Goal Line Technology

[PhilippineSaint]

Since its introduction at the beginning of this season for the premier league have we had a goal awarded or crossed off because of its use ?

[thornhill_saints]

one I believe not last weekend the weekend before

[Dr Who?]

I cannot think of one. I think there has been a few that have not crossed the line and have been reviewed, but the officials were correct, as the ball had not crossed the line. There has not been any referred and a goal given, because the officials were wrong.

[Barry the Badger]

I cannot think of one. I think there has been a few that have not crossed the line and have been reviewed, but the officials were correct, as the ball had not crossed the line. There has not been any referred and a goal given, because the officials were wrong.

 

That's because they don't get referred. The officials won't be wrong, the ref is wearing a watch which tells him the answer.

[Johnny Bognor]

Not a great fan of this technology. How many times does it happen in a season in all games? Compare that to how many bad offside decisions there are which either lead to a goal or prevent a good goal scoring opportunity. If there is to be technology, it should be to cover the offside rule.

[Sour Mash]

I cannot think of one. I think there has been a few that have not crossed the line and have been reviewed, but the officials were correct, as the ball had not crossed the line. There has not been any referred and a goal given, because the officials were wrong.

You just made all that up didn't you?

[ashleyb5443]

One step at a time, sure technology will be used in many years to come as it advances. It's typical though, everyone is calling for it to come on and then hardly used at all.

How long will it be before there's chips in every players boots to work out if they're offside and then something inside the ball as well?

Not sure if is like to see it in my lifetime.

[Give it to Ron]

One step at a time, sure technology will be used in many years to come as it advances. It's typical though, everyone is calling for it to come on and then hardly used at all.

How long will it be before there's chips in every players boots to work out if they're offside and then something inside the ball as well?

Not sure if is like to see it in my lifetime.

 

They are working on offside already, I went to a presentation by one of the suppliers the other day - fascinating to see and hear what they have done so far.

Its not only the ref that gets a watch its assts and 4th official - they actually take 6 watches to each game.

[Alanh]

It has pretty much stopped all of the haranguing of the referee when the attacking team think the ball has crossed the line. They all know now that the ref has the definitive answer and so you don't see them all getting in his face to argue that the ball was in. MOTD have shown a couple of incidents where the technology has proved that the ball has not crossed the line, but I don't think there have been any examples of the ball just crossing the line before being cleared back into play.

[Hatch]

Does the fact that there has been no controversy suggest that it is working.

[DuncanRG]

Does the fact that there has been no controversy suggest that it is working.

 

Bingo.

 

You don't get too many incidents and never have, but they're important enough to be worth fixing. Instant offside judgements are the next thing as someone said, and that would have an enormous impact.

[stevegrant]

Unless the offside rule is simplified considerably, I don't see how Hawkeye (or similar) could be used to provide instant accurate decisions - there are far too many variables.

 

With GLT, it's straightforward as you have a fixed area and a static line to concentrate on.

 

With offside, though, you've got a multitude of issues:

1. a defensive line that could be anywhere from the goal line to the halfway line (a variance of around 50 yards);

2. a need to know the exact moment the ball was played forwards;

3. a need to know whether the ball has been deflected significantly (down to interpretation by the referee) by a defender en route;

4. a need to know whether the defending team's goalkeeper is further forward than the last outfielder which would change the position of the defensive line as the rule states the second-last defender (the last is usually the goalkeeper);

5. a need to know whether the attacker is interfering with play (again, can be down to the interpretation of the referee)

and probably a few others I've not thought of.

 

Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

[The Kraken]

I genuinely can't see how technology could work for offsides, other than going down the video replay route which I'm very much not in favour of.

 

In terms if GLT it's a very minor thing but it's clearly good that it's been introduced and gives the officials one less thing to worry about.

[Huffton]

I guess it could work if the linesman was given an indication of when a player strayed offside, maybe the watch could vibrate or something all the while the player is offside, he then just needs to wait for the ball to be played forward and to decide if the player is interfering with play. Theres too many variables to give a definitive answer but it would stop any 'his knee was offside' type arguements.

Edited 17 December, 2013 by Huffton

[Matthew Le God]

Since its introduction at the beginning of this season for the premier league have we had a goal awarded or crossed off because of its use ?

