Ukraine "goal"

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
robbieBB

robbieBB

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
5,006
769
113
Events last night showed precisely why the decision to introduce goal line technology is WRONG. Had the technology been in place, the consensus is that Ukraine would have been awarded a goal. But that would have been an injustice to England, since immediately prior to the ball being put in the net, there was an offside which went unnoticed by the officials. The fact is that "no goal" was the correct outcome, but was only achieved courtesy of two incorrect decisions.

The particular case does not matter, the general principle does. A caller to 606 after the match made the point very cogently. Goal line technology will take one, not very common, critical decision away from officials. But the effect of that will be to increase the focus on other critical decisions, such as offside decisions. There are far more cases of "injustice" through bad offside decisions than through decisions about whether the ball crossed the goal line. Likewise through whether the ball was over the byline, or touch line, whether a player handled the ball, and so on. People argue that at least goal line decisions will be removed from the equation, there can't be anything bad in that. But there can! As last night showed. More importantly, you are giving up on the principle that, right or wrong, the decision of the officials is final. If getting the award of a goal right becomes so important that you have to give up on that principle, then you must go beyond the relatively few goal line controversies and take similar steps to eliminate the far more common types of critical decision.

The real answer, IMO, is for the football authorities to stop making games harder and harder to referee by complex changes to or interpretations of the rules (e.g. offside, hand ball, etc). Make the officials' task easier and you will get fewer refereeing errors.
 
I disagree, I think it's needed. Yes there was an offside but what about when we scored against Germany, that was unjust. It's such a big call if officials get it wrong that I think we have to add it to the game. I don't think it's fair on them either to get stick for decisions if there is technology to help them out. Offsides are different, yes they can cost you a game but because they happen so often I think they get balanced out like most decisions in football, realistically I think everyone gets lucky and unlucky with referees about the same, unless your top 4.

I still think England would have won if it would have been allowed.
 
An analysis of incorrect decisions in the Premier League in the 2012 season showed that they DO NOT balance out over a season. Long term they may do, but that is no consolation to a relegated team or Cup Final loser in a given season, or e.g. a team going out of a tournament. The point is that offside (and other) decisions can be equally as critical in a given match as goal line decisions. The technology needed for dealing with them is available -- video review. The pressure will build to introduce it. In effect this issue is another example of television influencing how the game will be played, to the detriment of the game.

The alternative is, as I say, to reduce refereeing mistakes by making the game easier to referee, not harder as is the current situation.
 
yes it was offside, but two wrongs don't make a right. how the official got that wrong i don't know because he was so close to it but a quick glance at a monitor would have meant they would have known if the ball crossed the line within two seconds. it simply has to come in, but in my opinion, only for goal line decisions. most decisions in a game are not clear cut - a ball crossing a line is definitive, so give a definitive answer!
 
robbieBB said:
An analysis of incorrect decisions in the Premier League in the 2012 season showed that they DO NOT balance out over a season. Long term they may do, but that is no consolation to a relegated team or Cup Final loser in a given season, or e.g. a team going out of a tournament. The point is that offside (and other) decisions can be equally as critical in a given match as goal line decisions. The technology needed for dealing with them is available -- video review. The pressure will build to introduce it. In effect this issue is another example of television influencing how the game will be played, to the detriment of the game.

The alternative is, as I say, to reduce refereeing mistakes by making the game easier to referee, not harder as is the current situation.
Click to expand...

The goal line technology will make it easier for officials?

I agree that they just try and implement technology for offside decisions, whether the ball went out of play, penalties etc. But none of that will happen until goal line technology is in.
 
Offside is also a definitive. I wonder if hawkeye could track players, if so you could track onside and offside players.
 
It will not stop at goal line decisions though will it. I remember the call for substitutes. 1 only and that for injuries was the clamour. Then it became for any reason. Then it became two. Then allow three so you can include a goalkeeper. Now its seven. Ferguson called for the whole squad to be named for goodness sake.
I am not against technology in sport. It has improved stop start games like tennis where mistakes are down to a minimum.
But I am against it in football. Football as an industry is totally without morals or unity. Football will cheat first and ask questions after. All clubs in the Prem would feel aggrieved if they were relegated on the strength of a goal not given when it had clearly crossed the line.
But Blackburn could argue that they may not have been relegated if a penalty had not been awarded against them at Carrow Road when it was obvious WITHOUT technology that it was ball to hand. Had they won that game apart from the extra 2 points it may have inspired them to go on a run.
It would not stop at the goal line. The minute Manure weren't awarded a penalty AF would be arguing for extending it. And its bollocks that it only takes a minute. Watch some of the rugby internationals on at the moment and it is taking forever to decide on the legality of a try.
I accept that times have moved on and things need to adapt. But since 1872 we have managed to have the great game with all its ups and downs. It is emotional, argumentative and inspiring and great to talk about in the pub afterwards or even for days after. I personally would not want it to change any more than it has.
 
i would argue that more substitutes has enhanced the game. the offside rule enhanced the game. the backpass rule has enhanced the game. technology will enhance the game.

time to move forward, not keep sticking our head in the sand. its 2012.
 
