[shadowboxer]

last week the powers that be decided in their infinite wisdom to throw out the idea of goal line technology. I have to ask why it is so hard for the people in charge of the game to implement these types of, less face it helpful and popular in terms of fans, technologies like replays and goal line cameras? (hawk-eye) Maybe they see it as undermining the power of the referee if at every turn players and managers ask for replays, so if that is the case let the only person on the field who can ask for a review be the referee. perhaps someone should ask refs what they think?
for example some one goes down on the edge of the area. is it a penalty?a sending off? ref decide he's not sure
"i didn't quite see that can you look at it and let me know?" he asks the fourth official.
"no foul. the big man went down like the poll tax." comes the reply.
of course it would still give something for people to moan about but players and managers complaining to the ref who has heard of such a thing???
Maybe the overlords of football think that we need the controversy. maybe it is an important part of football and if it went, the game would be damaged somehow. I mean think of the conversations down the pub:
"you see that decision by hawk-eye yisterday?"
"aye. it wis spot on."
"member when it wid be the ref choppin' aff a goal and you wid be like; ya w****r!!"
"aye. then we be talkin' aboot it and it'd get crazy and i wid go fur the pool cue"
"and i wid try tae batter o'er the melt way my beer bottle"
long pause..................
"i heard it's gonna rain"
"smashin" (sigh)
perhaps they're right. no technology in football.................

[ScottyC]

I think the way football is refed is fine the way it is. Their might be flaws in the system that is human based but so what. You might get some decisions against you, in turn you will also to get some decisions for you.

Anything that could effect the flow of a game should be shunned. Football isnt a stop start sport like Rugby or Tennis, that what makes it entertaining.

Im sick of hearing the line that refs dont have the benifit of replays, proper fans who actually go to games dont have this either. Watch the tennis when they show the hawk replay and the fans make "ooooohhhhh" noise. It sounds ridculous, they should all be shot.

[houston_bud]

i dont think there are many arguing for the game to be continually stopped to see if there was a foul etc, but simply to check if the ball was over the line or not.

surely it would be easy enough for the fourth official to check on a screen and let the ref know whether or not it was a goal. or some kind of sensor that notified the referee when the ball crosses the line, a noise in his earpiece or something.

i don't buy the cos arguement that it would be too expensive to implement in all leagues. only implement it in the leagues that can afford it then. i might be wrong on this but i dont think there is hawkeye available for the england v bangladesh test series, that doesnt prevent them from having it in the ashes or other test series.

[ScottyC]

houston_bud, on 12 March 2010 - 12:30, said:

i dont think there are many arguing for the game to be continually stopped to see if there was a foul etc, but simply to check if the ball was over the line or not.

surely it would be easy enough for the fourth official to check on a screen and let the ref know whether or not it was a goal. or some kind of sensor that notified the referee when the ball crosses the line, a noise in his earpiece or something.

i don't buy the cos arguement that it would be too expensive to implement in all leagues. only implement it in the leagues that can afford it then. i might be wrong on this but i dont think there is hawkeye available for the england v bangladesh test series, that doesnt prevent them from having it in the ashes or other test series.

Their really needs to be consistancy from the top to the bottom. If you think about it, most games wont even have neutral linesman let alone any chance of bringing in some overpriced hardware just to the see if the ball crossed the line or not. If the refs not sure, that what the lineman for, if they dont know look at the players reaction and body language.

The money spend implementing these changes would be better spent at youth or grass roots level, where it could actually make a difference to the quality of the football rather than waste money trying to improve a system that isnt really that bad and has worked fine for decades.

[houston_bud]

ScottyC, on 12 March 2010 - 12:37, said:

Their really needs to be consistancy from the top to the bottom. If you think about it, most games wont even have neutral linesman let alone any chance of bringing in some overpriced hardware just to the see if the ball crossed the line or not. If the refs not sure, that what the lineman for, if they dont know look at the players reaction and body language.

The money spend implementing these changes would be better spent at youth or grass roots level, where it could actually make a difference to the quality of the football rather than waste money trying to improve a system that isnt really that bad and has worked fine for decades.

if they initially used it in the world cup and champions league then slowly introduced it down i think it would be fine.

junior and amatuer games often don't have any linesman. doesnt prevent them from playing. if the technology is there and it will help the game i see no reason not to use it. like i say, i'm not advocating every decision being reviewed, or managers 'challenging' decisions like in american football. just goal line technology so the referee can be sure the ball definately has, or hasnt crossed the line.

