I'm not. The people calling for VT are. It's a simple game. And again I ask any proponent of VT, why stop at offsides or goal line calls? It's your precedent. It's about stopping injustice. If an obvious foul sets up a goal - and we all know this has happened - why can't that be appealed?
It's a simple matter? If a player gets a yellow card how can that not matter? If you're a tough-tackling defender who lives on the edge how does that not affect your game?
That [time out comment] was just in response to the appeal idea. The point about absolutes though - was the ball x inches over the line (the width of the line)? Yes or no? It is an absolute. This could be done by the ball breaking a magnetic field and Northy's flashing light goes off instantly (and party poppers start streaming out of the floodlights). The technology would have to improve significantly if it was to detect to 99.9% accuracy that only a non-scoring part of the body (arm) was in front of the line of play during the correct phase of play. Similarly with fouls, the question of how much contact and intent mean that there are grey areas. Currently the research is done into the goal line issue because that's absolute and technically easy. If that was to happen then the research would be directed to the other aspects of the game (and the speed of potential decisions made off the field of play would increase rapidly).
Because that can be dealt with by the referee....we arent looking to get rid of Refs all together....but a technology to aid them in deciding whether the ball has gone over the line or not is a simple remedy to a problem. Some people seem to be looking far to deeply into this.....its not about changing how are games are reffed; instead its about making sure crucial decisions are kept as accurate as possible. having an aid to a ref who cant see properly isnt that game changing and doesnt need to be any deeper. Allthough I take your viewpoint and what you are saying....I just dont think it needs to go that far.
It's only absolute in and of itself. It bears no relation to how the goal occurred in the first place - refer to my first post on this thread. Why introduce technology for one area of a game and not another? Who would decide on these grey areas leading up to goals? How do appeals work? Who would launch an appeal? How many appeals do a team get?
This is a good debate. I think the thing is.. EVERY decision affects a game. A ball in cricket is isolated . It's a one off. What happened before does not reflect on the right or wrongs of a one off. Football is different. One decision leads to another and another. Once you start where do you stop?
There isnt an appeal.....if the goal goes in and the technology says so then the ref gives the goal....niether team nor players can make a difference. If you start looking into looking at every aspect then the games will never play as it will constantly be stopped. But having the technology there will stop one aspect that is quite controversial. You can possibly look at similar technology for offisides that can give an instant decision and tells the ref straight away, so that goals dont even get to the point where goal line tech is needed.....but it would need to be instant...not VT and neither do I think VT will work for goals.
The analogy would be CCTV in town centres - supposedly there for everyone's protection but why not have them in the countryside too? Why stop at town centres? It's because it's practical to do so at this stage. It doesn't have to be all or nothing and should only start at the technology available, that doesn't ruin the game (by slowing it up too much). Phased in technology that results in correct decisions with out stopping the game unnecessarily or for excessive lengths of time (the goal line thing would be virtually instantaneous) can't be bad. I'm not saying do or don't use technology for other calls but I am saying that only use it if it can be integrated into the game fairly seamlessly (for example an offside call is corrected in the time it would otherwise take the goalie to jog out the area, dig his heel in the ground, pop the ball down, back up and then launch it down the pitch). Thoeretically, you could play the game and get 95% of the decisions right for the high profile matches but the delays would ruin the entertainment (I assume one of your biggest fears). I'm not an advocate of spoiling football or making it seem like a superbowl match.
I think you posted this at the same point I made my reply (although I think you said it better). I think we all fear for the game we love and all want correct decisions but this is probably more like a poll of how sceptical are you that it can be done effectively without delay.
Excatly....for me video technology is a bit of a dinosaur....its hardly technology and would require stopping games to get decisions With all the money in football, you could quite easily have sensors put around the pitch in the goal, in the ball and on each players boots that would be able to give real time decisions on offside and goals. Cards can be decided by Vt as the game has been stopped anyway to give the card in the first place.
Thats why I said I wasnt sure on appeals but every major decision should be checked. Ive already said a FK should have been awarded to England for offside in that case.
Theres no appeals and the refs decision is only changed if its proven wrong. They do the exact thing for ice hockey, check to see if it wasnt kicked it, wasnt deflected in with a high stick or glove. If theres any doubt, the refs decsion stands. It works in the NHL. Was there any doubt about the offside last night? He was a yard off.
No it wouldnt, if a given goal has to be checked then it will be sorted before the players get back into their own half. If a goal wasnt given, play carries on and its checked during play and the decision is given at the next break in play. The clock is reset to the goal time. Again, its exactly how it works in ice hockey.
Well. I 've read and thought about all the above. And my opinion is the same. As I suspect everyones is. So, as it's getting circular, I'll go away
A ball in cricket is far from isolated. Teams play to plans, batsmen changing ends, hiding a left hander from facing Swanny, use if nightwatchmen etc. Cricket does not look at every decision just the wicket game changers and then only the really bad ones. Otherwise they'd have cameras checking every delivery for no balls.
They do check wickets for no balls but its ridiculous to do it for everything which is why I said limit it to game changers, red cards, penalties and goals. Id also love for them to look at diving too but they wouldnt have to stop the game for that, just wait until the next break in play.
Maybe I didn't word it right. I know they check them on wickets but they don't check every ball. The point that I was responding to was that an individual ball can effect things and is not in isolation yet they do not check everything, just wicket decisions.
