Blatter's Sorry - Get Ready For Goal line Technology

[Gemmel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8771294.stm

[CB Saint]

Thanks a bunch Sepp

[Whitey Grandad]

I hope not. Blind faith in modern technology is very disturbing and we saw the miscarriage in the England's Rugby match. Television has far too much influence on football already. An extra official on each goal line would be sufficient. All we need are footballers who can hit the net instead of the woodwork. If this had been a German 'goal' nobody would have mentioned it.

[Smirking_Saint]

All you need is a chip in the ball that fires an alert to the referee once the ball has crossed the line.

 

That is what the hawkeye inventor was talking about and IMO the only one that will work. Like Sepp said, you can't afford to stop the game and watch a replay, that will never ever work in football, as you saw in the England V Germany game the ball was still 'in play' and so you can't just stop and look at a screen, that will spoil the game.

 

But surely an alert that was given to the ref would sort it out, it is easy and effective and would not spoil the momentum of the game itself.

 

As for Off sides, you just can't stop and look IMO. And TBF most offside decisions are usually hit or miss.

[SuperMikey]

The chip sounds like a great idea, easier to implement than two hawkeye cameras in each goalframe at every participating tier of domestic and international football as well...

[St Landrew]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8771294.stm

 

Thanks a bunch Sepp

 

Don't think for one moment that the collective abject failure that was the England squad would have been saved by video replay technology. That aside, I can't fathom why there is so much resistance to the introduction of video technology. I think I have been of the opinion that it should be introduced, getting on for about 20+ years. And you don't need a bloody chip in a ball. In 99% of cases where the referee has clearly got it wrong, a simple video playback of the moment will show where the official has gone wrong. It doesn't need high-tech solutions, besides it'll make the cost on introducing it unaffordable. For the time being, a simple feed from the cameras recording matches, with a 4th official is perfectly satisfactory. Then we'll never have any more hand of god [cheat], hand of gaul [cheat], Lampard's disallowed goal, Pedro Mendes disallowed goal [Roy Carroll fumble], Schumacher/Battiston moments, etc, etc...

 

Anyone who believes that basic video replay technology, at least, shouldn't be introduced into professional football, is living in some quaint 1950's era where footballs had laces and footballing chappies were just jolly good sports.

 

EDIT: The Roy Carroll/Pedro Mendes goal is the best example for me. The glance that Carroll gives the lino speaks volumes, and the outrage of the commentators is excellent. You also hear them refer to other poor decisions. Perhaps they would have been put to bed by a simple video replay..?

 

The Goal That Never Was

Edited 29 June, 2010 by St Landrew

[Smirking_Saint]

But what about the fact that you will have to pause the game ??

 

Football is not a stop start game like Rugby, Cricket Etc. Football is flowing.

 

Therefore video replays will never work.

[Barry the Badger]

But what about the fact that you will have to pause the game ?? Football is not a stop start game.

 

The ball is generally out of play for 20-30 minutes of a 90 minute game. Not exactly non-stop is it?

 

You have a point if we are talking about video tech being used for fouls, offsides, was it a corner or a goal kick etc.... But just using them for deciding whether the ball was over the line or not is hardly going to cause massive delays.

Edited 29 June, 2010 by Barry the Badger

[St Landrew]

But what about the fact that you will have to pause the game ??

 

Football is not a stop start game like Rugby, Cricket Etc. Football is flowing.

 

Therefore video replays will never work.

 

And arguing with the referee and having potential punch-ups because of poor decisions or incorrectly administered yellow or red cards doesn't stop the game..? Oh I see, we can have cheats distracting the referee, so that he adds on time at the end of a match, but we can't have a 30 second replay which allows the official to arrive at the correct decision. Ah, now I get it. I see where I was going wrong.

[alpine_saint]

Don't think for one moment that the collective abject failure that was the England squad would have been saved by video replay technology.

 

Hmm, I was of the same opinion as you in the initial aftermath of the game, but as time has gone on, I am of the opinion that this is not the case.