[finnersaintee]

sounds like a daft question but if it was to be implemented who pays for it? is it the individual national football associations or is it a body like FIFA?

Even then i think it would be a good thing if it was added providing it is only used for highly important decision e.g. did the ball cross the line? and not for a midfield challenge. I think it might be viable to implement on leagues that are fully professional

[houston_bud]

finnersaintee, on 12 March 2010 - 13:06, said:

sounds like a daft question but if it was to be implemented who pays for it? is it the individual national football associations or is it a body like FIFA?

not a daft question at all. that's possibly one of the major stumbling blocks. fifa/uefa wont want to shell out for it all, likewise i can't see teams wanting to part with their money when most clubs are in serious debt.

[ScottyC]

finnersaintee, on 12 March 2010 - 13:06, said:

sounds like a daft question but if it was to be implemented who pays for it? is it the individual national football associations or is it a body like FIFA?

Even then i think it would be a good thing if it was added providing it is only used for highly important decision e.g. did the ball cross the line? and not for a midfield challenge. I think it might be viable to implement on leagues that are fully professional

I can tell you this right now. Both FIFA and UEFA will only pay for it in their competions, and even then they will try and get some money out of richer nations and clubs to implement it.

[finnersaintee]

houston_bud, on 12 March 2010 - 13:32, said:

not a daft question at all. that's possibly one of the major stumbling blocks. fifa/uefa wont want to shell out for it all, likewise i can't see teams wanting to part with their money when most clubs are in serious debt.

thats a bit rubbish, i dont like fifa's posturing. I bet thats why it was rejected 'outright' instead of just put on ice as it were, simply because they don't want to spend the money. Even if they were to say to the richer league e.g. england and spain to put it in they are also the league with some of the highest debts

[HibeeJibee]

The costs of the chip-in-ball stuff is ridiculous: I was at a presentation last year where a figure of £100,000 a goal frame was quoted (and doing a ground might therefore cost upwards of £250,000 due to wiring, ancillary costs, labour etc.). The research invested was phenomenal - yet until recently the chip-in-ball didn't even work properly (for example: at the end of the game, or in a wet game, or being ricocheted off the crossbar and down, it was not reliable enough). Obviously they needed to make the technology [a] pay the research/development costs back and [b] make a profit = outrageously expensive. I'd like to see it in an ideal world, but no league is going to spend millions of £ on a system that might be used a handful of times a season, and was not 100% reliable anyway. The HawkEye system was not instantaneous, was equally expensive, and would require erecting 8-12 radar gun posts.

As for the video referee, I'm glad it was rejected. Football is not a set-piece game (like tennis or cricket), or even semi-set-piece (like rugby)... The game is the most popular sport because it's easy to play, flows, and is effectively the same "from public park to Parkhead" as I always say. I'd be very disappointed if we ever got to a situation where managers can play 'challenges', or where the game stops so they can ponder an incident as with a try in rugby. Plus with rugby, the ball has been grounded = play stops = is either a score, or a scrum. In football play might be continuing... the opposition might break away and score!!... and the incidents are subjective i.e. was it a bad tackle or not. Video replays will never work, IMO.

I am pleased the 4th+5th official scheme is to be rolled out, in leagues where there are enough officials. It discourages shirt-tugging and helps ref.

This post has been edited by HibeeJibee: 12 March 2010 - 14:18

[ScottyC]

I could understand if clubs were forced to spend £250,000 on something like youth development or training facilities. Even if every club in the land were force to spend the money to introduce it, surely upgrading or repairing rundown stadiums and facilities would be a bigger priority and more useful for the development of the game.

[Colin M]

HibeeJibee, on 12 March 2010 - 14:17, said:

As for the video referee, I'm glad it was rejected. Football is not a set-piece game (like tennis or cricket), or even semi-set-piece (like rugby)... The game is the most popular sport because it's easy to play, flows, and is effectively the same "from public park to Parkhead" as I always say. I'd be very disappointed if we ever got to a situation where managers can play 'challenges', or where the game stops so they can ponder an incident as with a try in rugby. Plus with rugby, the ball has been grounded = play stops = is either a score, or a scrum. In football play might be continuing... the opposition might break away and score!!... and the incidents are subjective i.e. was it a bad tackle or not. Video replays will never work, IMO.

As you probably know I disagree, but it's something we would never know without some sort of trial.

If we are to proceed relying on purely human decision making, it must now come with an acceptance that on a weekly basis there will continue to be numerous potentially result changing incidents that are called wrong by referees, and as such there will continue to be injustice within the game that is almost instantly exposed on television. I cannot fathom why, in the interest of fair play, this is being dismissed without some kind of practical trial.

