Goal line technology ruled out by FIFA vote

[TopGun]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8553463.stm

 

Pathetic. Effing luddites.

[Deppo]

It'll take the World Cup Final to be decided by a dodgy decision for them to relent, I reckon. I do wonder why they don't even road-test it. The mind boggles.

[SuperMikey]

FIFA need to wake up and see that it's the way forward. Is it really that hard to have a video referee like in rugby who monitors goal-line incidents? The only thing I could see feasibly halting this coming to fruition is the potential cost of having at least 2 goal line cameras fitted in every football league ground in every country. Can't be cheap. That is assuming that FIFA would pay for it...

[Johnny Shearer]

Its a joke.

FIFA peddles out the same arguments every time. Goal line/video technology would slow the game down.

Of course players diving and feigning injury never slows the match down at all..........

 

Alright no goal line technology, what about an extra official on the goal line or for penalty box decisions?

What thats you say? This can't be implemented in the lower leagues? Well how about just for the top leagues and major tournaments?

Pathetic - fifa, with blatter in charge is just a money making machine where the top guys pay themselves fortunes.

 

Rant. End.

[Thedelldays]

it is a shame that the international FA dont have more powers....

[sadoldgit]

I think that they should use technology to rule on goal line technology.

[Thedelldays]

I think that they should use technology to rule on goal line technology.

lol

 

what is more annoying is how they wont even trial it...

 

kick-ins instead of thrown ins.....5 officials, golden goals, silver goals etc

all trialed at a high level

 

why cant they trial goal line technology in the UEFA cup next season...?

 

and make it clear, the cameras are ONLY there to see if the ball crossed the line or not...

[bungle]

The first genuinely good decision FIFA has made in some time. Keep technology out of football.

[Arizona]

It's ridiculous that the most popular sport in Britain is stuck in the stone age, whilst almost every other sport has video technology to rule on important decisions. Cricket has the third umpire. Tennis has Hawk Eye. Rugby has the video ref. Horse racing and athletics have had photo finished for decades. F1 has a whole team of stewards with video footage.

 

Being cheated because a match official completely misinterpreted a situation doesn't make for a great game at all.

[dune]

The first genuinely good decision FIFA has made in some time. Keep technology out of football.

 

Disagree. All you need is a laser built into the goal posts to give a near instant decision. Refs already have mics and ear pieces so the info could be rapidly relayed. These situations don't occur very often so would hardly impact on the flow of the game. With so much money involved in football (including betting) it's scandalous that football is so out of date. Imagine if horse racing could no longer use photo finnishes to determine the outcome.

[RedAndWhite91]

Disagree. All you need is a laser built into the goal posts to give a near instant decision. Refs already have mics and ear pieces so the info could be rapidly relayed. These situations don't occur very often so would hardly impact on the flow of the game. With so much money involved in football (including betting) it's scandalous that football is so out of date. Imagine if horse racing could no longer use photo finnishes to determine the outcome.

 

100% agree with this.

[The9]

lol

 

what is more annoying is how they wont even trial it...

 

kick-ins instead of thrown ins.....5 officials, golden goals, silver goals etc

all trialed at a high level

why cant they trial goal line technology in the UEFA cup next season...?

 

and make it clear, the cameras are ONLY there to see if the ball crossed the line or not...

 

And all ruled out as pointless or impractical. And you forgot the advancing 10-yard rule on freekicks. All tried, none adopted. The only stuff they ever implement is the stuff they just DO, like the backpass law.

 

And I'm against 3rd party technology and artificial breaks in games. Strangely Sky seem to be all for it, I wonder why ?

[dune]

And all ruled out as pointless or impractical. And you forgot the advancing 10-yard rule on freekicks. All tried, none adopted. The only stuff they ever implement is the stuff they just DO, like the backpass law.

 

And I'm against 3rd party technology and artificial breaks in games. Strangely Sky seem to be all for it, I wonder why ?

 

They recently made it a straight red for bringing down a player through on goal. I think this is a good rule, but to balance it i'd make it a rule that if a player dives in the box it's an automatic red card.