 

Look, we know that English players are sh*te on technique. but they play an extremely fast and agressive type of football that when it is in full tilt, it is difficult to stop.

England came back into this game like a hurricane. We got our goal, and within two or three minutes of pressure got the second goal. that was such a swing in momentum, that Germany were punch-drunk at first, as was shown in the first 20mins of the second half, when it was ALL England. If that goal had gone in, the england players would have been up, the adrenalin pumping, high on energy, but would not have resorted to such desperate risk-taking and panicking.

 

that second half would have looked completely different. Yes, maybe we would have gone out on penalties instead.

 

Actually, I dont know if that would have beena good thing or not. If we had gone out on penos as gallant unlucky losers, no agonising, introspective analysis or demand for change would be going on....

[Whitey Grandad]

We don't need technology for goal decisions. Just dig a trench behind the goal line one ball's width behind the back edge of the painted line. Then the ball would not bounce back into play. Squash courts have a strip of 'tin' at the bottom of the wall, long-jump pits have plasticine where the foot lands. Mind you, a row of steel spikes would do the same job. Whatever method is chosen, there will come a point where the ball is on the edge of a hairline decision, and somebody will have to make a choice.

[skintsaint]

health and safety might want to have a word about that idea

[Scummer]

We don't need technology for goal decisions. Just dig a trench behind the goal line one ball's width behind the back edge of the painted line. Then the ball would not bounce back into play. Squash courts have a strip of 'tin' at the bottom of the wall, long-jump pits have plasticine where the foot lands. Mind you, a row of steel spikes would do the same job. Whatever method is chosen, there will come a point where the ball is on the edge of a hairline decision, and somebody will have to make a choice.

 

You might think this is a clever idea, but you've failed to think of one vital point. What if the ball goes over the line above ground level, and is cleared back out before it comes down?

[Whitey Grandad]

You might think this is a clever idea, but you've failed to think of one vital point. What if the ball goes over the line above ground level, and is cleared back out before it comes down?

Good point! Then we need a wall of something, spikes would do, plasticine would not be so good in my opinion. This would also have the beneficial effect of more goals being scored. Of course, if there were a row of spikes on the ground it is less likely that any player would tyry to clear the ball.

 

This microchip thing was trialled a few years ago by the FA down at Staplewood but nothing ever came of it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The problem is where does it end?

 

If it's just going to be for goalline decisions there will soon be pressure to bring it in for other decisions. Take the 2 incidents at the week-end, what if we combined the two? Tevez's header comes down over the line, like Lampard's did, and the Ref calls for a video reply. The video shows that the ball was over the line, but he was off-side.If it's just for goal-line decisions only they have to give a goal. The pressure will then build to include offsides.They then increase it for offsides and someone scores from a corner that was clearly a goal kick,what is the difference between that, ana a goal line incident? It's a minefield. The only way it could work is each team having 3 appeals a game, perhaps.

[trousers]

The problem is where does it end?

 

If it's just going to be for goalline decisions there will soon be pressure to bring it in for other decisions. Take the 2 incidents at the week-end, what if we combined the two? Tevez's header comes down over the line, like Lampard's did, and the Ref calls for a video reply. The video shows that the ball was over the line, but he was off-side.If it's just for goal-line decisions only they have to give a goal. The pressure will then build to include offsides.They then increase it for offsides and someone scores from a corner that was clearly a goal kick,what is the difference between that, ana a goal line incident? It's a minefield. The only way it could work is each team having 3 appeals a game, perhaps.

 

Spooky. As I was reading through your post I was hatching a reply along the lines of your last sentence.

 

I don't think we need to overburdon the introduction of technology with reams of rules as to what it covers and what it doesn't. As you say, put the ball in the captain's court. Each captain gets three appeals for 'any' refereeing decision and that gets referred to the 'tv ref'.

 

In other words, keep it simple.

 

Win win

[JackFrost]

Why don't they have something like Hawkeye at Wimbledon, and each team are allowed 2 challenges in the game for instance?

[St Landrew]

The problem is where does it end?