 

That doesn't really make sense as a question. Every Southampton shot that went over the line this season has set off the referee's watch telling him its a goal within a second of going over the line, every shot Southampton have had that didn't go in the goal didn't set off the referee's watch.

[Give it to Ron]

Unless the offside rule is simplified considerably, I don't see how Hawkeye (or similar) could be used to provide instant accurate decisions - there are far too many variables.

 

With GLT, it's straightforward as you have a fixed area and a static line to concentrate on.

 

With offside, though, you've got a multitude of issues:

1. a defensive line that could be anywhere from the goal line to the halfway line (a variance of around 50 yards);

2. a need to know the exact moment the ball was played forwards;

3. a need to know whether the ball has been deflected significantly (down to interpretation by the referee) by a defender en route;

4. a need to know whether the defending team's goalkeeper is further forward than the last outfielder which would change the position of the defensive line as the rule states the second-last defender (the last is usually the goalkeeper);

5. a need to know whether the attacker is interfering with play (again, can be down to the interpretation of the referee)

and probably a few others I've not thought of.

 

Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

 

Agreed and they are just proposing the solution to the FA but got the impression it was not that well received as an idea. The multiple cameras etc took into consideration above and had a very short delay to check - last played by...etc

The inventor sounded very confident - this is not new they have been working on this for 5-6 years at least.

[Ekelund24]

Unless the offside rule is simplified considerably, I don't see how Hawkeye (or similar) could be used to provide instant accurate decisions - there are far too many variables.

 

With GLT, it's straightforward as you have a fixed area and a static line to concentrate on.

 

With offside, though, you've got a multitude of issues:

1. a defensive line that could be anywhere from the goal line to the halfway line (a variance of around 50 yards);

2. a need to know the exact moment the ball was played forwards;

3. a need to know whether the ball has been deflected significantly (down to interpretation by the referee) by a defender en route;

4. a need to know whether the defending team's goalkeeper is further forward than the last outfielder which would change the position of the defensive line as the rule states the second-last defender (the last is usually the goalkeeper);

5. a need to know whether the attacker is interfering with play (again, can be down to the interpretation of the referee)

and probably a few others I've not thought of.

 

Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

 

I'm sure there is a way of tracking it via the Pro-zone/OPTA cameras and feeding it to the referee on a watch BUT that would have to involve an extra official in a booth watching the game and a slight delay which could slow down the game. I don't think it could be fully automated as the rules are subjective

[The9]

Since its introduction at the beginning of this season for the premier league have we had a goal awarded or crossed off because of its use ?

 

No, because the watch only tells the officials when there's a goal, and if it doesn't say "GOAL!" it doesn't get awarded.

 

I've only seen maybe 2 incidents even worthy of review all season, one of which was clearly not all across the line but last season would have had 90% of pundits frothing at the mouth that it wasn't given.

 

I was very against the introduction of technology becasue it couldn't be implemented across all levels of football, but it has completely taken the ref's interpretation out of situations. If the ref doesn't get a signal, there's pretty much no discussion to be had, and that's actually very positive in terms of removing player dissent, because they all know the tech won't be wrong.

[The9]

Unless the offside rule is simplified considerably, I don't see how Hawkeye (or similar) could be used to provide instant accurate decisions - there are far too many variables.

 

With GLT, it's straightforward as you have a fixed area and a static line to concentrate on.

 

With offside, though, you've got a multitude of issues:

1. a defensive line that could be anywhere from the goal line to the halfway line (a variance of around 50 yards);

2. a need to know the exact moment the ball was played forwards;

3. a need to know whether the ball has been deflected significantly (down to interpretation by the referee) by a defender en route;

4. a need to know whether the defending team's goalkeeper is further forward than the last outfielder which would change the position of the defensive line as the rule states the second-last defender (the last is usually the goalkeeper);

5. a need to know whether the attacker is interfering with play (again, can be down to the interpretation of the referee)

and probably a few others I've not thought of.

 

Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

 

They would only need to indicate if there's a player in an offside position when the ball is played (or at least when the lino looks at his watch), the rest of it can be worked out around that from the officials doing the interpretation.

 

Say you have a colour onscreen when a player is beyond the last defender, and it disappears when everyone is onside. Then the lino can hold his arm up to check the watch indicator in peripheral vision whilst looking at the players in the distance and work out whether the recipient is interfering.