[chrisobee]

It'll take the World Cup Final to be decided by a dodgy decision for them to relent, I reckon. I do wonder why they don't even road-test it. The mind boggles.

 

TBH the 1966 WC Final was effectively decided by a dodgy decision !!

[St Landrew]

TBH the 1966 WC Final was effectively decided by a dodgy decision !!

 

Not at all. It was miles over the line.

 

As for the FIFA decision. I agree with the OP. Luddites.

[RonManager]

TBH the 1966 WC Final was effectively decided by a dodgy decision !!

 

We did actually win 4-2, not 3-2.

[chrisobee]

We did actually win 4-2, not 3-2.

 

Of course but would Germany have committed so many men forward if it had been 2-2? I doubt it and no St Landrew I don't believe it was miles over the line and neither do you !!

[Block 5]

The first genuinely good decision FIFA has made in some time. Keep technology out of football.

 

I totally agree.

 

This whole technology debate is aimed at the fan on the sofa and is fuelled by a media who see themselves as having a part to play.

Sky would love it....... I can envisage a time in the future where offside decisions would be decided by viewers at home pressing their red button (votes would cost £1).

 

To the fan at the game, football is theatre. Yelling at dodgy linos is part of that experience.

The media and armchair fans should NOT be determining MY matchday experience.

 

Keep technology out of football.

Edited 8 March, 2010 by Block 5

[Johnny Shearer]

I totally agree.

 

This whole technology debate is aimed at the fan on the sofa and is fuelled by a media who see themselves as having a part to play.

Sky would love it....... I can envisage a time in the future where offside decisions would be decided by viewers at home pressing their red button (votes would cost £1).

 

To the fan at the game, football is theatre. Yelling at dodgy linos is part of that experience.

The media and armchair fans should NOT be determining MY matchday experience.

 

Keep technology out of football.

 

But you can still do that even with goal line technology? And when the decision goes the way you wanted you'd feel justified.

 

Also I don't see how armchair fans would influence decisions at sprting events. Betting cartels and syndicates may be a reason or two as to why decisions wouldn't be decided by us!

[Arizona]

I totally agree.

 

This whole technology debate is aimed at the fan on the sofa and is fuelled by a media who see themselves as having a part to play.

Sky would love it....... I can envisage a time in the future where offside decisions would be decided by viewers at home pressing their red button (votes would cost £1).

 

To the fan at the game, football is theatre. Yelling at dodgy linos is part of that experience.

The media and armchair fans should NOT be determining MY matchday experience.

 

Keep technology out of football.

 

 

So you would quite happily have sat in the stands watching Maradonna at Mexico '86 and thought, "brilliant, what fantastic cheating that was, I'm glad the ref didn't spot it."?

 

We're not talking about a video ref on EVERY dodgy offside, 50-50 foul or whether he did get the ball with the tackle etc. It's simple things like did the ball cross the line or blatant cheating that need ruling out. Having a system like in cricket where you're only allowed a set number of video appeals, say 2 or 3, wouldn't slow down the play.

[Sour Mash]

Disagree. All you need is a laser built into the goal posts to give a near instant decision. Refs already have mics and ear pieces so the info could be rapidly relayed. These situations don't occur very often so would hardly impact on the flow of the game. With so much money involved in football (including betting) it's scandalous that football is so out of date. Imagine if horse racing could no longer use photo finnishes to determine the outcome.

 

"All you need is a laser built into the goal posts to give a near instant decision" is that ALL? "Just" a "laser built into the goal posts"! And what if the "laser" or whatever it is doesn't work or has faults, look at even the best most expensive technology in the world, they all have glitchs, errors and periods where they need fixing at the most imprtant times! The horse racing example is completely different to the flow of a game of football.

[Sour Mash]

So you would quite happily have sat in the stands watching Maradonna at Mexico '86 and thought, "brilliant, what fantastic cheating that was, I'm glad the ref didn't spot it."?

