the rest isnt so game changing. It would take an official 10 seconds to make a defined decision and give a goal or not.....even contemplating VT on fouls etc is not neccesary and just a waste of time. Other sports use it and it works well....its time football modernised itself and power was taken from the Referee's and officials who cant do their job properly. Had we been relegated in Boltons place this season, that WOULD have been down to Clint Hills dissallowed goal......and potentially cost us millions.
New Goal Line Technology Announced by FIFA: View attachment 15199 (click to enlarge) If the ball comes out again through the same hole then it is not a goal, it is just unlucky.
I think I agree with Wonko. It's the thin edge of the wedge, it really is. if that idiot official, who was being paid good money, had done his job, he'd have given the goal. End of. Or the linesman would have flagged off side. End of. I can never get over how poor so many officials are. If they did their job better, they wouldn't be perfect but utter farces like last night would be a real rarity. Instead they happen ALL the time.
But what if a tackle from the attacking team leading to the offside was a foul? Where does the retrospective VT evidence end? It will be goal-line technology to start. It will then spread to offside. It will then go to "suspect" tackles. Clint's "goal" v Bolton notwithstanding it's a bad idea. Can nobody see where this is leading? Here's a question. Us v Bolton, Spurs v Chelsea, England v Ukraine. Three goals that should have been given that weren't. Any others this season? I'd be curious to know just how many bad-line calls were given in the season against the total goals scored. My best guess about goal-line technology? please log in to view this image
Once the technology has been fully, and I do mean fully, why cant the system just give a noise like a whistle? It would also happen for shots that hit the back of the net so the game would have to stop anyway then there is not a problem of play continuing.
Best would be everytime a ball crosses the line and goes into a net anywhere, an electric impulse sticks a giant pin into Blatters fat a*se, and his piercing scream is communicated immediately by radio link to the relevant match officials.
