Once again, the introduction of goal line technology is to be put back: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15183267.stm It begs the single question.. why..? Ok, let's have the reasons. 1] It may be fallible 2] It may not that accurate 3] It potentially stops games over contentious issues 4] It undermines the referee and the officials' authority 5] It's expensive to implement Off the top of my head, I can't think of anymore. Add to those if you wish. But we can deal with the first 4 of them with the answer that it is all ifs, buts and maybes. The last one, it's expensive to implement. Is it..? Perhaps it's the cost of one player..? I honestly don't know. So let's go back to the first point. It's fallible. This is Hawk-Eye we're talking about. Further testing should sort that out, and besides, if it is backed up by everyday retrospective on-the-spot video technology, then the fallibilities will be minimised. Besides, when did a referee have a perfect game..? It may not be that accurate. Believe me, it's accurate. Just watch it in action during tennis matches. Even in predictive mode [not something football will be needing], it can measure the percentage of a tennis ball that is over a line. Not just whether the ball is there at all or not. It potentially stops games: Years ago, when Leeds Utd first crowded the referee over contentious decisions, and nowadays, when ManU or Arsenal players do the same, is that not stopping the game from being played..? They tend to argue for longer than the 5-10 seconds that it'll take to work out whether a goal has been scored or not. Ref's authority undermined..? Does it undermine an umpire's authority in Cricket [just heard, RIP Graham Dilley] or undermine a Rugby referee. No, it stops argument, and actually enhances a ref's authority, because it works as part of his ability to referee, not to work against him and his officials. When he's unsighted, he'll consult hawk-Eye. What could be simpler..? I often find the FA and Premiership officials' decisions bewildering. This is just one of them. They want to shorten or lengthen a season. They want international breaks, they want winter breaks. But they don't want the rules of the game properly administered on the pitch, for the good and fairness of all. No, while we can have a country like France unfairly going to a World Cup Finals, over a less glamorous country, we'll never get the rules properly sorted.
Good article. They will probably just keep putting it back further and further. I really can't see any issues with it, as long as it's just goal line technology and not for offsides etc. As you say, it will be quicker than players crowding around the ref.
Basically, the issue is that people with power like retaining that power. They do everything they can to retain it even if it goes against popular belief, logic, or sensibilities. In this case, the FA is sticking with the ******ed "this is the way it's always been" defense and refuse to accept and adapt to change. If one key league - the Premiership, perhaps - were to just implement it there would be a trickle-down effect and everyone else would follow suit. It doesn't need further testing. It works. It doesn't slow down games. It gets the call RIGHT, which is the important thing.
Trouble is where do you stop with this technology......goal line incidents maybe.....fouls, hand balls, shirt tugging, scrapping, lunging tackles, incidents off the ball....they use TV for those already although they don't actually stop the game for them. Do people honestly see this technology as an advantage....bearing in mind the number of games they have, that this technology will actually help in......is it really worth that hassle for maybe one game a season or less. As in the main most incidents of this type are seen mostly anyway. Not all grant you and some incidents are missed. However it is the same for all teams and is even in the sense that they are in the hands of the referee and his assistants. Once this is installed they will want it used more and more trust me.........so for me it is a no go, don't want the darn thing!
Surely the technology will improve so that if the ball crosses the line, the refs earpiece tells him it's a goal within a few seconds? It coming, so we might as well go with it, like it or not.
I don't see what's so difficult about it... bit of confusion, ref gets on his earpiece, says to the guy watching a little TV "was that over the line" or "was that handball", he rewinds his tape 15 seconds, watches it, says to ref "Yep, handball" or "nope, not over the line" and the game continues. Works flawlessly in other sports, in American football for example - "Was his foot out of bounds? "Yeah, no touchdown." There are clear limits of when to stop - on matters that are objective such as the ball being over the line, then there is no doubt technology should be used. Football, okay occasionally there'll be the odd "was it ball to hand?" ones but on the most part you can tell, but a rough challenge is subjective and should be left up to the ref on the field.
The ref has got enough going on in his ears as it is.....if they have to have it for the goal line would suggest a light and a buzzer or both behind the goal. Rather like Ice Hockey..........
The refs are being undermined anyway by a lack of respect from players and indeed managers alike. The amount of bitching the goes on around the ref due to a decision of his is unacceptable. You don't see it in any other sports, and yet refs are put in the middle of some 10 man huddle and asked to make a decision. Not right in my eyes...
The major flaw I see with the technology is that it may easily be implementable in the top flight, but where do you draw the line (no pun intended) as all professional divisions may be able to follow suit but it would obviously not be possible on the Sunday league pitches and then you may end up with a different game all together from the non-professional one. I think the main problem would be which games are 'important enough' to warrant technology at which are not. Can you imagine a non-league team playing a top four side in the FA Cup and having issues because they do not have goal line technology, which the Premiership team by then would expect.
