Goal line technology

[DMD]

A question.

Does anyone truly believe the technology is capable of being 100% accurate 100% of the time in 100% of games?

I don't know of any piece of equipment that's capable of that and the more precise the requirements,the more probability of failure. The ancillary parts, such as the communication and power links ake failure inevitable.

So, what happens when it fails?


For the very few occasions it would be used, the technology would be at the absolute (but unlikely) best, only as accurate as what we have and will NOT get rid of dispute, argument and controversy.

This years mens Wimbledon final had several points that, if challenged, the technology would have been shown to have got wrong, in a far more straight forward environment than a football goal mouth. Multiply that out across the divisions and that's possibly more mistakes in any one day than the officials would make in a full season.

I struggle to see ANY real justification for it from a spectator point of view.

 

[originallambrettaman]

There was recently(3rd May 2011) a fan vote on goal line technology, the results were:

51.85% in favour of goal line technology being introduced as soon as possible.

29.4% in favour of goal line technology, so long as it's proven to be accurate.

15.93% against goal line technology on the grounds that it's not necessary and officials mistakes are part and parcel of the game.

2.82% against because they didn't think the technology would work.

 

[DMD]

A fan vote of who? How many people? How many that watch live football? How many that have a clue? How many base all their opinions on those of failed managers acting as TV pundits?

What are those in favour basing their opinion on?

Factor in that lot and the closeness of the vote can be seen as a vote against this backward step.

There was recently(3rd May 2011) a fan vote on goal line technology, the results were:

51.85% in favour of goal line technology being introduced as soon as possible.

29.4% in favour of goal line technology, so long as it's proven to be accurate.

15.93% against goal line technology on the grounds that it's not necessary and officials mistakes are part and parcel of the game.

2.82% against because they didn't think the technology would work.

 

[Nick HCAFC]

I'm not sure it is just a handful of times, also with handballs and other dubious goal-line incidents I think they could implement the technology. It's never going to be 100percent perfect but then what is. The thing with these none-given goals is that very often you are left wondering what could have been, we were useless at the world cup but if Lampard had his goal given then we might have turned a corner, and it's not just that incident either.

 

[DMD]

I'm not sure it is just a handful of times,

I am. But could be swayed if anyone shows good evidence to the contrary.


On a separate note:



The International Football Association Board (IFAB) received a presentation on the Goal Line Technology tests conducted by EMPA between 7-13 February at the Home of FIFA. The IFAB heard that none of the ten companies were successful in meeting the criteria set out by the IFAB Annual Business Meeting on 20 October 2010, and therefore agreed to a further one year testing period.

 

[Gawge]

I'm not that bothered about technology any more.

In some ways, it is great that a group of middle-aged men on a Sunday morning play exactly the same game as a Champions League final. In reality, it would probably be used once or twice for your team each season. Is it really worth it? It won't add the the spectacle as it does in say, Rugby League, it will break up the game etc...

I wouldn't complain if it was implemented (well), but the fuss about it is a bit over the top now for something that would hardly make a difference. It wouldn't exactly stop the controversy either, people would still complain about the decisions, so it sounds like an expensive waste of money really.

 

[originallambrettaman]

A fan vote of who? How many people? How many that watch live football? How many that have a clue? How many base all their opinions on those of failed managers acting as TV pundits?

What are those in favour basing their opinion on?

Factor in that lot and the closeness of the vote can be seen as a vote against this backward step.

Dunno, dunno, dunno and dunno.

I hope you're now convinced.

 

[Chiltons222]

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.

Dutch, doesn't put it right on the pitch at the time of the incident though does it. That's crucial.

I think the difference between the views on this cannot be squared; anti-technology people seem to be traditionists whilst those who embrace it at instant pitch level (it's already at every other level) just want fairness for sporting sake.

As I said, I enjoy football whatever the rules/limitatioins so I will just wait for the admin guys to wake up and realise they are in the 21st century. Things like substitutes and extra time were controversal once.

 

[DMD]

Yes it does put it right on the pitch, eventually and sustainably with huge benefits to the game and society by punishing dishonesty. Resolution at the time is not at all critical if the alternative solution is robust.

Goal line technology, firstly needs to improve to a level that works effectively.
Even then it'll change perhaps two goals in all four divisions for a full season. In doing so it'll still miss all those where the offence occurred on route to goal such as off side, hand ball etc.

I've nothing against technology that is needed and works. Nobody has yet convinced me that this is anything but a desperate measure for wrong reasons that will lead to even more desperate measures to cover it's short comings, when better technological solutions are more readily available.

I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, but in this long thread, I've yet to see a credible argument supporting it.

 

[petersaxton]

From the perspective of the technology, tennis is very basic. It is simply one beam down one single level and flat line, repeated for very static, one dimensional points around the court and with no possibility of obstructions. The ball is smaller and more robust making any miss-shaping less critical. and STILL the technology is far from 100% accurate, hence the right to appeal.

