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!
Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I believe that the spray paint is designed to disappear after a short while.

So Rolf is ****ed <laugh>

As for GLT - given the contentious incidents that have happened over the years that have cost teams unfairly, I can see no justification whatsoever for not introducing it.

BTW - Did I really read those comments about LIDL supermarkets ? Petty doesn't even begin to describe it - let it go, for the sake of your own dignity <ok>
 
KingHotspur said:
<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.
Click to expand...

What's the betting that the first use goes against us?
 
PISKIE said:
Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I believe that the spray paint is designed to disappear after a short while.

So Rolf is ****ed <laugh>

As for GLT - given the contentious incidents that have happened over the years that have cost teams unfairly, I can see no justification whatsoever for not introducing it.

BTW - Did I really read those comments about LIDL supermarkets ? Petty doesn't even begin to describe it - let it go, for the sake of your own dignity <ok>
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there's nothing 'super' about LIDL.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
The technology in rugby and cricket works very well despite there still being a subjective element for the video ref/3rd umpire to resolve.
Click to expand...

That isn't the case in rugby, though - often they're watching the replays for contentious tries for several minutes, and there are times when legit tries haven't been given - although that's mainly because rugby has some remarkably archaic rules, such as a shoelace touching the byline meaning the ball is out of play.

Ensiluokkainen said:
What makes rugby possible is the 100% respect for the authority of the man with the whistle, and knowing what will happen if it be abused, add to that the fact that only the 2 captains are allowed to start a conversation with the referee and the game will become a far better spectacle.
Click to expand...

If anything, in recent years there's been more dissent towards the ref creeping into rugby - especially if you're Australia...
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
That isn't the case in rugby, though - often they're watching the replays for contentious tries for several minutes, and there are times when legit tries haven't been given - although that's mainly because rugby has some remarkably archaic rules, such as a shoelace touching the byline meaning the ball is out of play.

This is basically pedantic nonsense. First of all, you don't need a Pipe & Deerstalker to work out that, of course, evaluating whether a try has been scored, or not,in Rugby, is more complicated than just simple goal line technology for football.

Secondly, whilst standards of respect for referees may have dropped, from the way that I remember them, they are still far and away above the bullying histrionics that we see in football.#
I repeat what I said earlier; football could learn much from the standards of general self discipline, and respect for officials in rugby. They could also, IMO, do worse than adopt some of the harsher disciplinary regime of rugby
Click to expand...
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
This is basically pedantic nonsense. First of all, you don't need a Pipe & Deerstalker to work out that, of course, evaluating whether a try has been scored, or not,in Rugby, is more complicated than just simple goal line technology for football.
Click to expand...

Not when legitimate tries aren't given - as happened in the last Rugby World Cup Final, and happens at least a couple of times per Six Nations.
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
Not when legitimate tries aren't given - as happened in the last Rugby World Cup Final, and happens at least a couple of times per Six Nations.
Click to expand...

It does not happen with anything like that frequency. If the fourth official cannot confirm that the ball was legally grounded, for whatever reason, then a try should not be awarded. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen, and that it seems that the fourth official awards, or does not award, a try on, what appears to be, the balance of probability. That is poor officiating, and those people should be removed.
However, the technology works fine in 99% of cases.

In football, for obvious reasons, and with very few notable exceptions - such as England's third goal in the 1966 WC final, it should take no longer than seconds to evaluate whether the whole of the ball has crossed the whole of the line.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
It does not happen with anything like that frequency. If the fourth official cannot confirm that the ball was legally grounded, for whatever reason, then a try should not be awarded. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen, and that it seems that the fourth official awards, or does not award, a try on, what appears to be, the balance of probability. That is poor officiating, and those people should be removed.
However, the technology works fine in 99% of cases..
Click to expand...

By handing the responsibility to the fourth official, human error is still a big part of the decision.

Besides, as I said earlier, my concern is not to do with goals - it's penalties being given for diving/not given for legitimate fouls. If, as in rugby, the video ref can't determine if a try has been scored or not, then the liklihood is that teams won't be awarded penalties they should have been and, even worse, cheats can continue to rposper.
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
By handing the responsibility to the fourth official, human error is still a big part of the decision.

Besides, as I said earlier, my concern is not to do with goals - it's penalties being given for diving/not given for legitimate fouls. If, as in rugby, the video ref can't determine if a try has been scored or not, then the liklihood is that teams won't be awarded penalties they should have been and, even worse, cheats can continue to rposper.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. However, as far as I'm aware, there are no plans to extend the technology to those uses. It will, I think, and hope,be a simple "was that a goal, yes or No". That, as I have said, should be easy to clear up, one way or another, very quickly, and accurately, in 99.9% of cases.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
I see what you mean. However, as far as I'm aware, there are no plans to extend the technology to those uses. It will, I think, and hope,be a simple "was that a goal, yes or No". That, as I have said, should be easy to clear up, one way or another, very quickly, and accurately, in 99.9% of cases.
Click to expand...

This is how it fails, though, as more often than not - especially at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge, The Emirates and Anfield - the question is "Was it a penalty?", yet the technology won't be used for it at all.
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
This is how it fails, though, as more often than not - especially at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge, The Emirates and Anfield - the question is "Was it a penalty?", yet the technology won't be used for it at all.
Click to expand...

The problem with that train of thought is, where do you stop? O.k., so you extend the technology to Penalties, What's next? Free kicks, corners, throw ins, fouls??? If that happened the game would be stopped every couple of minutes whilst endless replays are looked at. A game of 90 mins would end up being like an American Football game - 3 hours plus. I, for one, don't want to see that happen.
 
We have the extend it argument every time.I think fifa would oppose any over use than to judge if the ball crossed the goal line or not
 
Ensiluokkainen said:
To be honest all I think that is necessary is "did the ball cross the line and as such is it a goal" - if they can also amend the rules to captains only to speak to the ref and 10 yd advancement of free kicks for back chat and/or infringement it would be good.
Click to expand...

I thought they brought in the rule that only captains can talk to the ref - yet never enforced it, so we get ****e like half a dozen MUPLC players stampeding towards the ref after Hernandez's dive against Blackburn, or the farce that saw our captain told to go away by Clattenberg, whilst Rio Ferdinand is allowed to bellow at him despite not being their captain after Nani's antics.

The FA's problem, which undermined the Respect campaign before an opponent was kicked, is they're nothing but a bunch of eunuchs in suits - which is why I'm half expecting John Terry or Rio Ferdinand to bellow at the ref, telling them the replay is wrong and getting their way sooner rather than later.
 
Actually the FIFA laws say

"The captain of a team has no special status or privileges under the Laws of the Game but he has a degree of responsibility for the behaviour of his team."

There's all sorts of stuff in them (and not in them) which commentators don't seem to know about.

My favourite is that the following words were removed in the 2008/09 laws "A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits ....the following ... offence: • tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball"

It now says "A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits .... the following ... offence in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:• tackles an opponent".

Which seems to me to say both that 'getting the ball first' isn't always a fair tackle, but also that 'getting the man first' is not always a foul!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back