 

If it's just going to be for goalline decisions there will soon be pressure to bring it in for other decisions. Take the 2 incidents at the week-end, what if we combined the two? Tevez's header comes down over the line, like Lampard's did, and the Ref calls for a video reply. The video shows that the ball was over the line, but he was off-side.If it's just for goal-line decisions only they have to give a goal. The pressure will then build to include offsides.They then increase it for offsides and someone scores from a corner that was clearly a goal kick,what is the difference between that, ana a goal line incident? It's a minefield. The only way it could work is each team having 3 appeals a game, perhaps.

 

The thing is, you don't limit it to goal line technology, and once FIFA take a look at it, if any of the debating body have any significant IQ level between them, they'll know they can't limit its influence. The simple rule is, the game plays on from the last decision made. The 4th official watching the [large] video screen will radio his doubts over a decision the ref has made, and either overule him or back him, if he agrees. If the ref is honest enough, he'll call for a video confirmation, when he's unsure anyway. It won't lead to every decision being questioned, because eventually referees, linos and 4th officials will find a balance that works. And teams could make say... 3 requests each, when they think there's something wrong, but the officials have previously agreed. When the incidences of incorrect decisions reduce, and the affordable higher technology moves on reliably, then perhaps we can go to something where an instant decision can be made. Of course, that will mean that the game of football will never be so slow and unfair as it is now, because there will be no argument, and players will have no need to get angry. Everybody will calm down and proper football will eventually get played, with hardly any diving, hardly any cheating and very, very few incorrect decisions. And as Jurgen Klinsmann pointed out earlier, we could have a post match trial-by-TV-camera, so that a player doesn't elude justice of some measure, if he's managed to get away with cheating during a match, and especially if he has managed to alter the result by cheating. Imagine if, at a level score, a player handballs the ball to a colleague who scores the winner and the game then ends..? The result could be reversed as a punishment. That would generate snooker player honestly in a flash. No more Hand's of Gaul or God, that's for sure. And anyway, limiting it to goal line technology would let would-be Maradona's score again, which is utterly useless.

 

Frankly, I can't see what all the debate is about. Even simple video replays would save the day and take less time than players arguing at the ref.

[skintsaint]

leave it as it is...talking points in football are always good.

 

game will be more dull in future if every decision was correct.

[Saint in Paradise]

Actually a tremendous help would be having players showing some honesty instead of cheating.

[skintsaint]

thats true, the Jerry keeper must of saw it bounce over the line - its why he done the grab and sprint towards the edge of the box. he didnt do that at all for the rest of the game when he received the ball.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

The thing is, you don't limit it to goal line technology, and once FIFA take a look at it, if any of the debating body have any significant IQ level between them, they'll know they can't limit its influence. The simple rule is, the game plays on from the last decision made. The 4th official watching the [large] video screen will radio his doubts over a decision the ref has made, and either overule him or back him, if he agrees. If the ref is honest enough, he'll call for a video confirmation, when he's unsure anyway. It won't lead to every decision being questioned, because eventually referees, linos and 4th officials will find a balance that works. And teams could make say... 3 requests each, when they think there's something wrong, but the officials have previously agreed. When the incidences of incorrect decisions reduce, and the affordable higher technology moves on reliably, then perhaps we can go to something where an instant decision can be made. Of course, that will mean that the game of football will never be so slow and unfair as it is now, because there will be no argument, and players will have no need to get angry. Everybody will calm down and proper football will eventually get played, with hardly any diving, hardly any cheating and very, very few incorrect decisions. And as Jurgen Klinsmann pointed out earlier, we could have a post match trial-by-TV-camera, so that a player doesn't elude justice of some measure, if he's managed to get away with cheating during a match, and especially if he has managed to alter the result by cheating. Imagine if, at a level score, a player handballs the ball to a colleague who scores the winner and the game then ends..? The result could be reversed as a punishment. That would generate snooker player honestly in a flash. No more Hand's of Gaul or God, that's for sure. And anyway, limiting it to goal line technology would let would-be Maradona's score again, which is utterly useless.