Or the guy watching the screen says "Give me a minute or two while I replay it a few times as it's not too clear with all those bodies in the way". Meanwhile the play goes to the other end and the other side scores. Then what? In all the other sports mentioned, cricket, american football and rugby, there are natural breaks in play where a decision can be made. Football doesn't have that. And even in cricket it can take ages to come to a decision because it's unclear what actually happend.
Goal-line technology has not been "put back", the FA are just saying that it isn't anything like ready to go yet. It takes a long time to get this kind of thing from design, testing, fixing and to the stage where we have produced and distributed 92 sets. Part of the criteria that FIFA have set are that the signal must be sent immediately (ie within a couple of seconds) to the referee, via his earpiece, watch, a buzzer or whatever. So there won't be any Wimbledon style Hawk-Eye on the big screens, or any need for the referee to stop play and "go upstairs". Hawk-Eye is not the only group trying to design technology and there are a few viable alternatives. One of the many problems so far is that it is difficult for a computer to distinguish between a football and the limbs of flying players. But it is not the main issue I have, which is illustrated by a question I asked a few weeks ago - "how many wrong decisions in the 10 years at St Mary's would have been decided by the use of goal line technology?" I'll give you a clue, it's rhetorical.
Which is a very good point, when it comes to goal line decisions, but I think the technology will improve to give quick and reliable answers to offside decisions or penalty claims and for sure, games are decided with those! The technology is coming and it is only a matter of time. When that technology arrives and is fast, what will your reason for not using it be then?
Spot on Dan Mega technology is not needed. Fourth official picks his nose most of the game; put him in a room with a tv and sky rewind control and he can tell the ref within seconds. You don't even have to stop the game. I wouldn't even let the fans know when they're looking, just dobit then tell ref via earpiece. What gets me is that the biggest game inthe world had a major decision decided by the fourth official. When Zidane was sent off in the world cup final, the ref and linesmen hadn't seen it; it was only when the ref was "told" that he sent him off - nothing wrong with that.
I would prefer them to bring in the RFU rules on not arguing with the ref nor backchatting. I remember they trialled it a few years ago and at Sincil bank was funny to see free kicks move from the half way line to the ege of the box (3 consecutive arguments from players) Would've worked wonders in the Prem
Most decisions are not clear cut. If you watch Sky, replays are not always clear but cause dissension amongst the pundits. If you bend my arm, I'll accept almost instant goalline technology (but how many problems do you see with that during a season anyway). Most 'disputed' off-side decisions are shown to be correct on revue; the linesman after all is directly in line. Every call will be disputed if there was a revue system, whereas at the moment most are accepted. Football does not lend itself to technology and the game will be ruined. Imagine the scene, Saints have cleared the ball from their area and are half-way up the pitch, but are called back because the opposition have stopped playing because they have appealed for a penalty. Pause for 2 mins whilst all angles are looked at; believe me it can take that long in cricket if it's a close call. No penalty given: restart with dropped ball. There will be so many cynical calls for revue the game will not be worth watching.
Which Fran, is why I meant to suggest that they use it without telling us or announcing it. Ref is already miked up, so have someone helping them "unofficially"
I think the mere existence of the video review option will cause more player protests. Let's just hand the game over to the Americans to organize..they like fragmented games where you can slip in advert breaks.
There is a lot to be said about technology aiding referees. In truth though is that what we are really talking about? Is it that there is so much money depending on the outcome of a game, the gamblers want to take the element of chance out of the game? The truth is that technology in reality is only needed on extremely rare occasions. Football by its very nature has to be a continuous flowing game. Its very nature relies on instant decisions to keep the game flowing and exciting enough to captivate its audience. Lets suppose they perfect this goal line technology, how long do you think it will be before they ask for the same technology for side line decisions, offside decisions, hand ball decisions or penalty decisions? How long do you think it will take for managers and players to find way of exploiting this technology to get a result? Some during discussion are already suggesting the introduction of technology for these things already. In my opinion it is a downhill slope if technology is allowed to be introduced into such a natural game as my beloved football. Leave it be...........
I think people need to read the article again. The goaline technology is already being used.....It is being tested so not being used by the referee but is being tested for accuracy. It is not a 'video replay' as people seem to think but more like the Wimbledon net cord beep where it will tell instantly whether a ball has 'fully' crossed the line. So there will be no need to stop the game. The referee hears the beep and gives the goal or doesn't hear the beep and doesn't give the goal etc. "It's happening live in stadia all around Europe. They can simulate light, they can simulate dark, they can simulate balls rolling across the line, balls being fired in from all different angles."
Most of the objections to new technology seem to be that it's too slow or not accurate enough. So my challenge is, will you still object to it when it's reliable and instantaneous? IMO it's only a matter of time before that happens. Or will it's introduction leave too many fans with not enough to argue about?
