I see that goal line technology is being tested for probable introduction to prem league for 2012. Is it worth the trouble?
Goal line technology
- Thread starter charles stokell
- Start date
There is too much for the linesmen and referees to do. In a goal situation, they not only have to be able to keep pace with some of the fittest athletes in the world, they have to make a judgement call about offsides, whilst simultaneously looking at whether or not a ball has crossed the line.
Goal-Line technology to me is a no-brainer.
The referees and the linesmen can forget about checking if the ball has crossed the line - they can focus on getting the other major decisions right - because the referee will be told instantly and with 100% accuracy whether or not the ball is in.
It's not about not having faith in the officials - they simply have too much to do, and too much is riding on those decisions.
Goal-Line technology to me is a no-brainer.
The referees and the linesmen can forget about checking if the ball has crossed the line - they can focus on getting the other major decisions right - because the referee will be told instantly and with 100% accuracy whether or not the ball is in.
It's not about not having faith in the officials - they simply have too much to do, and too much is riding on those decisions.
Its give n take regarding disallowed goals etc..i dont want my football perfect and scientifically anaylzed i want unpredictability which only enhances the enjoyment...what next players with foul sensor pad thingys hooked up to computers?!
How many falls calls are there at the moment?
Have things changed in the last few months? Prior to that technology wasnt up to the job. You only have to look at Wimbledon, where they get to challenge three decisions because of the accepted failings of the technology, and that's a much simpler call than football would be.
Have things changed in the last few months? Prior to that technology wasnt up to the job. You only have to look at Wimbledon, where they get to challenge three decisions because of the accepted failings of the technology, and that's a much simpler call than football would be.
I really don't get this attitude to it.
A sensor in the ball, a sensor in the goal, and a buzzer which alerts the ref if the ball has crossed the line.
Linesmen and Refs can then focus on the offsides and other judgement calls, which would carry on just as they are now - except that they could focus on them.
How can that not be a good thing?
How often would it be used? a hell of a lot I'd say. Remember QPR a few years ago at the KC? Halmosi's goal vs. Sheff Utd in the FA Cup replay, that Phantom goal that Atwell awarded (Reading vs. Watford?), England vs Germany in 2010. And they're just the ones off the top of my head now.
But the argument for me is not how much they would be used, it's what having them would mean to the officials. Once they stop having to look for a split second moment when the ball has crossed the line, they can focus on other matters, and on getting those right. As it stands the game needs officials to be looking in several different places at once. Where the official chooses to look can affect the out come of the game, if he watches the players, he misses a controversial goal, if he watches the ball, he misses a blatant penalty.
It makes the referee's job easier, that surely has got to be better for the game.
A sensor in the ball, a sensor in the goal, and a buzzer which alerts the ref if the ball has crossed the line.
Linesmen and Refs can then focus on the offsides and other judgement calls, which would carry on just as they are now - except that they could focus on them.
How can that not be a good thing?
How often would it be used? a hell of a lot I'd say. Remember QPR a few years ago at the KC? Halmosi's goal vs. Sheff Utd in the FA Cup replay, that Phantom goal that Atwell awarded (Reading vs. Watford?), England vs Germany in 2010. And they're just the ones off the top of my head now.
But the argument for me is not how much they would be used, it's what having them would mean to the officials. Once they stop having to look for a split second moment when the ball has crossed the line, they can focus on other matters, and on getting those right. As it stands the game needs officials to be looking in several different places at once. Where the official chooses to look can affect the out come of the game, if he watches the players, he misses a controversial goal, if he watches the ball, he misses a blatant penalty.
It makes the referee's job easier, that surely has got to be better for the game.
1. It doesn't happen often enough to be an issue.
2. The technology's far from accurate so would still leave plenty of room for doubt.
3. It would create extra expense plus be a burden or a gulf on the amateur game.
That's not quite true DMD.
In Tennis, it's more complicated, because they are monitoring all of the lines on the court. In football, it would be monitoring two lines. Each goal line. The challenges are not challenging the technology - they're challenging the Umpire's decision, which is a purely human call. The technology is the arbiter.
In tennis the technology makes the call in seconds, the extra time and animations are really just a bit of drama for the punters. In football, it would take a fraction of a second to make the call.
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/?page_id=1076&PHPSESSID=43fb8b23bac077dfab0a923d4b6b3cc7
I fully agree with you It doesn't happen enough to justify the cost and Hesfords heros put his finger on it when he said we would lose good discussion points. How many times have we seen it happed at city's games? Don't forget we are talking about goal line technology not offsides etc.