 

Frankly, I can't see what all the debate is about. Even simple video replays would save the day and take less time than players arguing at the ref.

 

Yup! The technology is already there, we saw it at the weekend. It's not as if an instance like this occurs every five minutes in a game.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

thats true, the Jerry keeper must of saw it bounce over the line - its why he done the grab and sprint towards the edge of the box. he didnt do that at all for the rest of the game when he received the ball.

 

Strangely, to me, he looked as if he was awaiting the ref giving the goal? He wanted that ball as far away from that goal as possible which is why he was moving toward the edge of his area with it.

[trousers]

Contrary to popular belief, decisions based on technology actually speed the overall game up rather than slow it down.

 

As we've seen in tennis, there are no more long drawn out disputes about line calls. The players accept the judgement of hawkeye and move on.

 

The one and only reason Blatter oppose ls it is because he's a power hungry control freak. People on his position will always go against the grain because they want to show the world how powerful they are.

[skintsaint]

Contrary to popular belief, decisions based on technology actually speed the overall game up rather than slow it down.

 

linky?

[trousers]

linky?

 

Not sure I can provide a link to my perception, observation and opinion... ;-)

[RonManager]

Not sure I can provide a link to my perception, observation and opinion... ;-)

 

 

Try it, it could be the scientific breakthrough of the century.

[Scummer]

The problem is where does it end?

 

If it's just going to be for goalline decisions there will soon be pressure to bring it in for other decisions.

 

Maybe that's why they favour the microchip option. It's automatic, just sends a beep to the ref. No video, no possibility of looking at other potential offences.

[Pancake]

As we've seen in tennis, there are no more long drawn out disputes about line calls. The players accept the judgement of hawkeye and move on.

 

As has been pointed out on here, other sports that utilise a video/CGI replay system use it when the ball is out of play and play has been stopped.

 

Take the examples linked to on Youtube above when Mendes 'scored' against Man Utd. The ball was over but Carroll collected it and bowled it out back in to play. Should the ref blow up and stop play there? But what i the team now in control of the ball are forming an attack on goal, should the ref stop play just so he can see a replay? Comparing football to start/stop games like tennis, cricket and even rugby isnt right. In all of those there is a nature break in play as part of the game when a video replay could be used.

 

A simple chip in the ball and the goal line that would alert the officials is the easier and most elegant solution. As soon as the ball is over the line, a buz or beep is heard in the officials ear pieces. If the ball was active when it crossed the line (ie, the whistle hadn't already gone for any reason) then the ref can blow up without fear of incorrectly stopping the game and award the goal.

[skintsaint]

Not sure I can provide a link to my perception, observation and opinion... ;-)

 

im confused - so there has been games using technology already?

[Smirking_Saint]

As has been pointed out on here, other sports that utilise a video/CGI replay system use it when the ball is out of play and play has been stopped.

 

Take the examples linked to on Youtube above when Mendes 'scored' against Man Utd. The ball was over but Carroll collected it and bowled it out back in to play. Should the ref blow up and stop play there? But what i the team now in control of the ball are forming an attack on goal, should the ref stop play just so he can see a replay? Comparing football to start/stop games like tennis, cricket and even rugby isnt right. In all of those there is a nature break in play as part of the game when a video replay could be used.

 

A simple chip in the ball and the goal line that would alert the officials is the easier and most elegant solution. As soon as the ball is over the line, a buz or beep is heard in the officials ear pieces. If the ball was active when it crossed the line (ie, the whistle hadn't already gone for any reason) then the ref can blow up without fear of incorrectly stopping the game and award the goal.

 

Exactly

[Sour Mash]

Contrary to popular belief, decisions based on technology actually speed the overall game up rather than slow it down.

 

[Sour Mash]

As has been pointed out on here, other sports that utilise a video/CGI replay system use it when the ball is out of play and play has been stopped.

