Goal-line technology

Vent your anger/thoughts here.

They've already tried a chip in the ball, but that wasn't successful. The extra refs behind the goal may have helped today, but again, during trials in the Europa League last season, they added almost nothing to the game and there were still controversial and wrong decisions.

Germany's overall performance offers FIFA some escape from confronting the situation. But what do you think about this age-old debate...should something finally be done? It's clear that it's futile to blame the linesman because sometimes it really is just humanly impossible to see everything.

Agree with it being futile to blame the linesman, but we really do need to introduce it. EVERY other sport now has it. In Hockey they now use it for any decision that the umpire cannot be 100% over, so anything in the penalty area is usually referred to a TV umpire, takes 25 seconds and its sorted.

Blatter is too old to change his mind though, don't expect any changes until at least 2016.

What I don't like is how everyone jumps on Blatter, as if he's the one and only one making these decisions. FIFA clearly has a board of people evaluating and discussing these things.

There should be something done especially to see if the ball crossed the line. There could be someone watching the replay and giving the referee an immediate explication. It wouldn't take too long with today's technology and would surely avoid mistakes like we just saw.

Goal line technology is bollocks. How about we get decent officials? Everybody could see that was over

Obviously we need technology, but that evens up what happened in 1966.

The official line is it is too expensive to implement ?

Rugby has it, a game with a millionth of the budget of football.

Hockey has it! There's no professionals in hockey! It's a semi professional sport!

Murray wrote:Obviously we need technology, but that evens up what happened in 1966.

poetic justice ffs!

KUYT #6 wrote:The official line is it is too expensive to implement ?

Rugby has it, a game with a millionth of the budget of football.

Is it all every level in rugby though? Does the Togolese premier league have technology?

Let's do rough guesses..200 countries, 150 of which probably have pro leagues. Anywhere between 10-15 teams in a league on average. Plus the 2nd division from where teams will get promoted.

Add up the cost of putting technology in place in all these stadiums around the world, and you can see where they're coming from. Similar idea for the chip in a ball concept.

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:The official line is it is too expensive to implement ?

Rugby has it, a game with a millionth of the budget of football.

Is it all every level in rugby though? Does the Togolese premier league have technology?

Let's do rough guesses..200 countries, 150 of which probably have pro leagues. Anywhere between 10-15 teams in a league on average. Plus the 2nd division from where teams will get promoted.

Add up the cost of putting technology in place in all these stadiums around the world, and you can see where they're coming from. Similar idea for the chip in a ball concept.

No

Just the important games that showcase the sport to the watching world Kas.

The cost ?

How much does it cost to cart Blatter around South Africa staying in first class hotels for a month ? I'm guessing the cost will be about the same. Cost is not an obstacle for anything in the billionaire world of football

MaloudaOntheDanceFloor wrote:Hockey has it! There's no professionals in hockey! It's a semi professional sport!

For girls.

lol even baseball has replay now to see whether a ball is a home run or not, baseball hates change as much as football does.

mongrel hawk wrote:

Murray wrote:Obviously we need technology, but that evens up what happened in 1966.

poetic justice ffs!

This irritates me a little bit - because in 1966 Martin Peters was 2 yards away from the goal and could/should have put the ball away anyway. Clearly he thought it was over. And that was at 2-2, not 2-1.

Not the same.

Would have only papered over the cracks anyway, but at 2-2 the game would have been different no doubt. Still c'est la vie. It's only football

I'm all for tech. If it works in hockey (both), i can't see why it is so hard in football.

KUYT #6 wrote:

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:The official line is it is too expensive to implement ?

Rugby has it, a game with a millionth of the budget of football.

Is it all every level in rugby though? Does the Togolese premier league have technology?

Let's do rough guesses..200 countries, 150 of which probably have pro leagues. Anywhere between 10-15 teams in a league on average. Plus the 2nd division from where teams will get promoted.

Add up the cost of putting technology in place in all these stadiums around the world, and you can see where they're coming from. Similar idea for the chip in a ball concept.

No

Just the important games that showcase the sport to the watching world Kas.

The cost ?

How much does it cost to cart Blatter around South Africa staying in first class hotels for a month ? I'm guessing the cost will be about the same. Cost is not an obstacle for anything in the billionaire world of football

That's the problem isn't it. Who decides what's an important game? Sure the World Cup and the big leagues have huge audiences...but what about 10,000 angry fans of a 3rd division club who have their promotion (and huge payday) ruined because the big clubs have technology but they don't?

What about the 20,000 who watch the Kashima Antlers in Japan? Or the 100,000 in the stadium, let alone the millions on TV, watching River Plate vs. Boca...who pays for their technology and fairness?

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:The official line is it is too expensive to implement ?

Rugby has it, a game with a millionth of the budget of football.

Is it all every level in rugby though? Does the Togolese premier league have technology?

Let's do rough guesses..200 countries, 150 of which probably have pro leagues. Anywhere between 10-15 teams in a league on average. Plus the 2nd division from where teams will get promoted.