 

The only problem with an "ON/OFF" only indicator would be if there were non-interfering players in offside positions and the ball recipient was in an onside position, but I guess they could list shirt numbers or something on-screen in that situation.

 

Yeah, ok, still needs work.

[Big Bad Bob]

Worked last night

[Saint86]

There have been numerous decisions that don't need to be made because of the tech.

 

Also last night Lampard's Chelsea goal was given because of hawkeye in the league cup.

 

It seems madness that we never used it before. So simple, and completely removes any contentious decision making regarding goals. Hopefully it will get brought in for offside next.

[Lets B Avenue]

Ironic that it was Lampard and also that it took place in the League Cup, which was using it for the first time.

[Big Bad Bob]

There have been numerous decisions that don't need to be made because of the tech.

 

Also last night Lampard's Chelsea goal was given because of hawkeye in the league cup.

 

It seems madness that we never used it before. So simple, and completely removes any contentious decision making regarding goals. Hopefully it will get brought in for offside next.

 

Ironic that it was Lampard and also that it took place in the League Cup, which was using it for the first time.

 

I said it last night and I'll say it again, if that goal gets given to Lampard then it is a joke.

[CFSFC]

Last night they used it stupidly imo.

 

Im sure the lower level sides didnt use it in an earlier round, imagine being a hartlepool side that went out because of a bad desision. Cant be one rule for one....

[Matthew Le God]

Last night they used it stupidly imo.

 

Im sure the lower level sides didnt use it in an earlier round, imagine being a hartlepool side that went out because of a bad desision. Cant be one rule for one....

 

Its not a rule, its merely a referee aid so it doesn't matter if some games have it and some don't in a cup competition.

[shurlock]

Its not a rule, its merely a referee aid so it doesn't matter if some games have it and some don't in a cup competition.

 

Its a saying you moron. Not a literal rule.

 

Concentrate on not f**king up your own posts with errors rather than finding illusory holes in others.

[Saint86]

I said it last night and I'll say it again, if that goal gets given to Lampard then it is a joke.

 

I know what you mean, but thinking about it, I also think it is his?

 

He kicks it first, and then defenders foot carries it over the line (i.e. deflection of on target shot). Either way, it was so messy that it doesn't really matter. The point is, the ref + lino had no way of seeing it, but hawakeye told them, no fuss, in about a second. Its fantastic. Just like that, there will never be a discussion over whether it was a goal, ever again! Problem solved. Now make it work for offsides and we are pretty much there, bar diving.

[The9]

Last night they used it stupidly imo.

 

Im sure the lower level sides didnt use it in an earlier round, imagine being a hartlepool side that went out because of a bad desision. Cant be one rule for one....

 

This is my main problem with it, they can't have different levels of regulation for different stages of the competition.

 

The 5 officials thing is equally as rubbish, but in that case, because the 2 goal-line officials rarely actually do anything despite their prime positions to be ruling on penalty area incidents.

[The9]

Its not a rule, its merely a referee aid so it doesn't matter if some games have it and some don't in a cup competition.

 

Of course it matters, they shouldn't use it in some matches and not in others, it's a basic principle of fairness.

[The9]

I said it last night and I'll say it again, if that goal gets given to Lampard then it is a joke.

 

I think they should give it to Lampard, he at least made some kind of contact with the ball which was going towards the goal, and the defender doesn't want the OG anyway. It's not like that Huddlestone one for Hull which was obviously going wide until Skrtel headed it in.

 

Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't just adopt the rules for Ice Hockey, where the last attacking player to touch it gets given the goal no matter how many defensive touches there are afterwards and no matter which direction the puck is travelling in. Occasionally you get some wacky accreditations, but it makes things a lot simpler.

 

I don't think I'd like to see the end of the OG though, it's an important part of football's identity.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just watching stoke v hull game and the basic flaw in this goal line technology has been exposed. For anyone who didn't see it ; obvious throw to hull given to stoke, ball thrown in and following a scramble technology is used to award goal. Ref and lino clearly didn't know if it crossed line , but gave goal. So we basically had technology to overrule a mistake in stokes favour whilst not doing so for a clear mistake seconds earlier.