Has anyone actually seen a definitve shot (not computer simulation) showing that all of the ball was over all of the line? Lampard's "goal" against Germany was clear cut - I don't think this one was. I do think that it was a goal (as does everyone I have spoken to about it) but that is our collective opinion and not facts. If goal line technology was brought in I think it would eliminate the howlers such as in S Africa but there would still be situations where there is no certainty in which case it would have to be no goal. For me the issue is the stopping of the game. If there is a close call do you blow up straight away? If so what happens if it is not a goal and the defending team were about to break forward? Or if it is not a goal and the attacking team regain possession with the possibility of creating another chance to actually score? In a situation like last night do you have the referee ask is the ball over the line? in which case the offside is missed or do you have (like rugby) is there any reason I cannot award a goal? which brings into play the offside but then how far back do you go?

Very tricky
 
How exactly have the changes to the offside rule enhanced the game Superman? What enhances the game is reward for skill and speed of mind and foot. Skill includes avoiding being offside, the timing of a run and the timing of a pass. All those attributes could be displayed under the "old" offside rule which required two defenders goal side of the attacker. The successive changes to the rule have simply introduced uncertainty where none existed before, and reduced the premium on skill, i.e. "rewarding" less skillful players.
 
robbieBB said:
How exactly have the changes to the offside rule enhanced the game Superman? What enhances the game is reward for skill and speed of mind and foot. Skill includes avoiding being offside, the timing of a run and the timing of a pass. All those attributes could be displayed under the "old" offside rule which required two defenders goal side of the attacker. The successive changes to the rule have simply introduced uncertainty where none existed before, and reduced the premium on skill, i.e. "rewarding" less skillful players.
Click to expand...

i meant bringing in the offside rule as opposed to the constant tinkering with it <ok>
 
There WAS goal line technology!!!
The 5th official was standing less than 3 meters away, bending over straddling the touchline, looking directly along the line, he MUST have seen it!?!?!
Personally I don't want machinery refereeing football matches, you don't get the same satisfaction shouting abuse at a machine.
"Your logic chip is broken" "whose the bastard in the black metal case" "your not fit to fry some chips" Just doesn't work!!!!!

ILD OTBC
 
i totally agree that we don't want technology across the board for every decision - there needs to be human refereeing - but i really cannot see the logic in not having it for 'the ball crossing the line'. i think its nuts to carry on as we are. the technology for such events works and is instant - there is absolutely no reason for it to not come in.
 
Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed said:
i totally agree that we don't want technology across the board for every decision - there needs to be human refereeing - but i really cannot see the logic in not having it for 'the ball crossing the line'. i think its nuts to carry on as we are. the technology for such events works and is instant - there is absolutely no reason for it to not come in.
Click to expand...

If EVERY OTHER type of decision is to be left to the officials, what is the NEED to make an exception of ONE type of decision (relatively uncommon at that compared to others)? It is completely irrational and a case of resorting to the technology simply because it is there.
 
You mean logical reason surely? There is no logical reason to not use technology, if its foolproof. However, there is no logic to football. As ILD says there was a guy stood there to see it was over the line. Platini has told the world that the 5/6th officials have been a resounding success. They have been a resounding flop or else Croatia would have had a penalty against Spain and knocked them out.
 
Regards the offside rule, its a bloody farce at the moment with all this phase 1 or phase 2 crap, if you are on the pitch you are affecting play in my eyes, because a defender has to judge a situation on the players around him, so that striker who is standing offside but nowhere near the ball is affecting the defenders decision on where to move to.

as for goal line technology, i wonder if france went out to that, i wonder how quick the long haired surrender monkey would be in changing it.
 
Things like penalties, free kicks, what cards should be given are incredibly subjective and will always need human involvement to make the decision and as we see on tv every week so called experts can't agree after seeing the replay constantly.
However, whether the ball crossed the line is black or white. Is not an interpretation of the rules given the evidence it can be proven. It's also a fundamental part of the game and needs to be judged to the best of our ability.
Offside is also black or white however there is an interpretation required when it's close.
I think as a matter of course goals should be reviewed, this can be done whilst the team is celebrating anyway so it wouldn't slow the game down.
 
Accepting the case for goal line technology seems to me to be leading towards having to review the overall legitimacy of every goal. "Did the ball cross the line?" is only one factor in deciding the legitimacy of a goal. Was there an offside? Was the ball out of play? Was a foul committed prior to the shot? And so on. All these other, far more common, factors are to be left subject to decision by the officials. It makes no sense to make an exception of the one while ignoring these other factors which are often equally "critical" in the context of the game.


PS I was writing this before Bath-Canary posted. Yes Bath, reviewing the legitimacy of goals IS where this is heading.
 
how long did it actually take for a replay to show the ball had crossed the line, something like Hawkeye would probably be about 100 times quicker. until it happens to the french, we will stick with dozy officials
 
I still think that the only way is a review system like in tennis and cricket, It would stop all of the shirt pulling at corners, England would have got a nailed on penalty for the shove on Carroll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back