I have to say that I don't feel a sense of "justice prevailing" because we got away with one dodgy decision after all the ones that have gone against us previously. Actually, I'm just thankful that it didn't affect the group D final standings. And if Blatter has a moral outrage at something going England's way and his response is to do what we were crying out for anyway then great It won't change what happened and common sense prevails (albeit via a cluttered pathway of irrational decisions). Maybe we can get shot of those pointless statuesque idiots on the goal line. [ahem]
There's always the problem of play continuing. It's one of the major considerations in all of this for me. Sorry to hijack thread. Sepp Blatter is a plum but this is not the answer.
You only make the assumption of play continuing based on the fact that play did indeed carry on and you got to see the outcome (England counterattcking).....if it comes down to the fact that the ball was so closely over the line that the officials cant decide, then the game should be stopped for 10 seconds or so to get the result.....if a goal is given then so be it, if not then a drop kick is given to the team in possesion.....it doesnt happen enough so that teams counterattacking will be penalised.....but in yesterdays game, that could have been stopped the minute there was any doubt. it doesnt have to get complicated.....it doesnt have to go into fouls and red cards...but goals make a difference and the added technology to detect whether it was in or not IS needed IMO.
I think I agree with the majority opinion on here which is technology assists for referees are workable as long as the game doesn't have to stop. The goal line thing is an obvious one: a visual indication that the ball has crossed the line can be used without any interruption to normal play. With a little bit of imagination you can see how similar technology could be used for offsides (electronic tracers in the ball and players boots possibly). However, we should be clear that taking time out to inspect video replays are a definite no-no without wrecking the game we love. As people have said, that side of things could and should be used to catch and punish cheats retrospectively.
Each team has 2 appeals like cricket. One per half. They can only appeal goal incidents be it offside allowed / disallowed, not crossed line etc. If the appeal is successful it is retained if not its lost. Teams will only review close/ definite decisions as they wouldn't risk losing the appeal on a spurious one. Limits stoppages but allows challenging the poor decisions. Simple!
Again how does this whole thing work? The minute there's any doubt? There was doubt about whether or not the ball had crossed the line. We all know it did. My question is who decides where there's doubt? And where does doubt come in when you consider the offside which should have been given against Ukraine in the first place? And I ask again to all proponents of VT, where does it end? Fouls, red cards, offsides...? All of these make a difference. It's a never ending story once you open the box. A bad idea. Of necessity, it has to get complicated and it will do.
So a borderline offside decision might be appealed, turned down and you then lose out on an appeal against a greater injustice because you're allowed one per half? The driving force for VT in the game says that it will reduce injustice. In the scenario above where is the justice? We pick a number of appeals out of the air and allow teams to have that number? If it's just on borderline did it/ didn't it cross the line calls then fair enough. These scenarios are so rare as to be not worth a damn. It won't stop there.
That's your idea of simple? Who decides they want to appeal? You appeal that then we'll appeal another decision 2 minutes earlier that affected the subsequent play. It's NOT simple
It needs to start with the absolutes - balls crossing the goal line (with a chipped ball) for instance. I know cricket is a stop/start game but it is also very old and traditional - if they can allow technology then surely football can do the same. It could also be argued that the technology has improved drastically as a result of being allowed into the game (consider it started with just a replay and now has quickly available features such as hot spot, snickometer and hawkeye). Ironically, all the pressure on getting the decision right (and most of the arguements for introducing the technology) are down to money and the financial implications of a goal standing or not rather than a true desire for justice and discovering who the best team really is. Therefore, the easiest (ergo hardest) way to avoid all this would be to take the money out of the game and go back to the spirit of sportsmanship.
It's not that difficult if you consider time outs in basketball and the lack of controversy surrounding them.
I take your point Matt, but absolutes come with caveats. This is my argument. Yes you can absolutely prove a ball has crossed a line. But. The minute, the minute, you do that, you then have to, by your own precedence, do the same for offsides. They're absolutes after all. So are fouls. The worry I have in the grand scheme of things is that we'll ruin a simple game until it becomes another gridiron ad-fest monstrosity. Pandora's Box. Edit to say I've just seen your post. Time outs? Pandora's Box.
Like cricket it allows that occassionally a borderline one may slip through and that is human error. A game played by humans and referreed by humans. It stops the howler decisions that should never happen. How many times do you have 2 or more offside goals in a game. It really is simple!
The manager or captain and must be done before the restart. You can't appeal a decision earlier because you are only allowed to appeal the game changing goal decisions i.e offside or crossing the line. It is simple!
Sorry but I dont agree with the statement that you HAVE to do the same with offsides and fouls......you can only win a game by scoring goals....not by getting fouls or offsides. A simple technology to tell whether the ball has crossed the line will suffice. You can also introduce a VT for offsides that can notify the Ref immediatley....but thats as far as it goes......you dont have to make a mountain out of a mole mound with this one and start adding it in for fouls and tackles and cards as thats just pedantic.....common sense is all thats needed with these decisions.
VT is about righting injustice! It might not just be an offside? What if there were an unsuccessful offside appeal, followed by a Tevezesque provocation? You've appealed the offside. You lost that. Now you're down a player because you only had one appeal. It's nonsense. Again who does the appealing in all of this? Managers looking to slow a game down with a minute to go? Time to regroup and take the sting out of the opposition. It's a nonsense.
Why not? Fouls, tackles and cards affect a game. It they didn't why tackle? Why foul? Why have a disciplinary system that punishes offenders at all?
The manager could only do it if there was a goal incident involving an offside or line call incident so not able to be abused adhoc. I really think you're over complicating it.
Why not?....... As it isnt neccessary.....all that adds is complication to a simple matter. If a player gets a yellow card in a game that probably wasnt a yellow card, does that really affect the game that directly? Do you hear about it in the papers like you have with yesterdays not given goal? From my point of view its simple.....clearly ref/officials cant be 100% sure everytime whether a goal has gone in or not, just add a simple technology...be it VT or some other form that tells them quickly....done....no more ungiven goals or goals given that didnt go in. Bringing fouls and cards into this is not needed.
