Goal Line Technology Vote

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
TheSecondStain

TheSecondStain

Needs an early night
Jul 23, 2011
39,383
8,820
113
Sports Centre, Southampton
A few possible scenarios today, as the authorities get down to deciding which is going to be adopted. Apart from the option that Michel Platini [and our Fran] wants, which is let's put it off for another time or not have it at all, it appears that the option to emerge as favourite is to have both systems..! Here's the reasoning.

Hawk-Eye: Not only tested for football, but tested in other sports combat too. Proven system. Expensive to install, but once in, totally reliable, Requires a sight of 25% of the ball for a 100% lock on its position. Signals the ref.

GoalRef: Tested for football, now good enough apparently. Less expensive to install. Possible problems with reliability, which would presumably be ironed out eventually. Merely requires a magnetic field between the posts. Signals the ref.

The thing is, Hawk-Eye provides dramatic confirmation evidence simply because it has cameras. GoalRef just provides the signal, and it appears that the Premier League, and other top leagues, find the dramatic evidence of Hawk-Eye to be very tempting indeed. So, at the moment, it looks like both systems will be adopted. For the top leagues in every country which wishes to adopt it, Hawk-Eye will probably be the system. For leagues that can't afford Hawk-Eye, GoalRef will be used. The minefield may have been walked through quite successfully.
 
Hi TSS. GoalRef I'm fairly sure will get in, Hawk-Eye is about 50-50 if you ask me. I think the tennis-style replay on the big screens might be a fantasy though because FIFA criteria says the signal has to be given to the referee only, in less than one second. Let's see.
 
So why can't they have the ice hockey style light to tell you if it is a goal or not? Why is it just the ref that needs to know. If it is going to be conveyed to him with Sound, is he going to hear it with a 60000 crowd baying it was a goal?
 
Will be used at Club World Cup first, then the Conferdations Cup and also all World Cup's starting with the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

Up to competition bosses to decide which method they wish to use in their own competition.
 
Contrary to what TSS says, I've always said that goal line technology is the only one I'll accept as it is a matter of yes/no and, if almost instantaneous, doesn't affect the game. However, I give it less than a year before someone questions a decision by Hawkeye or whatever.
 
It could be implemented midway through the Premier League season. The cost is £150k-£250k (or dollars, euros, whatever). And Jerome Valcke is really struggling to pronounce "Awk-Eye".
 
SFC4BAG said:
I can't agree there as under those stipulations the goal Ukraine scored would have been allowed.

I think that like in cricket and rugby the whole move should be seen to decide the truth.
Click to expand...

I can add that Ukranian 'goal' (which, as you imply, should have originally been given offside) to the QPR-Bolton game last season (which helps form a large part of my view on goal-line technology). Yes goal-line technology would have helped QPR, as it would have awarded Clint Hill's goal, but it wouldn't have helped Bolton when QPR were later incorrectly awarded a goal when Cisse wasn't given offside.

Without a doubt, goal-line technology would clear up some decisions. But many decisions will continue to be wrong, and so before long technology will have to come in to deal with them as well - if, if you open Pandora's box now and introduce goal-line technology.
 
Apart from GLT, the game would be ruined by any technology available at the present which involves referrals. However, there may come a time when the game is almost totally controlled by technology with players wearing sensor all-in-ones for judgement of off-sides, penalties, throw-ins and corners. Imagine the outcry that the computer always favours the big clubs;)
 
st_brendy said:
I can add that Ukranian 'goal' (which, as you imply, should have originally been given offside) to the QPR-Bolton game last season (which helps form a large part of my view on goal-line technology). Yes goal-line technology would have helped QPR, as it would have awarded Clint Hill's goal, but it wouldn't have helped Bolton when QPR were later incorrectly awarded a goal when Cisse wasn't given offside.

Without a doubt, goal-line technology would clear up some decisions. But many decisions will continue to be wrong, and so before long technology will have to come in to deal with them as well - if, if you open Pandora's box now and introduce goal-line technology.
Click to expand...

Well it's an undeniable fact that this technology will be rarely used. Last season there were two incorrect goal line decisions in the Premier League season - Bolton v QPR and Chelsea v Tottenham (and that was FA Cup so I am using a bit of latitude). And I can't think of one at St Mary's in the last few seasons. But we're getting into well rehearsed debates now, I'm happy to see it in, but don't expect it to make much difference.
 
I don't see why technology shouldn't be used for more. Offsides are easy because that is another black and white decision, and referee's should be able to refer penalty decisions to a TV match official (e.g. is there any reason why I cannot award a penalty) if they are unsure. It works in rugby, tennis and cricket (not to mention a multitude of other sports), so why not use it in football?
 
Luckily introduction of referrals would only last one season before everyone realised how it ruined and slowed up the game. Where would the excitement be if everyone had to sit down and wait for a decision...do you all jump up again or has the moment gone. Alright in cricket because its a slower game and the batsman has a long walk off. Have you ever watched a studio discussion of a penalty...not always that clear cut. In cricket again, sometimes a decision takes minutes which suggests that some are 50:50 decisions.
 
everyone realised how it ruined and slowed up the game. Where would the excitement be if everyone had to sit down and wait for a decision...do you all jump up again or has the moment gone.
Click to expand...

There would still be the excitement in anticipating what the decision is just as there is with cricket and the spinning bat or whatever they use, and if people jump up again in cricket after a decision's been referred, I see no reason why they wouldn't in football. Plus, it wouldn't happen very often anyway.

Have you ever watched a studio discussion of a penalty...not always that clear cut. In cricket again, sometimes a decision takes minutes which suggests that some are 50:50 decisions.
Click to expand...

Well you're right that they're not always clear cut, but it would certainly get rid of the decisions which are clearly the wrong ones with regards to penalties being given or not given.
 
I wouldn't envisage a penalty referral being an opportunity for debate, more just the ref asking a question of fact, i.e. is there any reason why I cannot award a penalty would be answered by something like 'no, because there was no contact', it wouldn't be an opportunity for the ref to abdicate the decision making process. I would also not allow any sort of 'challenge' from the managers, because it would be misused. I believe football should follow the use of technology in rugby. I defy anybody to say that technology makes rugby less exciting, did you see the Wales-England game at Twickers this year? Plus, didn't we all have to sit down and wait for a decision when Billy Sharp scored his second against Pompey this year?
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
Luckily introduction of referrals would only last one season before everyone realised how it ruined and slowed up the game. Where would the excitement be if everyone had to sit down and wait for a decision...do you all jump up again or has the moment gone. Alright in cricket because its a slower game and the batsman has a long walk off. Have you ever watched a studio discussion of a penalty...not always that clear cut. In cricket again, sometimes a decision takes minutes which suggests that some are 50:50 decisions.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember a certain game last season, involving our neighbours down the road. Billy Sharp's offside goal went to a referral amongst the officials. That was tension..! ;)
 
st_brendy said:
I can add that Ukranian 'goal' (which, as you imply, should have originally been given offside) to the QPR-Bolton game last season (which helps form a large part of my view on goal-line technology). Yes goal-line technology would have helped QPR, as it would have awarded Clint Hill's goal, but it wouldn't have helped Bolton when QPR were later incorrectly awarded a goal when Cisse wasn't given offside.

Without a doubt, goal-line technology would clear up some decisions. But many decisions will continue to be wrong, and so before long technology will have to come in to deal with them as well - if, if you open Pandora's box now and introduce goal-line technology.
Click to expand...

Well they have opened Pandora's Box, and I for one cannot wait until all decisions are backed up by an unerring electronic eye. Both systems have been given the go ahead, by the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18719396
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back