Goal Line Technology To Be Reviewed

  • 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!
No Kane No Gain

No Kane No Gain

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2011
20,642
3,503
113
Goal-line technology could be used in the Premier League as early as the start of the 2012-13 season.

The law-making International Football Association Board will rule in March 2012 on whether to approve the system.

If it gets the green light then Fifa boss Sepp Blatter says leagues can use it from the start of the 2012-13 season, if "accurate and affordable".

Premier League boss Richard Scudamore has said England's top flight will use it as soon as it is allowed.

Blatter added that goal-line technology could also be used at the 2014 World Cup.

The Fifa chief opposed goal-line technology for years and appeared to have ended the debate on its future in March 2010.

However, the Swiss re-opened it after Frank Lampard had a legitimate goal ruled out in England's 4-1 World Cup defeat by Germany later that year.

Blatter later apologised for the officials' error, saying it was unforgivable and that it had changed his mind on the matter.

Private trials of different systems of goal-line technology are taking place this year, with the international board to make its decision in March 2012.
If the body approves a system, it will then be brought into law on 1 July 2012.

Blatter was speaking at a news conference in Brazil ahead of Saturday's qualifying draw for the 2014 World Cup, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro.

He also said that it was yet to be decided whether the recent experiment of using two additional referees behind the goal-line, which has been trialled in Europa League games, would be "installed as a general rule".

The experiment will be reviewed further in July 2010 after the European Championships in Poland and Ukraine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14322449.stm
-------------------

So where do my fellow Spurs fans stand on this? Obviously we've been stung by poor decisions in the past.

I know FIFA toyed with the idea of having a chip in the ball and sensors on the goalposts before but that was always flawed. I think the only way to do it is to keep it simple and use TV replays for the referee to review. Football is a high paced game, particularly in the PL, and I wouldn't be in favour of too many decisions being able to be reviewed but whether the ball has crossed the line or not is crucial and with players surrounding the ref to appeal at every opportunity the game is slowed down after contraversial decisions anyway.
 
It works in Rugby - has done for years. Seems to work in Cricket, too. It's introduction to professional football is long overdue, IMO. So long as the review technology is kept to a simple "Was that a Goal? Yes, or No?" then I can't see how anybody can reasonably object. There's too much at stake in modern football to allow some of the blatantly incorrect decisions that we've seen recently.
In Cricket, a certain number or reviews is given to each team - I think it's three, although I stand to be corrected. Maybe something along those lines would work in football to prevent pointless, time wasting reviews.
 
The Mendes - Carroll incident should've been incentive enough when you look at what is at stake...you can then take Blatters admission about Lampards goal in the WC against Ze Germans as well...
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
It works in Rugby - has done for years. Seems to work in Cricket, too. It's introduction to professional football is long overdue, IMO. So long as the review technology is kept to a simple "Was that a Goal? Yes, or No?" then I can't see how anybody can reasonably object. There's too much at stake in modern football to allow some of the blatantly incorrect decisions that we've seen recently.
In Cricket, a certain number or reviews is given to each team - I think it's three, although I stand to be corrected. Maybe something along those lines would work in football to prevent pointless, time wasting reviews.
Click to expand...

It's definitely got to be kept to yes/no reviews, nothing subjective like dangerous tackles, although the FA really need to improve the way they hand out retrospective suspensions. I wouldn't like to see it down to the manager/captain to demand a review and give them a finite amount of them. I think it should be a case of the referee and linesmen being able to use the replays ina case where they're not sure, to aid their decision.
 
Schteffen Freund's Top 10 Greatest Goals said:
It's definitely got to be kept to yes/no reviews, nothing subjective like dangerous tackles, although the FA really need to improve the way they hand out retrospective suspensions. I wouldn't like to see it down to the manager/captain to demand a review and give them a finite amount of them. I think it should be a case of the referee and linesmen being able to use the replays ina case where they're not sure, to aid their decision.
Click to expand...

Whatever works, as somebody said. I just thought that maybe a finite number of reviews in a game may deter the John Terrys of the world from trying to bully refs into making time wasting reviews.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
It works in Rugby - has done for years. Seems to work in Cricket, too. It's introduction to professional football is long overdue, IMO. So long as the review technology is kept to a simple "Was that a Goal? Yes, or No?" then I can't see how anybody can reasonably object. There's too much at stake in modern football to allow some of the blatantly incorrect decisions that we've seen recently.
In Cricket, a certain number or reviews is given to each team - I think it's three, although I stand to be corrected. Maybe something along those lines would work in football to prevent pointless, time wasting reviews.
Click to expand...