[Nexstar]

Just watching stoke v hull game and the basic flaw in this goal line technology has been exposed. For anyone who didn't see it ; obvious throw to hull given to stoke, ball thrown in and following a scramble technology is used to award goal. Ref and lino clearly didn't know if it crossed line , but gave goal. So we basically had technology to overrule a mistake in stokes favour whilst not doing so for a clear mistake seconds earlier.

 

Roll on 50 throw-in reviews a game.

[stevegrant]

Just watching stoke v hull game and the basic flaw in this goal line technology has been exposed. For anyone who didn't see it ; obvious throw to hull given to stoke, ball thrown in and following a scramble technology is used to award goal. Ref and lino clearly didn't know if it crossed line , but gave goal. So we basically had technology to overrule a mistake in stokes favour whilst not doing so for a clear mistake seconds earlier.

The clue's in the name, GOAL LINE technology.

[KingdomCome]

Just watching stoke v hull game and the basic flaw in this goal line technology has been exposed. For anyone who didn't see it ; obvious throw to hull given to stoke, ball thrown in and following a scramble technology is used to award goal. Ref and lino clearly didn't know if it crossed line , but gave goal. So we basically had technology to overrule a mistake in stokes favour whilst not doing so for a clear mistake seconds earlier.

 

It's not a flaw in the system.

 

The fact my iron can't wash my car doesn't mean there's a fault with the iron.

[shurlock]

Surely the mistake is an argument for more technology, not less.

[The9]

Just watching stoke v hull game and the basic flaw in this goal line technology has been exposed. For anyone who didn't see it ; obvious throw to hull given to stoke, ball thrown in and following a scramble technology is used to award goal. Ref and lino clearly didn't know if it crossed line , but gave goal. So we basically had technology to overrule a mistake in stokes favour whilst not doing so for a clear mistake seconds earlier.

 

Yeah, that's not a flaw with the technology, that's a flaw with the officials completely unrelated to the technology.

[The Kraken]

Just watching stoke v hull game and the basic flaw in this goal line technology has been exposed. For anyone who didn't see it ; obvious throw to hull given to stoke, ball thrown in and following a scramble technology is used to award goal. Ref and lino clearly didn't know if it crossed line , but gave goal. So we basically had technology to overrule a mistake in stokes favour whilst not doing so for a clear mistake seconds earlier.

 

So how did GLT get in the way of the" correct" result being given. What flaw was actually exposed in what the technology can do?

[Lord Duckhunter]

So how did GLT get in the way of the" correct" result being given. What flaw was actually exposed in what the technology can do?

 

OK, perhaps my use of words was wrong.

 

The flaw in helping the referee is that only one type of factual decision is involved. How has GLT made todays result "fairer"?

[S-Clarke]

OK, perhaps my use of words was wrong.

 

The flaw in helping the referee is that only one type of factual decision is involved. How has GLT made todays result "fairer"?

 

Because it awarded a goal which was a goal. What happened in the build up is irrelevant in regards to the technology, it did it's job and gave the goal correctly.

 

At the end of the day it was only a throw in, you'd hope it could have been defended a little better.

[Dr Who?]

Yes but how far do you go? Perhaps there was a free kick that should have not have been given, before the wrong decision on the throw in.

 

I think the main thing here is goals being given when they cross the line! Other than replacing referees with technology then there will always be human error.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yes but how far do you go? Perhaps there was a free kick that should have not have been given, before the wrong decision on the throw in.

 

I think the main thing here is goals being given when they cross the line! Other than replacing referees with technology then there will always be human error.

 

Free kicks are subjective, one Ref may think it is one may think its not. Line decisions are factual, as are decisions about who the ball last touched before going out of play. Lets see if people are so relaxed about it when a similar thing happens to us .

[The Kraken]

OK, perhaps my use of words was wrong.

 

The flaw in helping the referee is that only one type of factual decision is involved. How has GLT made todays result "fairer"?

 

Because it did its job and made the correct decision. To prove your point, can you outline how GLT made today's decision worse?

 

I'll help you out. You can't. You've just got this one wrong.

 

GLT is a good thing. Technology or otherwise for different mistakes is something completely different.

[Whitey Grandad]

Didn't need GLT for that one, it was clearly over.

 

We don't need it for throw-ins because goals are a lot more important.