Football goal posts and cross bars move and bend with wind and contact, so one or more ends of the beam are moving randomly and unpredicatbly and can be considerable. The ball is larger and designed to miss-shape to get bend/swerve and these changes are far more pronounced than in tennis. The golamouth itself is liable to be a clutter of bodies in various positions and heights.


It's a red herring.

If the goalposts move then that would affect whether the ball was in the goal anyway so things are still the same. The referee doesn't say that the ball hit the bar and bounced over but the bar had moved so i am awarding a goal.

 

[Erik]

Human error is part of the game. I like it that way, and I think the introduction of goal-line technology might be the straw that breaks the Camel's back, and I'd give up football altogether.

 

[petersaxton]

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.

What "panel reviews"? I agree that referees may have been right most of the time but I would prefer to have the right decision in the minority of cases when the referee is wrong. How could the referees be more accurate than Hawkeye? It's nonsense to say that we would bring in technology and be no better off.

They can review games and penalise simulation very cheaply. The experts don't have to travel and meet up. They get the footage by email. It can all be dealt with in a matter of minutes.

 

[petersaxton]

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.

Handful per season through all four divisions? I would think there is an average about one per match. I think you are thinking of a media outcry rather than a goal line decision.

 

[petersaxton]

I don't think you have to list priorities and do them one at a time. If something needs improvement then do it as quickly as possible. If Hawkeye can do it for free with sponsorship then we can do it straight away.

I think offside decisions are wrong too often so I would think it's worth introducing two assistants to concentrate on offside. They only have to know whether somebody is in an offside position when the ball is kicked. Presently assistants are looking somewhere else and then when the ball is kicked they turn and make a decision too late. Given that offside decisions are often based on a one on one with a goalkeeper there are likely to be plenty in a match that could matter. I would think the cost of two extra officials could be justified.

 

[DMD]

If the goalposts move then that would affect whether the ball was in the goal anyway so things are still the same. The referee doesn't say that the ball hit the bar and bounced over but the bar had moved so i am awarding a goal.

Depends in what way the goal posts and cross bar have moved relative to each other and the location of any sensors and the timing of the sensor feedback.

 

[DMD]

What "panel reviews"? I agree that referees may have been right most of the time but I would prefer to have the right decision in the minority of cases when the referee is wrong. How could the referees be more accurate than Hawkeye? It's nonsense to say that we would bring in technology and be no better off.

They can review games and penalise simulation very cheaply. The experts don't have to travel and meet up. They get the footage by email. It can all be dealt with in a matter of minutes.

The panel reviews I'm suggesting as being superior to technology that's dubious in ability and need. Email's a possibility, but I feel a panel discussion would be far more robust and defensible.

Bring faulty technology in is patently nonsense. As it stands, referees ARE more accurate than the technology but I'm willing to be to proven me wrong.

"The International Football Association Board (IFAB) received a presentation on the Goal Line Technology tests conducted by EMPA between 7-13 February at the Home of FIFA. The IFAB heard that none of the ten companies were successful in meeting the criteria set out by the IFAB Annual Business Meeting on 20 October 2010, and therefore agreed to a further one year testing period. "

 

[DMD]

Handful per season through all four divisions? I would think there is an average about one per match. I think you are thinking of a media outcry rather than a goal line decision.

One per match? Post me some figures. Mine are based on my own experience of watching games, so I could well be out. But I don't recall seeing many, especially not compared to the more frequent occasions when the ball wouldn't have got to the line had the players been honest and not trying to con the ref.

The media are pushing for the technology, so they will make a meal of any potential debate. They mention very, very few which seems to support my experience based claim.

I keep saying, it's all a massive red herring. It's the thin end of the wedge.

 

[DMD]

I don't think you have to list priorities and do them one at a time. If something needs improvement then do it as quickly as possible. If Hawkeye can do it for free with sponsorship then we can do it straight away.

I think offside decisions are wrong too often so I would think it's worth introducing two assistants to concentrate on offside. They only have to know whether somebody is in an offside position when the ball is kicked. Presently assistants are looking somewhere else and then when the ball is kicked they turn and make a decision too late. Given that offside decisions are often based on a one on one with a goalkeeper there are likely to be plenty in a match that could matter. I would think the cost of two extra officials could be justified.

I've posted a quote that shows the technology's not up to the job. I've no idea why people are still even considering such failed technology at least until it's made fit for purpose, but would prefer someone to demonstrate a need.

Extra officials? They can't get enough decent officials now!! I keep banging my drum about video review post match, hammering cheats and 'encouraging' honesty from players. I'd give it a month before ALL these issues would be distant memories as we'd have 22 expert officials on the pitch.