No need to waste any time surely: if the ref gives a goal then there's plenty of time for review during the ensuing celebrations, if he doesn't the play can continue while the review happens - just carry on if the ref is proved right and stop and award the goal if he is wrong. If another goal was scored while the review was happening it would have to be ruled off if the earlier one was awarded but that would just add to the fun......
 
PowerSpurs said:
No need to waste any time surely: if the ref gives a goal then there's plenty of time for review during the ensuing celebrations, if he doesn't the play can continue while the review happens - just carry on if the ref is proved right and stop and award the goal if he is wrong. If another goal was scored while the review was happening it would have to be ruled off if the earlier one was awarded but that would just add to the fun......
Click to expand...

There is one worst-case scenario when it comes to stopping play in order to review a decision: If a player is fouled in the opposing penalty area but the foul is missed or appeals waved away, and the other team goes down the other end and scores, what does the ref do?

The obvious course of action is to chalk off the goal and award the penalty - but the odds are the likes of John Terry and Rio Ferdinand would incite a minor-scale riot for having a goal chalked off, so does the ref book or send them off, at which point their clubs appeal that the clock was stopped so why are they being punished?
 
I can see no disadvantage to goal line technology.

Shouldn't take anymore than 30 secs and let's be honest, how many times during a season will it really be needed?

Penalty decisions, free kicks, throw in's etc need to stay as they are otherwise it would ruin the game.
 
Ensiluokkainen said:
Hawkeye calculates a ball's position within milliseconds - so fast that it's almost instant.
Click to expand...

<ok> An official sees the replay and hawkeye determines if it crosses the line, he speaks to the ref through ear piece and says if it's a goal or not, all done nice and quick.

ManUsa stop getting all the lucky decisions and Spurs don't get screwed.
 
We probably need to wait for Blatter to disappear (which is long overdue) before it is brought in, surely this dinosaurs time is coming to an end soon.
 
It should speed the game up. These decisions delay restarts by a number of minutes with the relentless protesting, sat at home we see it in under 30 secs.

Football, the last major sport to have it, proving the game is run by clueless old tossers at every level.

You just can't have an official saying "in my opinion it was goal" anymore, it either is, or it isn't.
 
Yes, it's hard to accept that, although Rugby is STILL run mostly by a bunch of self-serving old farts, it has been using this technology for years. It Doesn't speak well of those in charge of Football.
 
Ensiluokkainen said:
Touch line technology had to be introduced when it became available because in so many cases the ref or linesmen really couldn't see if the ball was grounded or who by - at junior level rugby, which I coached, managed and refereed until a few years ago I was always getting stick for not giving a try - at the level though it was accepted and understood that sometimes it really was impossible to see everything. The great thing was that players always respected the referee - especially the unpaid ones.

Is "those in charge of football" a misnomer? ;-)
Click to expand...

Respect for Referees was something that was drummed into any Rugby player from a young age. In the days I played, the referee was always addressed as "Sir". Generally, the team Captain was the only one supposed to even speak directly to the referee.

I can see your point about the difficulty of being sure the ball has been grounded. And, of course, in those days line judges were only allowed to indicate where the ball had gone into touch, and to alert the referee to foul play. So they couldn't help much.

This is fairly simple technology we're talking about, here. With so much potentially at stake, it should have been introduced long ago.

In some ways, I suppose it's indicative of just how much sway one person - Blatter, has had over the game. It would seem that the main reason it has not been introduced before now, is that he has always been against it.

I see what you mean by the misnomer tag. However, unfortunately, it's all true. The Blatters of the world ARE in charge of the game, God help it!
 
Football referees don't have all the tools that RU and RL ones have to stamp down on dissent etc and don't use all the ones they have.

The most ludicrous example is getting back 10 yards at free kicks. Why should it be so easy for defending sides to delay the kick being taken until they are ready, they are the offenders after all. If referees cautioned any player they walked past while pacing out ten yards then everyone would have to get ten yards back straight away. Why the football authorities let the current situation continue is a mystery to me. Watching Arsenal complain about that indirect free kick in the CL that was 'taken too quickly' was highly amusing.
 
Why do you even need referrals? Just keep it simple like in Ice Hockey. The official (wired up to the ref) can tell him whether it's in or not quick as a flash. Blatters argument for keeping football the same at all levels is bollocks. You're lucky to get 3 officials for a park game sometimes, don't get that at professional level. Hell, even I had to run the line once against my team (swapped at half-time to come on and play!). Got tons of abuse from my own side as I kept giving them off-side. Not my fault they were crap!

Football needs to follow Rugby's example. That great, big French player, Chabal, criticised referees in France and got suspended for 30-days. He was made to undergo training as a referee and ref three youth games. Can't see John Terry being made to do that.
 
Can anyone see a downside to a more disciplined approach to refereeing, either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back