Goal line technology

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. "

 

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.

 

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.