 

We're not talking about a video ref on EVERY dodgy offside, 50-50 foul or whether he did get the ball with the tackle etc. It's simple things like did the ball cross the line or blatant cheating that need ruling out. Having a system like in cricket where you're only allowed a set number of video appeals, say 2 or 3, wouldn't slow down the play.

 

Posted this on another thread on the main forum and can't be bothered to rewrite it!

 

There is an obvious scenario that no-one has been able to give me a clear answer to. At what point is the game stopped for a decison to be made? Next time the ball goes out of play? What if after a penalty shout, the defending team goes up the other end and scores and that is the next time the ball goes out of play? Imagine the goal might not count, every stands around for 4 or 5 mins while the penalty shout gets replayed enough times and from different angles for the decision being made? It would kill the game.

 

Or if you stopped play straight away and had a bounce ball once the decision had been made, again it would become a slow moving, scrappy farce. And who would decide which incidents were relayed to a video judgement?

 

Football thrives on it's pace, the way it can flow from one end to the other and back again. Video technology will not stop the controversy, but just slow down and kill a large part of what makes watching football entertaining.

 

Just because something might work in another sport doesn't mean it would work in football, you are in no way comparing like with like.

[dune]

"All you need is a laser built into the goal posts to give a near instant decision" is that ALL? "Just" a "laser built into the goal posts"! And what if the "laser" or whatever it is doesn't work or has faults, look at even the best most expensive technology in the world, they all have glitchs, errors and periods where they need fixing at the most imprtant times! The horse racing example is completely different to the flow of a game of football.

 

The only problem with what i suggested is that play would have to be stopped if the ball had stayed live. The technology isn't the issue as racing has shown it works. Should games be stopped for any reason other than injuries? Probably not. The more I think about it the more torn I am over this.

[Sour Mash]

The only problem with what i suggested is that play would have to be stopped if the ball had stayed live. The technology isn't the issue as racing has shown it works. Should games be stopped for any reason other than injuries? Probably not. The more I think about it the more torn I am over this.

 

On a sperate point, how many games a year are decided on whether or not a ball has crossed the line? Very, very few in my opinion, probably less than 1%.

[Arizona]

Posted this on another thread on the main forum and can't be bothered to rewrite it!

 

There is an obvious scenario that no-one has been able to give me a clear answer to. At what point is the game stopped for a decison to be made? Next time the ball goes out of play? What if after a penalty shout, the defending team goes up the other end and scores and that is the next time the ball goes out of play? Imagine the goal might not count, every stands around for 4 or 5 mins while the penalty shout gets replayed enough times and from different angles for the decision being made? It would kill the game.

 

Or if you stopped play straight away and had a bounce ball once the decision had been made, again it would become a slow moving, scrappy farce. And who would decide which incidents were relayed to a video judgement?

 

Football thrives on it's pace, the way it can flow from one end to the other and back again. Video technology will not stop the controversy, but just slow down and kill a large part of what makes watching football entertaining.

 

Just because something might work in another sport doesn't mean it would work in football, you are in no way comparing like with like.

 

There will obviously have to be some finer details to the system. Just as an example:

 

Penalty appeal, the other teams goes up the other end and scores before the ball goes out of play. If the penalty is given on review, the goal is disallowed. If the penalty isn't given, the goal is allowed to stand.

 

Did the ball cross the line Depends on the system. If it is based on some kind of transponder signal from the ball, then there would be an instant indication that the goal is scored. If it is done with a goal line camera, then wait until the goal goes out of play.

 

I haven't a clue where you've got 4 or 5 minutes from. Sounds like a massive exageration tao me. Whenever I watch a game on TV and a goal is disallowed, 10 seconds later I'm watching a slow motion instant replay and 15 seconds later Andy Gray is telling me, "ah nooo way, that was ne'er offside."

 

I don't think it will slow the game down at all. With most penalties there is always a gap of about a minute between the foul, the rolling on the floor, the players protesting, the opposing team protesting when it is given, the ref telling the lot of them to p*ss off, clearing the box of players, telling the goalie to get back on his line, booking the goalie for gamesmanship and the penalty finally being taken.