 

Take the examples linked to on Youtube above when Mendes 'scored' against Man Utd. The ball was over but Carroll collected it and bowled it out back in to play. Should the ref blow up and stop play there? But what i the team now in control of the ball are forming an attack on goal, should the ref stop play just so he can see a replay? Comparing football to start/stop games like tennis, cricket and even rugby isnt right. In all of those there is a nature break in play as part of the game when a video replay could be used.

 

A simple chip in the ball and the goal line that would alert the officials is the easier and most elegant solution. As soon as the ball is over the line, a buz or beep is heard in the officials ear pieces. If the ball was active when it crossed the line (ie, the whistle hadn't already gone for any reason) then the ref can blow up without fear of incorrectly stopping the game and award the goal.

 

Spot on. A microchip (or whatever they will use) and a sensor to confirm if the ball is over the line is the only is the only technology that could possibly work with football. However, even that has its faults. Read somewhere recently that these systems are quite expensive, so for which levels of the game would they be used for? Can't see a lot of League 1 teams being able to afford it. And how often does an "over the line" call actually happen? It's still avery rare occurance, a lot of time, money and effort put into covering the possibility of something that really doesn't happen very often.

[St Landrew]

As has been pointed out on here, other sports that utilise a video/CGI replay system use it when the ball is out of play and play has been stopped.

 

Take the examples linked to on Youtube above when Mendes 'scored' against Man Utd. The ball was over but Carroll collected it and bowled it out back in to play. Should the ref blow up and stop play there? But what i the team now in control of the ball are forming an attack on goal, should the ref stop play just so he can see a replay? Comparing football to start/stop games like tennis, cricket and even rugby isnt right. In all of those there is a nature break in play as part of the game when a video replay could be used.

 

A simple chip in the ball and the goal line that would alert the officials is the easier and most elegant solution. As soon as the ball is over the line, a buz or beep is heard in the officials ear pieces. If the ball was active when it crossed the line (ie, the whistle hadn't already gone for any reason) then the ref can blow up without fear of incorrectly stopping the game and award the goal.

 

Yes..! The referee should stop the game. You're missing the point, mate. The GOAL scored by Mendes would have stopped the game anyhow. The 4th official would have signalled a goal. As we all know, play stops after a goal, and the ball is taken to the centre circle spot, and the teams line up to restart the match. Anything else is wrong, and the team who progress upfield, if the game isn't stopped, would be doing it unfairly. When Geoff Hurst scored his off-the-bar goal against Germany in 1966, the game halted for several seconds while the officials consulted. If today's instant video replay had been available back then, the goal would probably have not stood. But essentially, the correct decision would have been arrived at. Isn't that the most important consideration..? Video replay isn't a fullproof but a further assurance that the correct decision is likely to be arrived at. This is the same for both teams.

 

So, what if Mendes goal, hadn't crossed the line..? The game would have restarted with the ball in the keeper's hands [from where the game would have been stopped] and both teams would have known that a goal hasn't been scored. A relief to one, disappointment to the other. But we do know that the decision has been correct. I still can't see what people are objecting to. Do people like players to get away with cheating for the sake of some mythical flow of the game, or something..? I think football fans are just afraid of change.

 

As to the chip in the ball, how about a post match scenario where it is found to be completely off centre or not functioning at all..? You see..? One can pick holes in any suggestion, yet I know there would be easy ways to overcome that too.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm fairly certain that there were technology trials at Staplewood a few years ago. Does anybody know anything about what the conclusions were?

[The9]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8771294.stm

 

Arf, you haven't been paying much attention to Blatter in the past 12 years have you ?

 

1) Say something that placates the immediate situation

2) Later, say something else that ignores 1)

 

His policy is to maintain the human element of refereeing decisions, so give it a few weeks when the furore has died down and no-one is watching and he'll go back to saying exactly what he was saying before. Just like he did the last time.

[Thedelldays]

just a bloody reply will do....how hard/quick was it to see the ball clearly crossed the line against ze germans

[Evil Monkey]

The chip idea does sound the best solution, but for goals like Lampards, the in goal area of the pitch could just be ever so slightly sloped into the net. That way the ball wouldnt be able to spin out after its hit the pitch behind the line.

