Another Cock up

[Wellred]

yes another glaring mistake at the World Cup.
Thank you very much Herr Blatter.
No doubt tv will get the blame for showing it though.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's part of the game. How many Englishmen complained at Geoff Hurst's goal? Or when Owen dived against Argentina? Twice.

[Wellred]

Its called progress. We have the technology but it seems Herr Blatter is a luddite.

[RobTheRover]

I believe the correct spelling of \"luddite\" in Sepp Blatter's case is \"Bent, backhander receiving, \"what's in it for me?\", looking after number one-ist t**t\"

[newtownjoe1]

Have to agree with the majority here BST, Technology is here NOW not
in 66, so it can be utilised to an extent. on whether a ball has crossed
the line or not ,,,nothing else,,,,,no offside or penalty decisions.
Just a simple decision has the ball crossed the line or not .
Lets just start with that and see how it goes.Regards Joe.

[Barmby Rover]

RobTheRover wrote:

I believe the correct spelling of \"luddite\" in Sepp Blatter's case is \"Bent, backhander receiving, \"what's in it for me?\", looking after number one-ist t**t\"

Why is it looking afer number one? Unless he already knew about the \"goal\" and is a time traveller. If they intrduce tehnology to ref games, how far down the ladder does it go? Not all Chamionship teams have big screens, what about league One? How many clubs can afford it? Is it only for internationals? If so what about the cost of it to small countries who don't have the income to sustain it? Are they then banned from Internatonal football? It has bigger implications than missing the odd goal.

[Wellred]

Nobody is saying it should happen in every game. Surely even you can see that??
Rugby Union. Its is only used in international games.
Rugby League. It is only used in televised games.

Nobody complains about it not being available for lower club games.
It should be used for all televised games. End of argument.

[NathanDRFC]

Wellred wrote:

It should be used for all televised games.

So Rovers will not benefit from it!

The International Football Association Board (IFAB)rejected the use of goal line technology, not FIFA. FIFA are a member of the IFAB along with England's Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, the Football Association of Wales and Northern Ireland's Irish Football Association. Each UK association has one vote and FIFA has four. IFAB deliberations must be approved by at least six votes. Thus, FIFA's approval is necessary for any IFAB decision, but FIFA alone cannot change the Laws of the Game; they need to be agreed by at least two of the UK members. I believe Northern Ireland along with FIFA rejected the goal line technology proposal

[Wellred]

Rovers will benefit if the game is televised otherwise no.

You simply cannot have goal line technology for everyone. As has already been stated where do you draw the line?

[bobjimwilly]

Wellred wrote:

As has already been stated where do you draw the line?

When it is not possible to be used, simples. It's not as if those games with/without goal line technology being used will have any advantage/disadvantage, just that those with it will be able to properly call questionable goals more fairly.

I would have thought referees as well would be the first group of people to champion such technology.

I also understand that FIFA alone cannot make this happen, but lets be honest if FIFA decided they want to introduce it, it would happen, as no FA wants to fall out of favour with FIFA.

[BillyStubbsTears]

My objection has nothing to do with slowing the game down, technology only being used in certain games or for certain decisions. It's more fundamental than that.

Football is a fundamentally, beautifully flawed game. Brilliant players make inexplicable mistakes when under pressure. Poorer sides can organise themselves in a way that (with a little luck) they can give bigger sides a bloody nose. The uncertainty is one of the key things that make football so compelling. What other sport has matches that are so finely balanced between clubs with such massively different resources or ostensible quality? Burnley beat Liverpool and Chelsea in the Cup the other year. In what other sport would that happen?

Refereeing fallibility is as much a part of the compelling nature if football as the fallibility of players.  

Remove the uncertainty from football and you homogenize and sterilize it. Worse, you tip the odds even further towards the big boys.  We've already gone a mile down that road in the way that resources gave been concentrated in fewer hands. In the way that laws have been changed (eg the number of subs - designed to assist the bigger clubs with better strength in depth). In the way that the European Cup has been emasculated by removal of the most interesting if the knock out stages (after AC Milan were knocked out by Rosenborg in Round 1  15 years back...)

As for England in World Cups, I reckon there have been 6 patently wrong refereeing decisions in 44 years. 3 for us and 3 against. C'est la vie. It balances out.
Keep the uncertainty. It's the lifeblood if football. When it works for you, then good luck to you.  And when it works against you, be a big enough man to take it on the chin.

[CusworthRovers]

If we left things as they are/were, we would not have changes in an actual football weight/size to improve the game, undersoil heating to make games playable, better kits, better boots, better stadia's.....we could go on and on with all things that have improved the game on and off the pitch in the last 50 years alone.

There's that old saying that many use in this debate, 'if the technology is there, then use it'. Fact is, the technology is there. It's used in other sports and warmly received too.

It would be folly to ignore the technology available. It's there, it's free with the TV Camera's. The ref's are miked up these days anyway. It would be an instantaneous decision.

[River Don]

CusworthRovers wrote:

There's that old saying that many use in this debate, 'if the technology is there, then use it'. Fact is, the technology is there. It's used in other sports and warmly received too.

That's not strictly true, a lot of tennis players are unhappy with some of the line calls they get from Hawkeye and there is growing disquiet about how the breaks for reviews are spoiling the flow of the game.

I would never brig camera technology into football but would consider goal line technology, if it was proved to work.

[CusworthRovers]

Does it matter which.....be it a laser or a camera that focus's on the goal-line. It just needs doing.


Most decisions are and should be line based only and thus technology should be used.

RL and RU....did the ball cross the line for a try, was is foot over the side line.