[St Landrew]

Of course but would Germany have committed so many men forward if it had been 2-2? I doubt it and no St Landrew I don't believe it was miles over the line and neither do you !!

 

I was there. I spoke to Roger Hunt afterwards. O:)

[St Landrew]

So you would quite happily have sat in the stands watching Maradonna at Mexico '86 and thought, "brilliant, what fantastic cheating that was, I'm glad the ref didn't spot it."?

 

We're not talking about a video ref on EVERY dodgy offside, 50-50 foul or whether he did get the ball with the tackle etc. It's simple things like did the ball cross the line or blatant cheating that need ruling out. Having a system like in cricket where you're only allowed a set number of video appeals, say 2 or 3, wouldn't slow down the play.

 

Obviously we can't do anything about Maradonna and the awful Hand of God moment. To think that a cheating player actually enhanced his career from that is astonishing, but he effectively did.

 

But France are going to the World Cup through a blatant handball. Let's not get bogged down on previous incidents that Ireland were lucky to come out of, earlier in the tournament, but concentrate on that one decision. A total injustice was committed. It doesn't matter which team benefitted, and which team didn't. Cheating went on and it was effectively rewarded. Video technology would have reversed that decision and perhaps another team would be at the WC2010.

 

I don't give a monkey's about the crowd shouting at the lino, or the ref. I don't care if it spoils your day, if that scenario would be taken away. The wrong decision spoils the sport. End of. The idea is to get the decisions correct, without a shadow of a doubt. Would you like the refereee to disappear altogether so you could argue everything..? Of course not, so stop being so traditional and head-in-the-sand. Video technology takes us down that road of the correct decision. It should be implemented ASAP.

 

BTW, the last time I looked, arguing with the ref slowed down play.

[Sour Mash]

There will obviously have to be some finer details to the system. Just as an example:

 

Penalty appeal, the other teams goes up the other end and scores before the ball goes out of play. If the penalty is given on review, the goal is disallowed. If the penalty isn't given, the goal is allowed to stand.

 

Did the ball cross the line Depends on the system. If it is based on some kind of transponder signal from the ball, then there would be an instant indication that the goal is scored. If it is done with a goal line camera, then wait until the goal goes out of play.

 

I haven't a clue where you've got 4 or 5 minutes from. Sounds like a massive exageration tao me. Whenever I watch a game on TV and a goal is disallowed, 10 seconds later I'm watching a slow motion instant replay and 15 seconds later Andy Gray is telling me, "ah nooo way, that was ne'er offside."

 

I don't think it will slow the game down at all. With most penalties there is always a gap of about a minute between the foul, the rolling on the floor, the players protesting, the opposing team protesting when it is given, the ref telling the lot of them to p*ss off, clearing the box of players, telling the goalie to get back on his line, booking the goalie for gamesmanship and the penalty finally being taken.

 

So your team might get a last minute winner in a cup tie, you should all be going ballistic, but instead have to stand there scratching your @rse for a few minutes to see if a penalty should have been given 5 minutes previously down at the other end! And you think that won't kill the game! And there are LOADS of cases where even after numerous video replays no-one can decide if its a foul or not, so you might have a few mintues where they have to replay the footage over and over to see if there was a touch by the defender or not and its still not conclusive.

 

Yes the 4 or 5 minute thing is an exageration, I'm sure a lot of the cases could be decided in less than that, but there will be plenty of cases that take longer, we see it on sky etc at half time when they reshow an incident over and over again, get clips from different angles etc to make the correct the decision and still no-one is sure.

 

I was at the game at Tranmere on Saturday and think at a fair estimate you would have had to have broken play at least 10 times to check video footage of key decisions, none of which have been particularly clear even when viewed numerous times on video.

 

And who decides when a decision is referred to a video referee?

 

The only one that I will give you, although I'm certainly not a fan of the idea, is the sensor on the goal line to say if the ball has crossed, on the basis that it is immediate and undisputable and in no way detracts from the flow or excitement of the game.

