All Premier League clubs must have goal line technology ahead of next season

About time.

 

I really hope they use the chip technology, rather than Hawkeye.

As someone who was there for John Eustace's legendary own goal, I'm quite heavily in favour of technology, but once we start using cameras the game is up. If we stick to chips, we can still say a firm "no" to the use of cameras in other situations.

 

Most Premier games are covered from almost every angle already. I really don't think it would detract from a game if the 5th official did something useful and was able to quickly relay information to the ref.

Considering how much time is wasted by players getting in the ref's face, a few seconds pause and a passing of information to the ref would at least cut out a lot of the really bad decisions we all see week in week out, especially the ones the ref just can't possibly see.

 

I reckon everyone must know the low opinion I hold over these moves*, so all I'll add is the irony of it at a time when the RL fans a bemoning the video technology used in their game as, after the run it's had, they see it as detrimental. Cricket and tennis also have issues with the technology.


*For those that don't. It's no more accurate than the current system at determining if the ball crossed the line (it 'guesses' in reality) and can only have a 100% failure rate at determining if something happened on its way there (hand ball, off side etc) that makes it crossing the line irelevent. It simply doesn't happen often enough to matter, there are far, far more imprtant things to get right first.

 

Just like to correct you there its not cricket as a whole, every test nation bar India agrees with technology in cricket. India are the only one's holding it back currently. Even the umpires agree with it, and basically every pundit does. I agree with your views on technology in football, however it has worked very well in cricket and i don't see that changing.

 

The Indian BCCI objection to hawkeye and DRS is based on a view that it will never be 100% accurate, which is true, but what it does guarantee is that real shockers should be wiped out. Should this not be what we are focussing on with regards to this technology? Yes there still may be the odd occassion where a ball is a few millimeteres either side of the line and leads to complaints and contention, but the real howlers, like Lampard vs Germany, will be wiped out, as long as it's not costing teams ridiculous amounts of money (something I am unable to quantify) does this not make it a sound and sensible move?

 

They don't need special technology. If they let the 4th official see a tv screen with replays, then decisions such as goals should be easily sorted.

Let's be honest - if an official watching a replay can't see the pictures below, he shouldn't be an official.

Clint-Hill.jpg
roy.jpg
lampard2010.jpg
Eng-Hun-phantom1_510.jpg

 

No surprise at all and way over due. After that Reading goal @ Watford was the final straw for me nevermind the Lampard WC goal that wasnt. The PL should cover the cost of it all from the new tv cash on offer.

The only other i would use camaras for is offside. These are the 2 areas that modern day officials mess up and in many cases cost teams games and managers there jobs. Everything else should and must be left to human error as is.

 

There's plenty of individuals other than India that don't feel it's an improvement on the game. There's even umpires and pundits that don't agree with it and feel it doesn't work well and cricket is a far, far simpler place to use it AND they use other technology to check if other infringements have occured.

I can only repeat, it doesn't happen often enough and won't be better than what we already have and will in fact 100% miss the times when the ball shouldn't have got there in the first place, which happens far more often.

 

About time and hopefully it will stop any more appaling travesties happening, the list is endless (Roy Carrolls save, Lampards non-goal v Germany, on and on)

 

Agreed. More use of the 4th official should be made. Anyone can holdup a board ffs. Massive pressure needs to be put on Uefa as those hat stands (goal refs) dont do a thing. Just like Platini.

 

By the sounds of it it will just be a really quick process, the ref will just look at his watch or whatever and know whether its in or not, quicker than stopping the game while the fourth official watches it again to see if it's in or not, so therefore if the ball isn't in the game can go on because the referee hasn't been alerted. The process they are bringing in seems to be a lot easier than watching it again.

 

Those bastards are hilarious - the Celtic Juventus game was a prime example of their uselessness (If that's a word).

I don't think i've ever seen them make a decision in a game. Their introduction was just something that Platini wanted to put in place because a) it was cheaper than technology and b) it got the press and public off his back for a while so he could collect brown envelopes. Prat.

 

Could not agree more. Septic Bladder is useless but Platini is clueless. God help the game IF he gets the Fifa job.

As for those goal refs. The Celtic Juventus games proved once and for all that they dont have a place at all in the game. I wonder what the cost ratio to performance levels are ? Ruddy expensive me thinks. Lol.

 

A terrible decision. Football takes its final step to becoming just another branch of theatre.

I can't see myself still being a football fan in 5 years

 

That's a pretty good argument for goal-line technology Dutch.

That England-Ukraine one clearly isn't over the line in that picture. I don't know if it was in the goal half a second before, but is that picture really what all the fuss was about?! Considering it was already offside before that, I'm amazed we still talk about it as a contentious goal-line moment, even more so having seen that picture.

The Watford/Reading ghost goal wasn't even a contentious decision, it was just an absolutely stupid moment by the officials concerned, technology wouldn't stop that. It wasn't even close to the goal. Technology is there for the really fast ones like Lampard, Clint Hill, etc.

As for offsides, I'm very critical of officials at times but you won't see me criticsing offside decisions. They're the most difficult calls in football and the linesmen get them right 99% of the time.

Really don't understand that. All we need it to do is check if something has passed a line. Surely that technology exists all over the world outside of sport? Cricket involves projections of where the ball is going and loads of other complex stuff doesn't it?

 

That wasn't England vs Ukraine in 2012, it was England vs Hungary in 2010 - this one was awarded as a goal despite not going over, and it put Hungary 1-0 up. We won 2-1, just so you know.

The pic below is from England vs Ukraine:
Terry-save1-1024x597.jpg

 

It isn't one line in football, it's four, three of which can move and their could be people obstructing any of them, plus the ball is capable of miss-shaping. Part of the reason it's not come into football yet was the technology that struggles at crickt and tennis was not up to the greater complexities of football.

 

How's football more complex than cricket?

There's only one way to score a goal at football, but there's various different ways you can be given out at cricket.

Yes there are problems with accuracy with all this technology lark, but the similarities between different sports are daft.