[Pancake]

So, what if Mendes goal, hadn't crossed the line..? The game would have restarted with the ball in the keeper's hands [from where the game would have been stopped] and both teams would have known that a goal hasn't been scored. A relief to one, disappointment to the other.

 

And BANG you have shot dead any chance of any team ever scoring "on the break" as very time a ball is kicked anywhere near the goal line the ref will have the blow up and check a TV screen. In the Mendes example, Man Utd got the ball off Crroll and formed an attack at the Spurs goal within seconds.

 

Do people like players to get away with cheating for the sake of some mythical flow of the game, or something..? I think football fans are just afraid of change.

 

Not sure where you are going with the cheating line? No-one on this thread that is opposed to video technology on the GOAL LINE (after all, that is the title of the thread) has mentioned about condoning cheating.

 

And how can "we" be affriad of a change when we are suggesting a perfectly acceptable 'change' that would still allow the natural flow of the fast paced modern game?

[St Landrew]

And BANG you have shot dead any chance of any team ever scoring "on the break" as very time a ball is kicked anywhere near the goal line the ref will have the blow up and check a TV screen. In the Mendes example, Man Utd got the ball off Crroll and formed an attack at the Spurs goal within seconds.

 

 

 

Not sure where you are going with the cheating line? No-one on this thread that is opposed to video technology on the GOAL LINE (after all, that is the title of the thread) has mentioned about condoning cheating.

 

And how can "we" be affriad of a change when we are suggesting a perfectly acceptable 'change' that would still allow the natural flow of the fast paced modern game?

 

Because some people still don't want video technology. I, on the other hand, want all the video technology that a referee can have at his disposal to enhance his capabilities. As for stopping the game - I thought I cited a perfectly good example of where the referee DID stop a game, where there was a questionable decision. There would be no new precedent in stoppping a game. And btw, the ref wouldn't be stopping the game unless the 4th official, watching the video screen, advised to call the game to a halt.

 

You know as well as I do, that the idea that Man U were forming an attack from Carroll within seconds, is neither here nor there. If they are doing if against a background of an incorrect decision then it is unfair, whether intended or otherwise. Mendes scored and that is that. The record books show otherwise.

[Thedelldays]

why does a game need to be stopped to check..?

 

why have cameras on the goal lines..with an official with the ability to select replays and slow them down at a touch of the button and in comms with the ref

[hypochondriac]

Apparently with the chip in te ball thing, the referee can wear a watch which instantly tells them if it crossed the line or not.

[Smirking_Saint]

Apparently with the chip in te ball thing, the referee can wear a watch which instantly tells them if it crossed the line or not.

 

This is my point, no need to stop the game then simples.

 

As for St Landrew and Pancakes point, i just don't think St Landrew gets it.

 

What if it didn't cross the line ? Then Man Utd would have been stopped in their tracks attempting to counter attack for no reason whatsoever and will create more issues. Where as, as soon as the ball crosses the line a little alarm goes off for the ref, easy.

 

As for the diving etc, just have after game video replays and card the cheaters that have been found out. Or alternatively when the ref has blown for the foul and wants to decide if it is a red THEN the 4th official can check the video replay and aid the referee.

 

But all that is here nor there, the OP is should we have GOAL LINE TECHNOLOGY and a simple chip that alerts when it crosses the line will sort it instantly.

[St Landrew]

This is my point, no need to stop the game then simples.

 

As for St Landrew and Pancakes point, i just don't think St Landrew gets it.

 

What if it didn't cross the line ? Then Man Utd would have been stopped in their tracks attempting to counter attack for no reason whatsoever and will create more issues. Where as, as soon as the ball crosses the line a little alarm goes off for the ref, easy.

 

As for the diving etc, just have after game video replays and card the cheaters that have been found out. Or alternatively when the ref has blown for the foul and wants to decide if it is a red THEN the 4th official can check the video replay and aid the referee.

 

But all that is here nor there, the OP is should we have GOAL LINE TECHNOLOGY and a simple chip that alerts when it crosses the line will sort it instantly.

