Ball crosses the line -> no goal

There were three incidences in the last couple of weeks in the Bundesliga where the ball crossed the line but no goal was given.

What is your opinion about this?

Should we simply interrrupt the game and check the TV footage? Or would you prefer a ball with a chip? Or a goal linesman? Or is it just bad luck if the linesman's blind?

I personally don't understand what the purists' problem is with stopping the game for a sec. Or why can't the 4th official just tell the ref? They got TVs and the refs all wear headsets these days anyway.

Opinions appreciated.

Not sure why the technology for embedded chips failed, but apparently they're already testing a Hawkeye system now. It will have cameras mounted on either corner of the goal, and if the ball crosses the line, the 4th official will alert the main ref.

kas wrote:Not sure why the technology for embedded chips failed, but apparently they're already testing a Hawkeye system now. It will have cameras mounted on either corner of the goal, and if the ball crosses the line, the 4th official will alert the main ref.

About time, in my opinion. These three cases were pretty clear, especially Klose's goal today. (About 30cms behind the line.)

The linesman must have forgotten that the goal line is part of his job too.

The game stops for 20-30 seconds all the time anyway. As long as it takes no more than a minute, and they only check when it really cant be decided, not when the ref is 99% sure but not 100% there is no problem.

The only thing is, it's a rule you cannot implement in lower leagues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6281768.stm

kas wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6281768.stm

Something should be done about that, because this is serious issue. Why can referees use replays to punish an act of violence and not use 10 seconds to wait for an immediate decision regards to the ball crossing the line. It should be similar as rugby, the main referee gets told whether the ball crossed the line or not by some other officials that watch the replay on T.V. This would take as much as time as a player celebrating his goal or a team complaining to the referee.

kas wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6281768.stm

Good idea, there could use technological system that tells the referee the goal is valid, by vibration or electrocution.

Alive and Kicking wrote:

kas wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6281768.stm

Good idea, there could use technological system that tells the referee the goal is valid, by vibration or electrocution.

I understand we all get very angry and upset when referees get basic decisions wrong, but this is going a bit far, no?

Right on time for this thread, the FA chief executive confirms they are trying hard for the technology

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7023193.stm

Allez les rouges wrote:

Alive and Kicking wrote:

kas wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6281768.stm

Good idea, there could use technological system that tells the referee the goal is valid, by vibration or electrocution.

I understand we all get very angry and upset when referees get basic decisions wrong, but this is going a bit far, no?

I was joking.