[chrisobee]

I'd agree with technology on the goal line, the argument often put forward that it is not practical at all levels does not mean it should not be used when livelihoods depend in it. Most other issues in my opinion are caused not just and possibly not mainly due to incompetent refs but by a lack of common sense and refs wanting to make a name for themselves. Even though it was 40 odd years ago I remember Hugh Fisher being so annoyed at a refereeing decision he chased the ref and in the process proceeded to knock him over. It was so clearly an accident, these days I suggest 99% of refs would have sent him off, in this instance ( sorry but I cannot recall the ref but hats off to you ) the referee just got up with a helping hand from Hughy, they exchanged a few friendly words and a joke, end of. Sadly that would rarely happen these days.

[Arizona]

So your team might get a last minute winner in a cup tie, you should all be going ballistic, but instead have to stand there scratching your @rse for a few minutes to see if a penalty should have been given 5 minutes previously down at the other end! And you think that won't kill the game! And there are LOADS of cases where even after numerous video replays no-one can decide if its a foul or not, so you might have a few mintues where they have to replay the footage over and over to see if there was a touch by the defender or not and its still not conclusive.

 

Yes the 4 or 5 minute thing is an exageration, I'm sure a lot of the cases could be decided in less than that, but there will be plenty of cases that take longer, we see it on sky etc at half time when they reshow an incident over and over again, get clips from different angles etc to make the correct the decision and still no-one is sure.

 

I was at the game at Tranmere on Saturday and think at a fair estimate you would have had to have broken play at least 10 times to check video footage of key decisions, none of which have been particularly clear even when viewed numerous times on video.

 

And who decides when a decision is referred to a video referee?

 

The only one that I will give you, although I'm certainly not a fan of the idea, is the sensor on the goal line to say if the ball has crossed, on the basis that it is immediate and undisputable and in no way detracts from the flow or excitement of the game.

 

Again, you persist with the "several minutes" line, but it really would only take seconds. As an example, here's a tackle viewed in slow motion from 2 different camera angles. Takes all of 10s to watch it. This challenge earned a yellow card, when in reality it was a terrible lunge and easily warranted a red. It would have taken seconds for a 5th official to look at that replay and say, "it's violent conduct, definite red" into a headset.

 

 

Obviously there would have to be limits on the use of this, like in cricket for example. A team only has say 3 video appeals per match. They can only be used for penalty or red card offences for example. I doubt there were 10 such offences at Tranmere.

 

Or how about this example. A replay is shown on the TV footage and when it cuts back to the live feed, the players are still arguing about it.

 

 

The video ref could have said, "yellow is fine" or "that's a red" before play would naturally have recommenced anyway, with zero seconds delay.

[St Landrew]

Arizona. It's no use. Anyone who cites the time video technology would take to validate or reverse a decision, doesn't examine how time is wasted when a questionable decision [or even a perfectly good one] is argued over by players, while they intimidate a referee. You don't need examples.

 

ManU players have a reputation for it. Arsenal players don't walk away, but easily eat up playing time, complaining. It's no wonder there is often 6-10 minutes of added on time at the end of a match.

 

Why can't the game be played fairly..? Video technology would help to ensure that.

[skintsaint]

With video technology the game would be dull....no controversy..and for that reason I dont want it. Meh it goes against the teams I support sometimes...but its good when it works for us. Good decison FIFA.

[Sour Mash]

Again, you persist with the "several minutes" line, but it really would only take seconds. As an example, here's a tackle viewed in slow motion from 2 different camera angles. Takes all of 10s to watch it. This challenge earned a yellow card, when in reality it was a terrible lunge and easily warranted a red. It would have taken seconds for a 5th official to look at that replay and say, "it's violent conduct, definite red" into a headset.

 

 

Obviously there would have to be limits on the use of this, like in cricket for example. A team only has say 3 video appeals per match. They can only be used for penalty or red card offences for example. I doubt there were 10 such offences at Tranmere.

