Technology in Association Football

Am I the only person who doesn't want it?

 

In principle I like the idea, but where do you draw the line? Just goal line decisions? Offsides? What happens if the video ref spots something in the build up to a goal that the actual referee doesn't?

I'm starting to think referees behind the goal is a better idea than I originally gave it credit for.

 

I may be ill Tony, I actually agree with you.

 

It is a difficult decision that is really created by slow motion video replays of certain actions during a game .Officials behind the goal in every game would be a total waste of resources and might also cause as much controversy by their decisions ,as do lines persons for offsides at present. The current arrangement of officials are there to do a job and if all players and managements accepted the decisions and stopped the current abuse of the officials the better. Video replays during a game should be banned and not be available for discussion by Television commentators. Keep the footballing plebs in the dark I say ,it worked ok in the past with only a few occasions of controversy(1966 World Cup etc).Electronic/Laser technology on the goal line might be a possibility in the future but anything else leave to the officials and outlaw the players arguing with the men in charge!!.

 

The issue of the ball crossing the line doesn't really happen often enough to justify the expense of what is doubtful technology as far as football's concerned.

 

Especially at our home matches!!! "TAXI"

 

With video refereeing, it would be like watching a different sport I reckon. Also, the poorer clubs from league two/conference might not be able to afford the expensive equipment.

 

So do what they do with other technology then and set a minimum level before it's required. It prevents higher league clubs from losing millions through bad decisions without handicapping lower/non-league clubs with the bills. And there's no argument against it being applied differently at all levels, floodlights have varying minimum standards that increase as you rise through the leagues, as do stadia as a whole (terracing in the lower leagues only with a 3 year allowance when promoted to the Championship).

 

Possibly, having seen the whacking profit and abandoned stadiums left after the African mess, but the last I read, the technology's still not up to working accurately on a goal line.

In tennis, it is just a ground level decision from a predictable start with limited chance of obstacles and it's still not 100%, hence the permitted challenges players are allowed.
In football, there's the whole area of the goal, posts that can move several inches a ball that can easily misshape and a big potential for players to be stood in the way.
When all that's added in to the very limited number of times it happens AND the decision's wrong, it's really not worth the effort in my opinion.

 

Leave it how it is, it provides banter and ref making wrong decissions create a better atmosphere afterall.. its a job

 

The Rugby have had it in for ages here in Oz (don't know about anywhere else) and it works well.
The 'goal-line' technology HAS to come in especially after the blatant 'over-the-line' goals which have not been given. If the technology can make the game fairer then I'm all for it.

 

You can't really compare its use in rugby with its use in football. Rugby lends itself to stoppages in play and the tacky WWF type review yet still fans complain that refereeing decisions cost them the game.
Technology won't make the game fairier. How many times have you seen the pundits paw over an incident from every conceivable angle and still get it wrong?

 

I'll stand corrected, but as far as I'm aware they don't feel its accurate enough for tennis or cricket, which are far simpler to apply the technology on than football.