 

Oh I get it, all right. It's the wringing of hands from FIFA, for donkey's years about whether something is going to be worthwhile, stop the flow of the game, etc, etc... that I don't get. The situation has needed sorting ever since the first professional footballer got away with something he shouldn't have, because the referee was unable to see well enough. Video technology could have been in place, quite affordably, bloody years ago. It would have stopped 99% of the squabbles that have grown up since then, and the obvious backing off of trust of referees and officials reputation in that time. Note that before video replays, the reputation of referees at the time was undimmed. As soon as instant replays came in, we knew they were fallible. I'm also quite happy to have the chip in the ball on top of video replay technology. But let's not have nothing instead, if the chip-in-a-ball system doesn't work upto expectations.

[Gemmel]

Oh I get it, all right. It's the wringing of hands from FIFA, for donkey's years about whether something is going to be worthwhile, stop the flow of the game, etc, etc... that I don't get. The situation has needed sorting ever since the first professional footballer got away with something he shouldn't have, because the referee was unable to see well enough. Video technology could have been in place, quite affordably, bloody years ago. It would have stopped 99% of the squabbles that have grown up since then, and the obvious backing off of trust of referees and officials reputation in that time. Note that before video replays, the reputation of referees at the time was undimmed. As soon as instant replays came in, we knew they were fallible. I'm also quite happy to have the chip in the ball on top of video replay technology. But let's not have nothing instead, if the chip-in-a-ball system doesn't work upto expectations.

 

 

St Landrew is spot on the money.

 

Just as an aside, for those that are 30 and over what time did games finish in the 70's 80'snd even the 90s?

 

Where did this extra 10 minutes come from....if we can accomodate that, then a couple of technology stops wouldn't be an issue.

[Whitey Grandad]

St Landrew is spot on the money.

 

Just as an aside, for those that are 30 and over what time did games finish in the 70's 80'snd even the 90s?

 

Where did this extra 10 minutes come from....if we can accomodate that, then a couple of technology stops wouldn't be an issue.

 

10 mins for half time, no video recordings, just memories. The game wasn't over until the referee said so. Even the 1966 World Cup final wasn't seen again until a colour film was released in the cinemas. If you saw a goal at a live game you'd never see it again. The only live game on the tele was the Cup Final once a year. You could never show that the ref or linesman had made mistake.

[1576]

why does a game need to be stopped to check..?

 

why have cameras on the goal lines..with an official with the ability to select replays and slow them down at a touch of the button and in comms with the ref

 

Exactly, I don't think it is that difficult either.

 

In the Germany match as an example, a fourth official watching a feed of purely along the goal line would have known within seconds that it was a goal. Signal to the referee that it was a goal, he blows up stopping play and gives a goal.

 

In both cases (Germany - England and the Mendes goal) how far up the pitch would the other team have got in the couple of seconds that the game would have continued?

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Hawkeye needs to come in without question. No-one gives a stuff about Hackney Marshes but at professional levels of the game it is a no brainer. If there is no room for technology in football how come Adidas get to reinvent the football every 4 years?

[Sour Mash]

If there is no room for technology in football how come Adidas get to reinvent the football every 4 years?

 

Well they shouldn't be allowed to, as that particular "change in technology" clearly hasn't worked. Probably not the best example to back up your argument.

[Whitey Grandad]

Hawkeye needs to come in without question. No-one gives a stuff about Hackney Marshes but at professional levels of the game it is a no brainer. If there is no room for technology in football how come Adidas get to reinvent the football every 4 years?

 

Hawkeye is certainly not infallible: http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/01/24/nine-admits-hawk-eye-not-foolproof/

Anything based on trying to observe a blur from tv cameras over 50 metres away is only ever going to give an approximate estimation of the ball's trajectory. With a hard ball like the one used in cricket there is probably less scope for aerial deviation but a football can move all over the place depending on gust of wind, temperature, spin, and hardness of the pitch. Besides, this was developed at Roke Manor and I wouldn't place blind trust in anything that came out of there.