Goal line technology?

[daveo the red]

Is it time for goal line technology to be brought in?

What is everyones views on it? uefa seem willing to do everthing but bring in extra technology.

[wrexham casual]

PM and goal-line technology firms dispute Fifa claims

[shinyredadidaskit]

Originally Posted by daveo the red

Is it time for goal line technology to be brought in?

What is everyones views on it? uefa seem willing to do everthing but bring in extra technology.

Not quite mate. Uefa introduced byeline officials in last seasons europa cup. So at least they're trying.

[waynesworld]

Originally Posted by shinyredadidaskit

Not quite mate. Uefa introduced byeline officials in last seasons europa cup. So at least they're trying.

think if they had them at least at the world cup, fat franks goal would of been given and tevez would of been ruled offside, at least we can see **** refs are not only in the conference.

[sparky]

If it was only goal line technology then fair enough but excuse the pun, where do you draw the line? At the world cup, the pinnacle of the sport if you are going to alllow technology to allow England's 'goal' then surely you have to use more or less the same technology to rule out Argentina's goal against Mexico and all other decisions that are a matter of fact. It wouldn't be long before the usual whinging managers say the want it introduced for the last minute corner their team conceded that never was or for the thrown in that never was even though the goal was scored 3o seconds later.

Then what do you do with decisions like the Thierry Henry 'handball'? Surely the Irish were equally punished if not more so by a wrong decision taken by a referee and his officials and who can forget the hand of god, where does it end so that in the end we get the perfect result?

People say that these decisions only take a few seconds but they don't as anyone who watches Rugby, Tennis, and Cricket where technology is used will tell you and even then, hawkeye is not bullet proof.

IMO football is not a game of perfect and that what makes it's it the game it is. Once you allow intsant techology to start making live decisions for the officials then I think you are going down a very dangerous road.

[Alan Attack]

I'd be ok with goal line technology. My reason being, the difference between the Tevez's goal and Lampard's was the first one was a blantant error. The linesman is totally accountable for that but with Lampard's, who is to blame. The lino can say he was looking across the line to judge offside or indeed something was blocking his view. He could not say either way whether the ball had crossed the line and it is a lot easier for a lino to say no than yes when it comes to the ball crossing the line.

I have heard people saying that football is a non-stop sport unlike RL, Union, cricket, Yank Football and all the rest. However, I do not agree. Football gets stopped for a whole manner of reasons like a bloke who's tripped over a needs someone to mop his brow with a sponge. If someone needs to do his laces, play is sometimes stopped.

So, Lampard has his shot, the ball bounces into the keepers hands, the ball is therefore dead so the ref can stop the game. What if it had bounced out and Germany broke away and scored? The ref would have to make the call when to stop the game.

I am absolutely fed up of people making excuses as to why something cannot happen when it could easily. If pictures don't 100% prove the ball has crossed the line then don't give the goal but the technology is there so it should be used. More people are getting hacked off with this because they know it can be solved easily.

I see no reason why it cannot be stretched to offsides in time too but there would have to be a limit on calls i.e. 3 a game for each side otherwise it could get silly.

I am not so sure about fouls or hand balls.

[Sandgrounder]

Originally Posted by sparky

If it was only goal line technology then fair enough but excuse the pun, where do you draw the line? At the world cup, the pinnacle of the sport if you are going to alllow technology to allow England's 'goal' then surely you have to use more or less the same technology to rule out Argentina's goal against Mexico and all other decisions that are a matter of fact. It wouldn't be long before the usual whinging managers say the want it introduced for the last minute corner their team conceded that never was or for the thrown in that never was even though the goal was scored 3o seconds later.

Then what do you do with decisions like the Thierry Henry 'handball'? Surely the Irish were equally punished if not more so by a wrong decision taken by a referee and his officials and who can forget the hand of god, where does it end so that in the end we get the perfect result?

People say that these decisions only take a few seconds but they don't as anyone who watches Rugby, Tennis, and Cricket where technology is used will tell you and even then, hawkeye is not bullet proof.

IMO football is not a game of perfect and that what makes it's it the game it is. Once you allow intsant techology to start making live decisions for the officials then I think you are going down a very dangerous road.

I think that's spot on, the danger of video technology is the inevitable creeping increase of its use and the negative impact upon the speed of the game.

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

I'd be ok with goal line technology. My reason being, the difference between the Tevez's goal and Lampard's was the first one was a blantant error. The linesman is totally accountable for that but with Lampard's, who is to blame. The lino can say he was looking across the line to judge offside or indeed something was blocking his view. He could not say either way whether the ball had crossed the line and it is a lot easier for a lino to say no than yes when it comes to the ball crossing the line.

