Bernstein is hitting the nail on the head here. The officials, and in particular linesman, have far too much to do. They have to constantly watch the offside line and monitor when and attacker is beyond it, whilst also being aware of the exact moment when balls are played from the opposite end of the pitch this in itself isn't physically possible and presumably they must be listening for the kick of the ball at least some of the time. On top of that, they have to look for dead balls beyond the goal line and also beyond the touchline on their side, they must recognise who last touched these balls and any fouls in their vicinity are their responsibility as well. That is far too much for one person to do. All we're talking about is taking away one of those responsibilities and letting them focus 10% more attention on the other areas where it is needed, these can still be subject to human error and still provide the talking points we crave. At the moment, far too many decisions are called incorrectly in terms of goallines and it's no wonder, bring on the technology.
Does the technology use transmitters in the ball or a light beam? I think it'd need sensors as a beam could be disrupted by players. I agree this would take some weight off the ref and given the millions a goal could gain/cost it's sensible at the top level. Certainly a better idea than an extra linesman put where he can't have any idea of angles. Maybe Hawkeye haven't bribed FIFA enough money in the past.
I think the Hawkeye system has a Chip in the ball and sensors in the goal mouth. It's basically a much more sophisticated form of the security sensors they have in shops. Basically if the ball goes past a certain point - it sets the alarms off. Apparently the ref would know in 0.5 seconds. I don't know if it's all hype - but surely it's got to be worth a trial.
My understanding is that they've had trials and the technology failed. They could have improved it since, but I still fail to see that this is the right way forwards. There's better things to invest money into the game that will bring better (but less tv sexy) improvement to the game. Goal line stuff's for tv watchers and pundits. It'll bring nothing to live support.
That incident convinced me finally it must be introduced especially when the assistant referee who was nearest to the incident said the ball was travelling too fast for him to rule whether the the ball had crossed the line or not. Technology clearly and quickly showed it had.
I believe the only reason they're looking at it seriously now, is because they think the technology is now entirely accurate. As Bernstein points out, it's nothing like tennis, there the trajectory of the ball has to be calculated, in football they just have to show that an object went between two fixed points. I see no reason for it not to be introduced and I'm sure it will be.
I suspect they're looking at it now because the TV companies are putting pressure on and it deflects attention from other more serious issues. I can't find anything that says the technology has been improved since it failed the previous tests, and as tennis are still using the old version with its uncertainties, it seems they haven't either. Tennis is an absolute piece of piss for technology as it is far more simple. Hawkeye has only to determine if a ball has landed within a given single parameter on one very static line with no obstructions AND the luxury of time to consider and appeal the verdict, and it's not fully capable of doing that simple task to 100% accuracy. For football, it would have to determine if the larger, more easily miss-shaped football has crossed four lines, three of which are moveable by a reasonable and unpredictably variable degree. It also has to do this with numerous potential and varied obstructions. It's a massive red herring. There are many more issues in football that affect the outcome of a game far more often and can be more accurately remedied at a lower price, but they're not as attractive to TV companies.
The makers are claiming it's 100% accurate and as long as they're allowed to have the system sponsored, they'll install it for free at ever Premier League ground. They ran initial tests last year, which FIFA stated had to be at least 90% accurate, it was 100% accurate in all the tests run. The ref gets the result in half a second, I really can't see that it can be anything but a benefit.
Installed for free at Prem grounds, not all the tiers below and not maintenance free. I haven't seen anything about the tests but am extremely sceptical. If it's so good, how come they didn't demonstrate it at Wimbledon? It's a red herring and will not improve football or reduce debate as it doesn't happen often enough and the decisions will still be debated anyway. There are far, far more significant issues to be spending time and resources dealing with, but they're harder political decisions to make so this is offered as a diversion. It's also the thin end of the wedge heading us toward the crappy US sport experience favoured by the tv companies. I fail to understand why so many people are seemingly in training to be the fastest lemming.
It will at least stop some clown of a ref not allowing a goal that everyone watching saw was two feet over the line, that alone is a good enough reason for me, however rare an event that is.
Possibly, but there's every chance that'll be one of the occasions the technology fails, leaving nobody at all in position to make a decision and therefore far worse off than we are now. It also opens the door to other, even less capable technology. Poor technology, for poor reasons. Whereas other technology (such as post atch review for simulation/cheating) will resolve far more, cost less and improve the game rapidly. Which is the better use of resources?
The post match review for simulation/cheating was introduced here last season. In the first couple of matches 2 players were given suspensions for obvious simulation with no appeal possible. Alot of huffing and puffing about the suspensions were aired on behalf of the players but the Football authorities stood their ground and to my recollection no other player attempted it again.
There are actually two systems, both claim their systems are now completely accurate. One is the Hawk-eye people, who's system has six camera's with sensors built into the goalposts, the other is the Adidas system, which involves a wire under the goal line which generates a magnetic field, both systems have a chip in the middle of the ball and simply detect when the ball has crossed the line, both inform the ref within half a second.
And yet the same people can't yet make one 100% accurate enough to use in the much simpler environment of tennis and cricket. Forgive me if I remain totally cynical about their claims.
I'm not sure why you keep suggesting tennis and cricket are simpler, football is much simpler, you just have a box and all you need to know is if the ball is in that box or not. In tennis and cricket it's effectively in the middle of a field and far more difficult to measure.
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.
The technology is out there so use it. Simples. This is one area that can be taken away from the ref and linesman. Why the delay ?
See earlier posts. It isn't there, solves nothing really and there are better fixers for less investment and far less disruption to the future of the game. It's a tv driven con.
Where have you seen that it's far from 100% accurate. I've been reading about Hawkeye, and the Adidas system that OLM mentioned, and they claim to be completely accurate. It's nothing more complicated than testing that something has passed a threshold. I can't find anything that suggests the systems are less than accurate. The Premier League has stipulated that they want a system to be accurate to within 5mm - and Hawkeye on their website claims to have matched that requirement. And, forgive me if I'm just overlooking something, what is this appeal you write about in Tennis? I may only watch it for 2 weeks a year, but in that time, I've only ever seen human decisions corrected by referring an appeal to the technology. I've never seen the technology itself appealed against. How could you? Who do you refer it to?
Without repeating myself too much. The fact they still use human decisions for line calls should highlight their confidence in the technology.