Not on the serve they're not, and even then it's a flat line on the floor, not the two/3d with post movements that would be needed for a football goal.
The tennis one has several 'eyes' that track one line each, a very much simpler criteria than football and the tennis technology has recognised limitations.
It's an unnecessary expensive addition that will have very limited value to the game.
1. The ball crosses the line every time a goal is scored. It would be used on every occasion. The referee and the linesmen would no longer need to look for the ball crossing the line, because that would be dealt with.
2. That's debatable. There are plenty of references to it being highly accurate. I've not seen any study show one of the GL systems to be inaccurate - main person suggesting this is Mr Blatter.
3. That could be argued for any expense. Some Amateur teams don't have floodlights or nets. Most have to bring their own kits - Does that mean every other level of the pyramid should do the same? As long as each ground in the lowest tier using it had the technology - I don't see why it's a problem. Just because Winterton vs. Ferriby doesn't have it, doesn't mean that City vs. Leeds shouldn't. You could claim that for any of the stadium requirements of higher placed teams.
1. But is only debatable a handful of times a season. If there's extra money available, I'd rather it was spent on bigger issues such as diving. Perhaps by retrospective punishment by a video panel.
2. Debatable it may be, but it's not reliable enough for tennis to do away with the line judges and to offer players a number of challenges because they accept that, even in the simpler standard of tennis, hawkeye has uncertainties. Don't forget, the technology in a goal mouth will have to allow for people being in there too. Something tennis can ignore.
3. Perhaps, it just seems a lot of expense for little reward for what is in reality a minor problem. we've managed happily for all this time without it and even with it, I guarantee as many slow mo shots on MOTD questioning the bleep.
id like to see it if the technology is there....taking lampards goal for example, irrelevant as it was in the end, but imagine if we had ended up losing that game 2-1..it would have seemed important then..imagine if city are denied a 6th spot this season by a similar incident, ...i know this incidents have always existed in football for years, but technology advances, and we should use in to help ..imo
I think we'll have to agree to differ, but your comment for 1. is exactly what I was referring to. If the referee was not looking for the relatively simple matter of if the ball crossed the line, he would have more freedom to look for things such as diving.
Basically, I'm opposed to anything which slows the game down, but in favour of anything which eases the pressure on the referees. Hell, I'd be in favour of having someone whose job it was simply to watch and see if the ball has crossed the line. I just think too many decisions are wrong, because we have part time people trying to keep up with athletes who's task is to look at ten different places for an event which happens in the blink of an eye.
I genuinely believe unless the ball hits the back of the net, the officials have to guess. Either they saw the ball bounce over the line, in which case, they guess there was no infringement, or they watch the players in which case they cannot have seen the ball cross the line. Either way it's not acceptable.
Basically, I'm opposed to anything which slows the game down, but in favour of anything which eases the pressure on the referees. Hell, I'd be in favour of having someone whose job it was simply to watch and see if the ball has crossed the line. I just think too many decisions are wrong, because we have part time people trying to keep up with athletes who's task is to look at ten different places for an event which happens in the blink of an eye.
I genuinely believe unless the ball hits the back of the net, the officials have to guess. Either they saw the ball bounce over the line, in which case, they guess there was no infringement, or they watch the players in which case they cannot have seen the ball cross the line. Either way it's not acceptable.
How many instances do you reckon there are in a season? With current coverage I'd guess out of all the leagues and internationals there could be half a dozen, of which the refs will be right say half the time. The machines would hardly be better than that and would STILL be debated. Nothing gained in my mind.
I bet there are more goals as a result of wonky off sides, wrong throw ins and corners, which to be fair I can live with. What I'd rather they stamped out is the blatant cheating by players.
Technology DOES exist to review footage of games and to take players to task for play acting, which must be putting more pressure on referees than the odd goalmouth fumble.
PS, agreeing or disagreeing with each other's meaningless anyway. If TV want it, they'll get it in the end no matter what we feel .
I bet there are more goals as a result of wonky off sides, wrong throw ins and corners, which to be fair I can live with. What I'd rather they stamped out is the blatant cheating by players.
Technology DOES exist to review footage of games and to take players to task for play acting, which must be putting more pressure on referees than the odd goalmouth fumble.
PS, agreeing or disagreeing with each other's meaningless anyway. If TV want it, they'll get it in the end no matter what we feel .