 

Or how about this example. A replay is shown on the TV footage and when it cuts back to the live feed, the players are still arguing about it.

 

 

The video ref could have said, "yellow is fine" or "that's a red" before play would naturally have recommenced anyway, with zero seconds delay.

 

If you read what I posted, I agreed that there would be plenty of cases where it takes "only" 30 seconds to make a decision. But there will be plenty of decisions that do take longer, Saturday's game at Tranmere is actually an excellent reason why video technology shouldn't be brought in, despite the ref making many incorrect and extremely frustrating decisions. There were numerous moment sof dispute during the game (when it was in full flow), that if referred to a video official in the stand would have taken numerous views to reach a decision and even then would not have proven conclusive. It would have massively disrupted the game. And despite the Saints players having a fair old moan at times, at no point did they significantly hold up play by doing so.

 

You say teams would only have 3 appeals per match - Saints would have wanted at least double that on Saturday. And teams will obviously use that tactically to slow down and stop play when suits them and they're under pressure. It won't ever be introduced as it won't work.

[Arizona]

With video technology the game would be dull....no controversy..and for that reason I dont want it. Meh it goes against the teams I support sometimes...but its good when it works for us. Good decison FIFA.

 

So the 5-0 win against Huddersfield was dull, but you really enjoyed the Tranmere match because of the controversy?:confused:

 

If you read what I posted, I agreed that there would be plenty of cases where it takes "only" 30 seconds to make a decision. But there will be plenty of decisions that do take longer, Saturday's game at Tranmere is actually an excellent reason why video technology shouldn't be brought in, despite the ref making many incorrect and extremely frustrating decisions. There were numerous moment sof dispute during the game (when it was in full flow), that if referred to a video official in the stand would have taken numerous views to reach a decision and even then would not have proven conclusive. It would have massively disrupted the game. And despite the Saints players having a fair old moan at times, at no point did they significantly hold up play by doing so.

 

You say teams would only have 3 appeals per match - Saints would have wanted at least double that on Saturday. And teams will obviously use that tactically to slow down and stop play when suits them and they're under pressure. It won't ever be introduced as it won't work.

 

Why? It just wouldn't. I've just shown you a slow-mo replay from 2 different angles, which took 10 seconds to watch. Under what circumstances would it take minutes. Every time I've ever seen a penalty or red card offence on TV, there is ALWAYS a replay before play resumes.

 

Why would Saints have wanted 6 appeals on Saturday? Were there 3 penalty appeals and 3 sendings off? We're not talking about every foul or offside decision.

[Sour Mash]

Why? It just wouldn't. I've just shown you a slow-mo replay from 2 different angles, which took 10 seconds to watch. Under what circumstances would it take minutes. Every time I've ever seen a penalty or red card offence on TV, there is ALWAYS a replay before play resumes.

 

Why would Saints have wanted 6 appeals on Saturday? Were there 3 penalty appeals and 3 sendings off? We're not talking about every foul or offside decision.

 

Yes, we would have contested over three different penalty decisions and would probably have had a very good sending off shout when their centre back held back Barnard in the 2nd half when he was trying to run through on goal. There are plenty of decisions that are shown over and over after a game or say on match of the day, where none of the pundits can agree what the decision should be and can take ages trying to slow it down and look at it at different angles to get a decision.

 

And you still don't see the problems that would be caused by stopping a game of football mid-flow 6 times throughout a match? Or that teams will very carefully choose when they think there has been a "sending off" or "penalty" decision against them when they're 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go and they want to slow the game down and have a breather and still have a couple of appeals left to use!

[St Landrew]

With video technology the game would be dull....no controversy..and for that reason I dont want it. Meh it goes against the teams I support sometimes...but its good when it works for us. Good decison FIFA.

 

Seeing as objectivity is not your strong suit, I'll suggest this. The first time another team handballs their way to promotion, or a title, or a Cup win, over Saints, you'll be the first to sign the petition for change.

 

How do you like that meh..?