[bingbongbilly]

If it ain't broken don't fix it. Goal line technology is just another sop to appease the prawn sandwich brigade.

[HibeeJibee]

ScottyC, on 12 March 2010 - 14:25, said:

I could understand if clubs were forced to spend £250,000 on something like youth development or training facilities. Even if every club in the land were force to spend the money to introduce it, surely upgrading or repairing rundown stadiums and facilities would be a bigger priority and more useful for the development of the game.

I've had a ST at Easter Road for 6 years and I can't even think of 6 incidents where it would have been used. And we're a reasonably well-off club. The idea that you'd expect clubs up and down the league systems, and in countries across Europe and the world, to buy it would be irresponsible.

Colin M... I appreciate your point, and perhaps a trial would have helped. However, it's all academic now, as the issue will be closed for many years.

[Reynard]

ScottyC, on 12 March 2010 - 12:17, said:

I think the way football is refed is fine the way it is. Their might be flaws in the system that is human based but so what. You might get some decisions against you, in turn you will also to get some decisions for you.

Anything that could effect the flow of a game should be shunned. Football isnt a stop start sport like Rugby or Tennis, that what makes it entertaining.

Im sick of hearing the line that refs dont have the benifit of replays, proper fans who actually go to games dont have this either. Watch the tennis when they show the hawk replay and the fans make "ooooohhhhh" noise. It sounds ridculous, they should all be shot.

That's fair enough in the vast majority of situations. But a line call isn't an opinion. It's a fact. The referees opinion should amount to hee haw when it comes to whether the ball has actually crossed the goalline or not. It either has or it hasn't and it can be completely proved using the technology.

This is a professional sport with a lot of money riding on it and a situation like that shouldn't come down to whether a referee or linesmans opinion is right or wrong. This would be a clear cut black or white issue and should be treated as such. The technology is there and should be used.

They will no doubt trot out the line that not all matches could have that. So what? All top games will certainly be able to have it. I played amateur level for a while and most games only had a referee and no linesman. So not all levels of the game are treated equally anyway even now.

[houston_bud]

HibeeJibee, on 12 March 2010 - 14:30, said:

I've had a ST at Easter Road for 6 years and I can't even think of 6 incidents where it would have been used. And we're a reasonably well-off club. The idea that you'd expect clubs up and down the league systems, and in countries across Europe and the world, to buy it would be irresponsible.

Colin M... I appreciate your point, and perhaps a trial would have helped. However, it's all academic now, as the issue will be closed for many years.

you raise a good point. the figures you posted are astronomical, i wasn't actually aware of the extent of the cost.

i dont understand why fifa don't put forward that exact arguement. i reckon most people asking for the use of technology would understand that financially it isn't really viable, even for the top sides, if they were given this information.

fifa just seem to be pretty pig headed about the whole affair.

[Colin M]

HibeeJibee, on 12 March 2010 - 14:30, said:

Colin M... I appreciate your point, and perhaps a trial would have helped. However, it's all academic now, as the issue will be closed for many years.

Yeah - that's what I find so disappointing. I totally accept the argument against video assistance, but still feel it could be used sparingly with little if any disruption to the game. I think what FIFA have said last week on it is the equivalent of fingers in the ears and "LALALALA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU"!

Totally agree on the goal line technology though. I don't really see that issue as being that critical.

[Mr X]

HibeeJibee, on 12 March 2010 - 14:17, said:

The costs of the chip-in-ball stuff is ridiculous: I was at a presentation last year where a figure of £100,000 a goal frame was quoted (and doing a ground might therefore cost upwards of £250,000 due to wiring, ancillary costs, labour etc.). The research invested was phenomenal - yet until recently the chip-in-ball didn't even work properly (for example: at the end of the game, or in a wet game, or being ricocheted off the crossbar and down, it was not reliable enough). Obviously they needed to make the technology [a] pay the research/development costs back and [b) make a profit = outrageously expensive. I'd like to see it in an ideal world, but no league is going to spend millions of £ on a system that might be used a handful of times a season, and was not 100% reliable anyway. The HawkEye system was not instantaneous, was equally expensive, and would require erecting 8-12 radar gun posts.

WOW. I had no idea the setup was that expensive. What about the balls themselves, were they more expensive too?