I have heard people saying that football is a non-stop sport unlike RL, Union, cricket, Yank Football and all the rest. However, I do not agree. Football gets stopped for a whole manner of reasons like a bloke who's tripped over a needs someone to mop his brow with a sponge. If someone needs to do his laces, play is sometimes stopped.
So, Lampard has his shot, the ball bounces into the keepers hands, the ball is therefore dead so the ref can stop the game. What if it had bounced out and Germany broke away and scored? The ref would have to make the call when to stop the game.

I am absolutely fed up of people making excuses as to why something cannot happen when it could easily. If pictures don't 100% prove the ball has crossed the line then don't give the goal but the technology is there so it should be used. More people are getting hacked off with this because they know it can be solved easily.

I see no reason why it cannot be stretched to offsides in time too but there would have to be a limit on calls i.e. 3 a game for each side otherwise it could get silly.

I am not so sure about fouls or hand balls.

For once, I don't agree with you, AA. Football is a non-stop sport and doesn't stop automatically every 10 seconds unlike rugby et al; that being the case, the game would have to stop if a call to use video technology was made / required; and that being the case, you're altering the nature of the game by introducing a stoppage which wasn't there before.

Take the Lampard goal that wasn't: within 10 seconds Germany were at the other end of the field almost scoring themselves. At what point could the ref have stopped the game? The team in possession (Germany in this case) would always feel hard done to.


All that said, the BBC article seems to imply that the decision wouldn't be made by a human using a video but automatically by the ball-tracking computer which would send a signal to the ref in real time. The ref could then blow for a goal based on that signal and before the game has moved on (and before anyone has had the chance to moan).

If that were technically feasible, then an experiment certainly seems worthwhile. I think you can draw a distinction with other decisions like offside because, contentious and game-changing as they can be, those decisions don't automatically cause a goal to be scored; whereas with Lampard's goal the only question to be answered is "was it over the line, yes or no?"

[Alan Attack]

Originally Posted by Sandgrounder

I think that's spot on, the danger of video technology is the inevitable creeping increase of its use and the negative impact upon the speed of the game.




For once, I don't agree with you, AA. Football is a non-stop sport and doesn't stop automatically every 10 seconds unlike rugby et al; that being the case, the game would have to stop if a call to use video technology was made / required; and that being the case, you're altering the nature of the game by introducing a stoppage which wasn't there before.

Take the Lampard goal that wasn't: within 10 seconds Germany were at the other end of the field almost scoring themselves. At what point could the ref have stopped the game? The team in possession (Germany in this case) would always feel hard done to.


All that said, the BBC article seems to imply that the decision wouldn't be made by a human using a video but automatically by the ball-tracking computer which would send a signal to the ref in real time. The ref could then blow for a goal based on that signal and before the game has moved on (and before anyone has had the chance to moan).

If that were technically feasible, then an experiment certainly seems worthwhile. I think you can draw a distinction with other decisions like offside because, contentious and game-changing as they can be, those decisions don't automatically cause a goal to be scored; whereas with Lampard's goal the only question to be answered is "was it over the line, yes or no?"

If, for example, Lampard had been kicked just after his shot and was writhing around in 'agony', no doubt play would have been stopped becuase the German keeper would have kicked the ball out. So if play can be stopped for players to received minor medical attention then surely it can be stopped to see if a goal has been scored.

The difference with football is there is no definitive junctures in football to actually stop the game unless the ball goes out of play or there is a foul but what annoys me is that players stop the game when they see another with a cracked nail so it can be stopped quite easily. Anyway, these types of things don't happen every game. In fact, of the 56 games, there has only been one incident of this nature.

[Wxm boy]

If you start stopping the game to view replays its a slippery slope that will ruin the game imo.

Dodgy decisions are part of the game.
Posted via mobile theme

[serencoch]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

If, for example, Lampard had been kicked just after his shot and was writhing around in 'agony', no doubt play would have been stopped becuase the German keeper would have kicked the ball out. So if play can be stopped for players to received minor medical attention then surely it can be stopped to see if a goal has been scored.

The difference with football is there is no definitive junctures in football to actually stop the game unless the ball goes out of play or there is a foul but what annoys me is that players stop the game when they see another with a cracked nail so it can be stopped quite easily. Anyway, these types of things don't happen every game. In fact, of the 56 games, there has only been one incident of this nature.

what if the german keeper released the ball upfield and the germans scored within seconds? would the german goal stand? at what point woud the ref ask for advice? when the opposing team get in his face? what if the decision wasnt as clear cut as lampards? like you say the game of football is stop/start enough as it is.