[Arizona]

Yes, we would have contested over three different penalty decisions and would probably have had a very good sending off shout when their centre back held back Barnard in the 2nd half when he was trying to run through on goal. There are plenty of decisions that are shown over and over after a game or say on match of the day, where none of the pundits can agree what the decision should be and can take ages trying to slow it down and look at it at different angles to get a decision.

 

And you still don't see the problems that would be caused by stopping a game of football mid-flow 6 times throughout a match? Or that teams will very carefully choose when they think there has been a "sending off" or "penalty" decision against them when they're 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go and they want to slow the game down and have a breather and still have a couple of appeals left to use!

 

As I said, there are finer points to be worked out, but the system would work. Let's say you refer your complaint to the video ref. If it is upheld, you don't lose one of your three calls. If it is dismissed, you do.

 

With regards to time wasting, any time wasted would just go into stoppage time. There would also have to be a yellow/red car offence or penalty claim for the video ref to be called in the first place. Obviously you wouldn't have a system where a team is taking a throw in on the halfway line and the oposition can just claim a penalty to waste time. There would have to be some kind of punishment for frivolous use of the system.

 

I'll say it one final time. Video technology would not stop play for periods of several minutes. 5-10 seconds for the producer to broadcast a replay. 10s for the 5th official to watch it and give a verdict. We waste more time than that waiting for a goal kick to be taken sometimes. If he cannot make a decision based on the TV camera, then they should just go with the ref's original verdict.

[Sour Mash]

As I said, there are finer points to be worked out, but the system would work. Let's say you refer your complaint to the video ref. If it is upheld, you don't lose one of your three calls. If it is dismissed, you do.

 

With regards to time wasting, any time wasted would just go into stoppage time. There would also have to be a yellow/red car offence or penalty claim for the video ref to be called in the first place. Obviously you wouldn't have a system where a team is taking a throw in on the halfway line and the oposition can just claim a penalty to waste time. There would have to be some kind of punishment for frivolous use of the system.

 

I'll say it one final time. Video technology would not stop play for periods of several minutes. 5-10 seconds for the producer to broadcast a replay. 10s for the 5th official to watch it and give a verdict. We waste more time than that waiting for a goal kick to be taken sometimes. If he cannot make a decision based on the TV camera, then they should just go with the ref's original verdict.

 

I give up ](*,)

[bungle]

Technology in football is just another aspect of turning the game into a business, rather than the sport it is an should be. It would be something that would ruin the game even more, taking it away from the fan and towards the TV company.

 

We must keep technology out of football.

 

Edit: And, quite frankly, can anyone give me a sport using video technology where the decision of the video official has NEVER been questioned?

[Arizona]

I give up ](*,)

 

Me too. ](*,)

 

Technology in football is just another aspect of turning the game into a business, rather than the sport it is an should be. It would be something that would ruin the game even more, taking it away from the fan and towards the TV company.

 

We must keep technology out of football.

 

Edit: And, quite frankly, can anyone give me a sport using video technology where the decision of the video official has NEVER been questioned?

 

Ever a man of my word...

 

In what way could video technology possibly be geared towards a business venture and money for TV companies? How do fand benefit from being cheated by pooir refereeing?

 

Regarding your second point, No. Can you name anything in the history of the universe, ever, which has never failed or been questioned? This technology isn't supposed to completely remove all controversy from football. It will just stamp out some of the ridiculous injustices. Things like the 'hand of God', Mark Hughes' "goal" against Leeds at the Dell, Rivaldo getting hit in the "face" by that Turkish player at 2002 World Cup, Henry vs ROI. et.

[Block 5]

So you would quite happily have sat in the stands watching Maradonna at Mexico '86 and thought, "brilliant, what fantastic cheating that was, I'm glad the ref didn't spot it."?

 

We're not talking about a video ref on EVERY dodgy offside, 50-50 foul or whether he did get the ball with the tackle etc. It's simple things like did the ball cross the line or blatant cheating that need ruling out. Having a system like in cricket where you're only allowed a set number of video appeals, say 2 or 3, wouldn't slow down the play.

