But that's not an appeal. That's merely a decision about where it's been implemented and where not. Where it is in use, it is the final arbiter. And that is a much more complicated scenario than how it would be used in football. The companies that provide it claim in meets the FA's requirements - I fail to see the harm in putting that to a practical test and looking at how the technology could be implemented financially.
I don't understand your first comment. Tennis has electronic devices that can be questioned, they also have humans. The devices have been shown to be fallable in the simple task of checking a tennis line and it wasn't the final arbiter as TV coverage was used to show it had failed. Have a read above. It's far simpler in tennis. The manufacturers may claim it's accurate but other experts dispute it. What ever, it's a red herring as it doesn't happen often enough to matter. There are far more frequent errors that have bigger influences on games and are far more straight forward to resolve.
They have a simple system that beeps and a line judge, when those are question it's still a digital device that decides if the ball was in or not, it's not done by TV replay. Or have I got that completely wrong?
DMD, just out of interest, what other more pressing issues do you think should be resolved before goal line technology becomes a priority?
i dont think the tennis/football comparison is at all applicable. relatively speaking, goal line technology in football is much more important and has greater impact than hawkeye in tennis. there are what, maybe 200 to 250 points in a game of tennis? (using very basic assumptions) there might only be 2 or 3 goals in football and possibly only 1, if that decision is made incorrectly by human eye/judgement then it proves FAR more costly for the potential outcome than a single lost point in tennis. weight of importance should be a factor and lampards goal/no goal is a typical example of why in my opinion it has to be implemented. it's quick, its effective its accurate and it ensures fairness. the 'gives us something to talk about' argument is only made by people who arent on the receiving end. COYH
If people think the situation in tennis is more complicated than goal mouth technology, we're clearly talking about a different subject. I'm talking about the technology that is used to check if the ball was over the line, and also the one that is used when a player queries it. Both have been found wanting. There's an article on wiki that covers some of it. I also fail to see why it's seen as such an issue. It reall does play a very minor part in the outcome of competitions. There have only been a handful of times when they technology may have proved useful, and panel reviews showed that the refs were right most of those occasions, probably more accurate than Hawkeye. Combining the two, it would be bringing in technology to leave us no better off than we are now, but with the risk of it's short comings being an excuse for other interference with the game for the benefit of tv. As for what I would favour the resources being used on instead, I've already said it, a panel reviewing the game and heavily penalising simulation. My bet is it would take a matter of months, then this apparent spare resource can be used on other matters, such as standing or Policing. The odd doubtful goal decision is way, way down the list of priorities.
If the ground behind the goal line was at a slight angle, the ball would bounce into the net instead of back out. I imagine this would be easier.
I think many matches are spoiled and become far more defensive due to the ridiculous defensive bias that referees show. You will never ever see a penalty given for shirt-pulling at a corner, but if the ref can use the same offence as an excuse to stop goals happening and give a free kick the other way they will do. Now when I'm at the game in my blind rage I'm convinced that the refs just hate football and want 0-0 scorelines, but thinking about it rationally, it'll be down to them being under so much pressure. I don't think that the issue of diving is as urgent as the way football is being refereed at the moment. The referees have the skill and you can see this when they spot dives (which they are ****ing excellent at) but they are under so much pressure and have so much to do that they try too hard not to make mistakes, and would much prefer to disallow a legitimate goal than allow an illegitimate one. If anything can be done to take any pressure or responsibility away from referees then great. This is top priority to me. It's not just the goal line decisions, but also the other things that it would allow the referee to get right, and I'm not always talking major decisions which get scrutinised on MOTD, but the ones you see live at the match which aren't so significant but absolutely drive you mad. Before anyone says it, the talking points would still be there, but the flow of the game would be improved dramatically and it'd be a step towards making the game more entertaining like it used to be.
I totally agree that refs are under pressure, they are trying to apply rules of a game to people who specialise in bending or breaking the rules and deceiving referees. A simple post match video review with heavy punishment would go a long way to resolve it. It could even be used to punish players that could have informed a ref a ball was over the line from their perspective, but tried to claim otherwise.
It could, but on the odd occasion it's been doubtful, there's been possibly more times when the ball didn't hit the floor but hit the post or a player. It's one of the things Hawkeye's weak at along with a ball hitting the line and bouncing up. Tennis only needs to know the balls position relative to a mark on the floor. Football also need to know about before and after that, including divots etc. Technology's not there yet.
I'm with you there, retrospective punishments for breaking the rules would benefit the game far more than goal line technology, though I'd still like both.
Fascinated by the thread and the debate, good stuff, IMHO there we should go further than GLT, (which is coming and we cannot stop it) and have a 4th official advising the ref of the stuff that we all have a chance of seeing. It takes seconds to check a replay and stops the ref looking a bigger mug than he often appears because he has missed something. Still up to the ref to take action. And anyway even if GLT is not 100% it's better than we have now. One goal makes a massive difference to most games, surely it's only fair that the the decision is correct when so much hangs on it.
List the games last season where goal line technology could have been needed and include if the official got it right or not. I'm guessing we're looking at perhaps two goals. Now do the same where free kicks were given or not given, off sides were significant or simulation. Players can be made to provide far better, honest feed back then any dubious technology.
Actually I am not saying GLT is the most pressing problem. It is all the things you list that wind us up constantly and send us home fuming. We sense injustice because decisions are unjust too many times. Clearing up a host of those would be good thing and a 4th official can do that. The hacks who sit at the top of the west stand see the replays in seconds are are writing their copy about the officials letting us all down another 10 seconds later. The ref has no such opportunity; he has it all to do, give him a chance!! An instant replay and a whisper in the refs ear is not dubious technology. It's common sense and although the lack of it has never really spoilt football for me I contend that it will make the game fairer and in some cases prevent crowd trouble and the sense of unfairness.
No, I wouldn't want that in the game either. Pundits scour different camera angles and still can't decide what's right. It also leaves a massive problem on when to stop and how to restart a game from a 4th officials review. It'd be far too hit and miss. I'd be intrigued to hear an argument against a panel reviewing incidents after the game and players getting hammered for unsporting behaviour, which would include not fully assisting the ref by being honest about any incident. "Yes ref, it touched me last" "No ref, I could see it was over the line". 22 extra officials and fine role models to boot, for minimal cost or disruption and in minimal time.
When you see how easy it to put cameras everywhere these days I would say yes, I was sick to the back teeth when we turned a corner at the world Cup only for the ref to not give Lampards goal, no need for it.
Thing is DMD if you look into it you'll see that referees are brilliant at stopping dives and linesman are ****ing great with offsides, they rarely get these wrong. The thing they struggle with is the goal line decisions (as well as the minor fouls that I've mentioned above) but changing the system for offsides or dives is not necessary because they are already good at it.
I HAVE looked at it and totally disagree with you. The occasions that there's doubt if the ball crossed the line are a handful per season throughout all four divisions. Of those occasions, the officials have been right more than they were wrong,at possibly a more accurate rate than the technology. There's liable to be more wrong decisions for off side or simulation etc in any single 90 minute game than there are times that goal line technology would be used in all four Divisions throughout the whole season. Add in the real possibility it'll lead to more technology to cover the limitations of this technology it really is a massive retrograde step.
1,000,000 cameras would have resolved nothing in that situation. Encourage the players to be honest is far quicker, simpler and effective.