Add up the cost of putting technology in place in all these stadiums around the world, and you can see where they're coming from. Similar idea for the chip in a ball concept.

No

Just the important games that showcase the sport to the watching world Kas.

The cost ?

How much does it cost to cart Blatter around South Africa staying in first class hotels for a month ? I'm guessing the cost will be about the same. Cost is not an obstacle for anything in the billionaire world of football

That's the problem isn't it. Who decides what's an important game? Sure the World Cup and the big leagues have huge audiences...but what about 10,000 angry fans of a 3rd division club who have their promotion (and huge payday) ruined because the big clubs have technology but they don't?

What about the 20,000 who watch the Kashima Antlers in Japan? Or the 100,000 in the stadium, let alone the millions on TV, watching River Plate vs. Boca...who pays for their technology and fairness?

Who gives a shit. Where possible it'd make sense. In Wimbledon only two courts have technology. Is it unfair on someone on court 5 who would have won if a certain decision went his way sure but who cares.

L r dd wrote:
Who gives a shit. Where possible it'd make sense. In Wimbledon only two courts have technology. Is it unfair on someone on court 5 who would have won if a certain decision went his way sure but who cares.

Three do and I believe four will next year with the upgraded court. Every international match for World Cup qualifying should be able to afford the technology required so they can make it just an international rule if they are that pedantic about equality

kas wrote:

That's the problem isn't it. Who decides what's an important game? Sure the World Cup and the big leagues have huge audiences...but what about 10,000 angry fans of a 3rd division club who have their promotion (and huge payday) ruined because the big clubs have technology but they don't?

What about the 20,000 who watch the Kashima Antlers in Japan? Or the 100,000 in the stadium, let alone the millions on TV, watching River Plate vs. Boca...who pays for their technology and fairness?

I decide

The World Cup, The Euros, The CL and if any of the leagues want to introduce it they can do it themselves. It is hardly going to take much out of the operating budgets of the major leagues around the world and frankly who cares about the smaller leagues.

Fifa pay for the international games, Uefa pay for the CL and the individual leagues pay themselves. Do you realise how much money these organisations rope in from sponsorship Kas ?

Also, it's easy to advocate replay technology for incidents like today where it was quite obvious...but what about the Chelsea-Liverpool goal back in 2005? What about Kewell's handball? What about a "was it a foul or was it a dive" situation which leads to a penalty and red card decision? We see 10000 replays but still end up arguing about it. How long do you give the assistant to make his decision? How would the technology advocates effectively implement a solution that always works?

There should be goal-line technology but thanks to the Africans it wont be realised. Those FA's cant pay it, but FIFA wont make an issue of it as long as they vote for Blatter.

Sickening really

kas wrote:Also, it's easy to advocate replay technology for incidents like today where it was quite obvious...but what about the Chelsea-Liverpool goal back in 2005? What about Kewell's handball? What about a "was it a foul or was it a dive" situation which leads to a penalty and red card decision? We see 10000 replays but still end up arguing about it. How long do you give the assistant to make his decision? How would the technology advocates effectively implement a solution that always works?

Is this a serious question Kas ?

Common sense dictates that if it can't be proved then don't give it.

In most cases it would reach the correct decision without any issues.

I realise that if you look at the overall pool of money and compare it to what outlay would be required, it's probably not a big deal. But as I pointed out in my follow-up post, if spending millions is only going to help some situations, it's a waste.

L r dd wrote:

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:The official line is it is too expensive to implement ?

Rugby has it, a game with a millionth of the budget of football.

Is it all every level in rugby though? Does the Togolese premier league have technology?

Let's do rough guesses..200 countries, 150 of which probably have pro leagues. Anywhere between 10-15 teams in a league on average. Plus the 2nd division from where teams will get promoted.

Add up the cost of putting technology in place in all these stadiums around the world, and you can see where they're coming from. Similar idea for the chip in a ball concept.

No

Just the important games that showcase the sport to the watching world Kas.

The cost ?

How much does it cost to cart Blatter around South Africa staying in first class hotels for a month ? I'm guessing the cost will be about the same. Cost is not an obstacle for anything in the billionaire world of football

That's the problem isn't it. Who decides what's an important game? Sure the World Cup and the big leagues have huge audiences...but what about 10,000 angry fans of a 3rd division club who have their promotion (and huge payday) ruined because the big clubs have technology but they don't?

What about the 20,000 who watch the Kashima Antlers in Japan? Or the 100,000 in the stadium, let alone the millions on TV, watching River Plate vs. Boca...who pays for their technology and fairness?

Who gives a shit. Where possible it'd make sense. In Wimbledon only two courts have technology. Is it unfair on someone on court 5 who would have won if a certain decision went his way sure but who cares.

Guess what? Most of the world except England fans don't give a shit either about you getting the goal disallowed today. Should FIFA spend millions to make England happy?