 

Like it or not, the hand of God cheating incident is one of the most memorable moments in world sporting history, and will be a talking point for many years to come.

I think that's a good thing.

He cheated. He got away with it.

We felt aggrieved and hard done by, but I'm sure the rest of the world laughed and though good luck to him.

 

You say that the technology wouldn't be used for every dodgy offside, 50-50 foul etc, but you don't know that. You have no idea where we would end up in 20 years time.

 

You mention cricket as an example of how technology works in sport but let's be honest, cricket is as dull as ditchwater. Tennis is the same.

I laugh when I see cricket fans watching a big screen to see if the video umpire will rule someone in or out, it's hilarious because it's pathetic.

 

Keep Pandora's box closed and keep technology out of football.

[St Landrew]

Like it or not, the hand of God cheating incident is one of the most memorable moments in world sporting history, and will be a talking point for many years to come.

I think that's a good thing.

He cheated. He got away with it.

We felt aggrieved and hard done by, but I'm sure the rest of the world laughed and though good luck to him.

 

 

You're effectively advocating cheating. The sport isn't filled with footballers and managers with snooker players honesty. They need to be caught and the right decision needs to be arrived at. I don't care whether it spoils the fun [it won't, in any case], if the right decision will prevail 99% of the time. All you video technology objectors will change your minds instantly the moment a big, game or season defining, decision is made against Saints, so why wait until then..? Head in the sand mentality doesn't even come close.

 

However, I gave up in a previous post, trying to get people to see reason, and I notice Arizona gave up a few posts later. I'm still absolutely staggered by your attitudes though. You guys don't even want the technology put to the test to see if it works. What are you scared of..? The fact that it'll probably work..? And now you have FIFA for company. Ridiculous.

[teamsaint]

You're effectively advocating cheating. The sport isn't filled with footballers and managers with snooker players honesty. They need to be caught and the right decision needs to be arrived at. I don't care whether it spoils the fun [it won't, in any case], if the right decision will prevail 99% of the time. All you video technology objectors will change your minds instantly the moment a big, game or season defining, decision is made against Saints, so why wait until then..? Head in the sand mentality doesn't even come close.

 

However, I gave up in a previous post, trying to get people to see reason, and I notice Arizona gave up a few posts later. I'm still absolutely staggered by your attitudes though. You guys don't even want the technology put to the test to see if it works. What are you scared of..? The fact that it'll probably work..? And now you have FIFA for company. Ridiculous.

 

quite. AND if the hand of god had been disallowed and we had gone on to win, it would have been pretty bloody memorable. As indeed it would have been if maradona's genuine wonder goal had settled the match.

 

Football is badly run on and off the pitch . Its like having the worlds greatest sport run by Eastleigh council.

[bungle]

I imagine that fans across the world would unite to keep technology out of football

 

It isn't wanted, nor needed. Don't ruin our game.

[the stain]

• If it can't be replicated on a Sunday League pitch, it should not form a part of the rules of the game.
  
• The referee is right, his decisions may be marginal, but he is right. He will be reviewed by a panel of his peers, that system is in place, but on the pitch he is the law.
  
• It is not for Sky or any other broadcaster to tell us he is wrong. They so consistently misinterpret the rules themselves, why should we believe them?
  
• The argument that there is too much at stake is an argument that puts money ahead of the game. Look where this argument has got us: clubs going bust, rubbish players are millionnaires, football as soap opera...
  

Basically no, no, no. It's a terrible idea. We don't need infallible technologies to make sure high profile games run without incident, we need to stop acting like children and learn to take the rough with the smooth in the spirit of the drama of the sport. Like we always have done. If you haven't enjoyed football up until now I suspect that's not because of a wounded sense of injustice at contentious refereeing decisions. And if you have enjoyed football, why not carry on enjoying it and ignore the media puffing smoke up the anushole of the Premier League's self-importance, because that's what this is really about.

[exile on main street]

http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/4266/38/

 

what my mate james says, basically.