HibeeJibee, on 12 March 2010 - 14:17, said:

As for the video referee, I'm glad it was rejected. Football is not a set-piece game (like tennis or cricket), or even semi-set-piece (like rugby)... The game is the most popular sport because it's easy to play, flows, and is effectively the same "from public park to Parkhead" as I always say. I'd be very disappointed if we ever got to a situation where managers can play 'challenges', or where the game stops so they can ponder an incident as with a try in rugby. Plus with rugby, the ball has been grounded = play stops = is either a score, or a scrum. In football play might be continuing... the opposition might break away and score!!... and the incidents are subjective i.e. was it a bad tackle or not. Video replays will never work, IMO.

I am pleased the 4th+5th official scheme is to be rolled out, in leagues where there are enough officials. It discourages shirt-tugging and helps ref.

Totally agree

Colin M, on 12 March 2010 - 14:37, said:

Yeah - that's what I find so disappointing. I totally accept the argument against video assistance, but still feel it could be used sparingly with little if any disruption to the game. I think what FIFA have said last week on it is the equivalent of fingers in the ears and "LALALALA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU"!

Totally agree on the goal line technology though. I don't really see that issue as being that critical.

How? Genuine question.

Im against video technology, but only because I cant see how it could be implemented. Someone on here started a petition a while ago encouraging people to support video technology, yet they had no ideas as to how to implement it. If someone can come up with a way of doing that without disrupting the game, Id be all for it.

This post has been edited by Mr X: 12 March 2010 - 17:23

[Ned Nederlander]

HibeeJibee, on 12 March 2010 - 14:17, said:

The costs of the chip-in-ball stuff is ridiculous: I was at a presentation last year where a figure of £100,000 a goal frame was quoted (and doing a ground might therefore cost upwards of £250,000 due to wiring, ancillary costs, labour etc.).

I don't pretend to be an expert in sensors but I've worked with them for years and I find that price almost obscene,


if I were tasked with the goal mouth technology problem at work I reckon I could have a decent system installed for about £2,000 a frame - I'm almost feert to post how I'd do it 'cause there seems to be a decent market there


ah f'k it, here goes - I'd imbed a series of cameras in the frame and link them to a decent vision system. Most vision systems could cope easily with a ball (without the need for any internal sensors) and I'd have them send a signal for the ref and also have them show a freeze frame on a remote monitor for someone to double check the 'evidence' to issue a second signal for the ref - the whole process could take less than a couple of seconds.


Resonable industrial cameras are around £80 each - stick 10 in a frame and run the software on a bulk standard PC



I'm sure the Premier League could invest in around £5k a stadium to install the stuff themselves

[Patrick Bateman]

More officials, like the NFL for example, is surely worth a shout. In fact, wasn't there a trial recently with officials behind the goals? Or am I just making that up?

[Geefoxer]

The goal-line technology thing was always a crap idea but what should be considered is having a TV referee to determine key outcomes. Whether the ball has crossed the line could be determined by that means as could penalty decisions and offsides (but only if the ball ends up in the net). Incidents like the Thierry Henri hand ball could be dealt with too. However, I wouldn't want to see the game being stopped every 30 seconds or so.

Anything that can help cut out the wrong decisions must be considered.

This post has been edited by Geefoxer: 12 March 2010 - 18:45

[Cowden Cowboy]

130+ years we haven't needed this. Get on with the game and forget any more technology. It's not all about money, business and TV so let's not go any further down this road.

[Ned Nederlander]

Cowden Cowboy, on 12 March 2010 - 19:39, said:

130+ years we haven't needed this.

1883 - Crossbars become compulsary
1891 - Penalty Kicks introduced
1902 - Penalty area and half way line introduced
1923 - Laws state 11 aside.
1958 - Substitutes introduced
1970 - Red and yellow Cards introduced.
1990 - Shinguards made compulsary.
1992 - Passback rule introduced.

[ScottyC]

Ned Nederlander, on 12 March 2010 - 20:00, said:

1883 - Crossbars become compulsary
1891 - Penalty Kicks introduced
1902 - Penalty area and half way line introduced
1923 - Laws state 11 aside.
1958 - Substitutes introduced
1970 - Red and yellow Cards introduced.
1990 - Shinguards made compulsary.
1992 - Passback rule introduced.

I would hardly put "shinguards made compulsary" on the same level as the introduction of "crossbars" or "penalty kicks".

[Reynard]

Cowden Cowboy, on 12 March 2010 - 19:39, said:

130+ years we haven't needed this. Get on with the game and forget any more technology. It's not all about money, business and TV so let's not go any further down this road.

Well let's make the game completely amateur again. Unfortunately the game at any sort of half decent level is entirely about money. You are watching the game at the wrong level of the sport if you want it any other way.