Cricket.......was he over the line for a run out, was the line of the ball a lbw, did it go over the line for a six or four

Tennis..........clearly all line based, in or out


Not aware of technology being used in other parts of the game, and I for one would not call for that

[ravenrover]

The problem with technology in football is that the game is still live. In other sports cricket tennis RU RL American Football the game is effectivley dead at a standstill ie was the try scored is a decision when the game is already at a stop point, if the try is not given there is already a 2nd option of how the game is re-started, is the batsman out or not again the game is dead awaiting a decision to give the player out or restart the game with the next ball. In tennis was the ball in or out the game is dead waiting restart with the next serve, yes the individual player can make a challenge after the event at the next stop point but only gets 3 challenges and again he is the only person who can challenge.
In essence the referee in football would have to stop the game, under what condition does he stop the game because he is unsure? because the players appeal? because the crowd scream? because the 4th official queries the decision? because the manager appeals? how would it be restarted? If the game was stopped and the decision not upheld would the team with the ball be justified in complaining if they are in a 2v1 breakaway situation. Look at all these scenarios and certain managers ie SAF AW HR etc would make sure a game was stopped every 10 seconds to query was it a throw-in, was it a foul, should it be red or yellow card it would take hours to complete a match and would be so boring for the fans on the terrace

[River Don]

CusworthRovers wrote:

Does it matter which.....be it a laser or a camera that focus's on the goal-line. It just needs doing.

It does matter. A camera review means stopping the game, going to a 4th official waiting for a decision, which might take a while if it's very close as they review different camera angles. It would mean a change in the game as a ball that is still in play would have to be halted.

A sensor in the ball that registers a bleep in the refs ear if it's over the line wouldn't affect the game at all. The ref would just be confident he's making the correct decision.

Big difference.

[snods big brother]

Now I am not against the use of technology but if we bring in goal line technology, who is going to pay of it? The clubs, well thats me and you the punter who puts bums on a seat every weekend, the television companies (why should they pay? I believe they refused cricket the use of their cameras earlier this season as they wanted to use them for nothing, the company pointed out that the cameras cost 000's of pounds to buy and would want some recompense for their use. I suspect that this will be the same for football if they decide to go down that line) or the footballing authorities. So who is going to pay for it?

[Ryan B]

video evidence is being used to punish players committing serious offences - such as ben thatcher's elbow, roy keane's lunge and robbie fowler snorting goal-lines... so i'm not sure how governing bodies can ignore technology to help decide serious situations like an equalizing goal in a world cup match.

my only query with goal-line technology such as a camera like yesterday is, say a player scores but the ref isn't sure whether the ball crosses the line - the video reveals the ball did cross the line, but also reveals the player was in fact offside, which the ref missed. which call would be made?

i'm all for the lazer-lined goal and chipped-ball.

[Wellred]

snods big brother wrote:

Now I am not against the use of technology but if we bring in goal line technology, who is going to pay of it? The clubs, well thats me and you the punter who puts bums on a seat every weekend, the television companies (why should they pay? I believe they refused cricket the use of their cameras earlier this season as they wanted to use them for nothing, the company pointed out that the cameras cost 000's of pounds to buy and would want some recompense for their use. I suspect that this will be the same for football if they decide to go down that line) or the footballing authorities. So who is going to pay for it?

As a certain well known American tennis player used to say. \"You cannot be serious\"

The money that is in football at the moment from players wages to Sky tv fees etc etc is obscene.

The money would be found quite easily.

Or put another way don't give your national team manager a contract a month before the world cup with a two year deal at £6 million a year!!!

[snods big brother]

I am serious

You bring in goal line technology - what for just the professional game, that can be financed from the FA, but what about the semi professional game, the pub games on a Saturday or Sunday or even the kids games who pays for that, if you bring it in for the professional game it has to be brought in across the board and not just cherry picked into the professional game. So who pays?

[Dagenham Rover]

snods big brother wrote:

I am serious

You bring in goal line technology - what for just the professional game, that can be financed from the FA, but what about the semi professional game, the pub games on a Saturday or Sunday or even the kids games who pays for that, if you bring it in for the professional game it has to be brought in across the board and not just cherry picked into the professional game. So who pays?

So I presume every Tennis court in the council parks has Hawkeye (and I thought it was just a couple of courts at Wimbledon NOT the outer courts) every Rugby ground uses technology as standard.

[CusworthRovers]

River Don wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Does it matter which.....be it a laser or a camera that focus's on the goal-line. It just needs doing.

It does matter. A camera review means stopping the game, going to a 4th official waiting for a decision, which might take a while if it's very close as they review different camera angles. It would mean a change in the game as a ball that is still in play would have to be halted.

A sensor in the ball that registers a bleep in the refs ear if it's over the line wouldn't affect the game at all. The ref would just be confident he's making the correct decision.

Big difference.

TV had that one sorted in seconds yesterday. I appreciate it may take 20 seconds for a close call. The game is stop start enough anyway, with players arguing about decisions, feigning injuries etc etc. How it's done I'm not sure in terms of stopping game for 10-20seconds. It doesn't matter to me which technological device is used. Like I said IMO it needs doing and adopting. I'm not bothered if there's an infra-red field from cross bar down to goal line. We have to take advantage of all options available, and their are many options available. Regardless of yesterday, it needs utilising.

[snods big brother]

The point of this is that FIFA or who ever runs football has stated that any change in rules have to be from grass roots up and not just for the professional game -  therefore who pays?

[Bentley Bullet]

Goal-line technology can also be deceptive at times. This photo taken by a German official shows that the ball never crossed the line.