It's easy to dismiss other leagues, teams, players, and fans...but football is as important to a "small" team's fan as to the fan of a team with massive hype around it.

Whereas cricket and tennis isnt? Stop being silly Kas, it could be easily implemented to all televised matches i.e. those with cameras.

Non hawkeye tennis tournaments still do fine. This is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument.

KUYT #6 wrote:

kas wrote:Also, it's easy to advocate replay technology for incidents like today where it was quite obvious...but what about the Chelsea-Liverpool goal back in 2005? What about Kewell's handball? What about a "was it a foul or was it a dive" situation which leads to a penalty and red card decision? We see 10000 replays but still end up arguing about it. How long do you give the assistant to make his decision? How would the technology advocates effectively implement a solution that always works?

Is this a serious question Kas ?

Common sense dictates that if it can't be proved then don't give it.

In most cases it would reach the correct decision without any issues.

Trust me, this isn't as easy as it sounds. First off, as FIFA have rightly pointed out in the past, this is a different issue to tennis, where a computer and not a human makes the decision. Ok, the goal-line stuff can be done automatically, but not the grey situations I've pointed out above.

In football, technology would just mean another human making a decision. Different refs interpret situations in different ways...if you had a "video ref" constantly overriding what the ref on the pitch decides, what does that do for his authority? How do you sort out the confusion over who has the right to make a final decision? Players who have a decision go against them will appeal everything.

Look, I'm not denying there's inertia on FIFA's part in not allowing technology into the game, but surely if their experiments (and there have been a lot, they even tried one where there would be a camera off the pitch next to the 4th official, and the ref could go over and have a look) proved conclusive some steps would have been taken by now? It's not Blatter and his cronies trying to conjure up some conspiracy.

kas wrote:I realise that if you look at the overall pool of money and compare it to what outlay would be required, it's probably not a big deal. But as I pointed out in my follow-up post, if spending millions is only going to help some situations, it's a waste.

L r dd wrote:

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:

kas wrote:

KUYT #6 wrote:The official line is it is too expensive to implement ?

Rugby has it, a game with a millionth of the budget of football.

Is it all every level in rugby though? Does the Togolese premier league have technology?

Let's do rough guesses..200 countries, 150 of which probably have pro leagues. Anywhere between 10-15 teams in a league on average. Plus the 2nd division from where teams will get promoted.

Add up the cost of putting technology in place in all these stadiums around the world, and you can see where they're coming from. Similar idea for the chip in a ball concept.

No

Just the important games that showcase the sport to the watching world Kas.

The cost ?

How much does it cost to cart Blatter around South Africa staying in first class hotels for a month ? I'm guessing the cost will be about the same. Cost is not an obstacle for anything in the billionaire world of football

That's the problem isn't it. Who decides what's an important game? Sure the World Cup and the big leagues have huge audiences...but what about 10,000 angry fans of a 3rd division club who have their promotion (and huge payday) ruined because the big clubs have technology but they don't?

What about the 20,000 who watch the Kashima Antlers in Japan? Or the 100,000 in the stadium, let alone the millions on TV, watching River Plate vs. Boca...who pays for their technology and fairness?

Who gives a shit. Where possible it'd make sense. In Wimbledon only two courts have technology. Is it unfair on someone on court 5 who would have won if a certain decision went his way sure but who cares.

Guess what? Most of the world except England fans don't give a shit either about you getting the goal disallowed today. Should FIFA spend millions to make England happy?

It's easy to dismiss other leagues, teams, players, and fans...but football is as important to a "small" team's fan as to the fan of a team with massive hype around it.

I think most of the world would care to see a world cup match decided by a disgraceful decision you moron. You want to scrap having decisions made in big games because not all small games will get them...thats their problem. If you can improve the game at the top level you do it. Nothing changes for the small leagues. Not improving the big time because what? Might hurt small leagues feeling to see technology You're a fucking spastic.

What about run outs in cricket? Just as difficult/easy to call, but hasnt created any controversy.

Besides, it could hardly create more controversy than it does at the moment.

Hlebagone wrote:What about run outs in cricket? Just as difficult/easy to call, but hasnt created any controversy.

Besides, it could hardly create more controversy than it does at the moment.

Not really. There's a white line. You've either crossed it or not. And if there's doubt, batsman wins. The rules are clear.


What do you do about a foul in the box? This isn't American football, where a foul is clearly defined in the rules.

btw, for all the people having a go at me in this thread, I've yet to see any of you come up with a proper solution - what would the setup be, what would the logistics be, how would decisions be taken, is there a time limit, can the ref overrule the video ref in some cases, when does the video ref actually come into play, etc. etc.


I started this thread off as a discussion, not to say "technology is shit". If you can convince me that it'll work, I'm all ears.

I was referring to goal line decisions. As this was obviously what the conversation was about, in llight of recent events.

Its simplistic using them there...

Doubts about other areas of the game - fair enough.