The modern decade call for goal line technology and yet traditionalists such as myself will call for no such change. Why does the modern world have to call for perfection, that very system that will destroy the freedom of rights and wrongs within our game and in turn our discussions. The 'offside' has demonstrated an elated flaw in that modern progress. However, that will not stop the purists and dictators. As the decades move forward, cameras will appear in that call but then they will disappear again just as quickly, when robots replace human players where reality meets the virtual world and our race walk away from stadiums as human clones who with the insertion of electronic chips will all sit, stand, eat, drink, smile, grimace and cheer all at exactly the right time to ensure the fairness of balance and probabilities. We already do I hear you say? Ssh, the government are watching. That is the invasive progress of modern technology where you do not even notice the changes around you.
I agree with TheSecondStain over this. It is ironic that had we had goal-line technology a goal would have been awarded that shouldn't have been because of the off-side leading up to it. That is why 'GLT' is either not the answer or at least, not enough. In rugby, if there is any doubt the referee will ask another official who is watching a video whether or not a try can be awarded. Now in the case of off-side in football, the answer would come back in seconds. No delay and no argument. It is a question for debate exactly what decisions the video ref should be involved in. Maybe only the factual ones e.g. ball over the line, off-side, foul in or outside the box etc. However, if a referee misses something I certainly believe video evidence should be used retrospectively. For example, if a referee gives a foul but it turns out to be a dive when viewed on the video, then that player should be retrospectively booked or banned from the next match, or whatever it takes to end it.
brb - Have you ever read a trilogy by John Twelve Hawks? The Traveller, The Dark River and I forget (thats not the title, I just forgot!). Anyway, you just described it. 1984 for the technological age.
Once again, to be fair to Blatter [can't believe I'm doing this a second time], the decision to investigate into goal line systems began as a result of Lampard's disallowed goal at the 2010 World Cup. That's when he apologised to the English FA, and that's when he changed his stance from not-needed to needed. Since the Ukraine disallowed offside goal, Blatter has said implementing goal line technology has now become an absolute necessity. However, once goal line technology is implemented, it can only be a matter of time before a system comes in as a backup to overall refereeing, where the official signals for aid to clarify a key decision. After that, technology will slowly take over, as systems become more accurate and faster. And in all honesty, going by the importance of correct decisions and the potential money involved, the sooner the advanced systems evolve, the better. After all, we don't want Saints losing a Champions League Final to a Human Ref's relatively poor eyesight and bad day at the office, eh..?
Break out of common sense. Very good post, and no, not because Lff agreed with me, but for the explanation of a way technology could and does work.
Watched the 1966 World Cup Final last night, glad there was only a myopic Russian linesman in those days!
Several years back, when Hawkeye was first used in Tennis and Cricket, one of the TV companies made a programme proving that Geoff Hurst's debated 2nd goal was indeed a goal because of the flight of he ball and the spin imparted to it, after coming off the crossbar. The experiment to find the solution used the key elements to the original Hawkeye program, when it predicted flight of a ball [usually a cricket ball, in its professional life, back then]. The old debate of back spin being applied to the ball after hitting the crossbar smartly and heading downwards and behind the line, only to bounce out of the goal, is an old one and it's finished. Any footballer or thinking person can acknowledge spin on a football, and a ball CAN bounce behind the line and spin back out. Lampard's disallowed goal proved that to the very last doubters that this can happen. Of course, those of us old enough to have been watching that day [I was 7] could see it was a goal. After all, Roger Hunt ran away from the ball to celebrate when he could have simply nodded it in. I've never wondered what all the fuss was about. 4-2 it was and Geoff Hurst got a perfect hat-trick.
To be honest, I never thought that it was a goal. I don't know what nationality the referee was but I always had the impression that neither he or the linesman thought it was a goal but they somehow ended up awarding it because they couldn't understand each other's language and ended up agreeing the wrong thing. But who cares? Apart from the Germans of course!
It's now urgent for Blatter because the accursed England have had a bit of luck with the disallowed Ukraine 'goal'. It was just fine for him when England were not given a perfectly good goal two years ago. I've had enough of FIFA, to hell with them..........
Funnily enough I felt the same as Hunt ran back to the centre circle celebrating. As for the technology I agree that the technology should be brought into the game. However, as was shown here it has to be able to show more than the simple was it over the line question. Cricket, Rugby and Tennis all go back to show the complete move and it only takes seconds. Once confirming that the ball crossed the line a quick look to check for infringements would leave the correct decision 95% or more of the time.
