Technology

[tony gale's mic]

i don't want technology, so er yeah.

keep it so grass roots can play as close to the premiership version of football as possible

Rubbish. Exactly which part of Premiership football is remotely close to "grass roots"? Is it the money, the egos, whats at stake, the number of people watching, the quality of the play?! Already players can be charged after a game based on video evidence anyway which would never happen in the Sunday Leagues.

The rules are no different, if the ball is over the line it's a goal. All goal line technology would supply is a way for the referees to be sure of that decision, which is only fair since there's so many more hopes resting on a World Cup game than a park kickabout.

Professional cricket is about a million times closer to its grass roots game than Premiership football (bar the likes of the IPL) and it still uses video replays.

[American Rover12]

You'd need to stop the play in that scenario though while the referee appealed and the 4th official watched the replays, which in tight calls could take 30 seconds or so - doesn't sound like much but you'd need to stop open play.

I disagree slightly. I'd let play continue on of course, but at any natural stoppage after the close call, award the goal and then restart from center.

[Tim Southampton Rover]

Totally agree.

It makes a mockery of their argument for reasons why we shouldn't have video replays.

They're quite happy to fine people and ban players by using video replays yet they won't use video replays to determine whether it's a goal or not.

The majority of fans, players, managers, chairmen, referee's want video replays but the main numpty in charge doesn't. How the hell does this guy get voted in every year. FIFA need to get with the times.

[ultrablue]

I have a bit of a problem with the whole use of the word "technology". We have had the technology for making goal line decisions for decades now - its a simple instant replay. I'm a bit sick of these companies trying to muscle in with their electro-magnetic fields etc. that does nothing but confuse and cloud what should be an incredibly simple process.

Video replays should be there for the ref to look at, where there is no interpretation needed. Did the ball cross the line? Straight forward as that. where there is no clear evidence to overrule the refs decision, his original call stands. Debate would still be there for fans, as it is often a very close call. But at least then we wouldn't be in the ridiculous situation the officials in England's game now find themselves in. It would take a maximum of 30 seconds.

I don't think it should be there for offside, because that depends on interpretation - feet only inline/ first phase, second phase etc.

Things like hawkeye turn lower league teams off, as it seems expensive. But just as there are other ground requirements to play in England's professional leagues, a camera in the corner of each goal, hooked up to a monitor next to the fourth official should be mandatory. Then we can get THE most fundamental decision in the game, goal or no goal, correct.

[tony gale's mic]

I disagree slightly. I'd let play continue on of course, but at any natural stoppage after the close call, award the goal and then restart from center.

But what if someone scored? What if someone got a second yellow? I know usually it wouldnt happen but all you'd need is for it to happen once is to reopen the debate.

[American Rover12]

But what if someone scored? What if someone got a second yellow? I know usually it wouldnt happen but all you'd need is for it to happen once is to reopen the debate.

I can only answer personally, but I wouldn't interfere with the disciplinary aspect with replay right now. Punishments for violent conduct missed is all well and good and the Kaka incident was unfortunate and i would like to see cards like that overturned, but never in game. Discipline is still up to the officials, for me anyway.

As for a goal wrongly given, I think that's actually an easier situation to use replay for. Goal given, play stops anyway and everyone makes there way back to the center. Fourth official see the replay, talks in his headset to the official, calls overturned, and a corner or goal kick or throw or something ( I don't really know what would be fairest) given to the team who had their goal overturned.

[tony gale's mic]

I can only answer personally, but I wouldn't interfere with the disciplinary aspect with replay right now. Punishments for violent conduct missed is all well and good and the Kaka incident was unfortunate and i would like to see cards like that overturned, but never in game. Discipline is still up to the officials, for me anyway.

As for a goal wrongly given, I think that's actually an easier situation to use replay for. Goal given, play stops anyway and everyone makes there way back to the center. Fourth official see the replay, talks in his headset to the official, calls overturned, and a corner or goal kick or throw or something ( I don't really know what would be fairest) given to the team who had their goal overturned.

No no, I meant in the intervening period while you were waiting for the decision, what if someone scored/got a second yellow etc? Would they be stricken from the record or allowed? You can say 30 seconds isn't much time but you have to legislate for these things. That's why I'm much more in favour of an almost instantaneous result from something like Hawk-Eye which has been proven to be practically 100% accurate.

[JAL]

Totally agree.

It makes a mockery of their argument for reasons why we shouldn't have video replays.

They're quite happy to fine people and ban players by using video replays yet they won't use video replays to determine whether it's a goal or not.

The majority of fans, players, managers, chairmen, referee's want video replays but the main numpty in charge doesn't. How the hell does this guy get voted in every year. FIFA need to get with the times.

Tim, we cant afford to roll it out to every football ground in the country.

Heard the cost of implementation is somewhere in the region of 100k per ground, now theres many a contributory league club that just simply cant afford this amount of extra expense and the government arent going to subsidise it, are they and thats in one of the g20 country's.

What about third world countries such as Africa, extra officials behind the goal line looks the most practical solution.

[tony gale's mic]

Tim, we cant afford to roll it out to every football ground in the country.

Heard the cost of implementation is somewhere in the region of 100k per ground, now theres many a contributory league club that just simply cant afford this amount of extra expense and the government arent going to subsidise it, are they and thats in one of the g20 country's.

What about third world countries such as Africa, extra officials behind the goal line looks the most practical solution.

It doesn't need to be at every football ground. Third umpire replays aren't in park cricket but they've made run outs a lot fairer. It doesn't change the rules of the game, it just ensures one particular decision is more accurate. It won't even be relevant in 90% of games but when it is, it'll be important.

[JAL]

It doesn't need to be at every football ground. Third umpire replays aren't in park cricket but they've made run outs a lot fairer. It doesn't change the rules of the game, it just ensures one particular decision is more accurate. It won't even be relevant in 90% of games but when it is, it'll be important.

Are you suggesting double standards within the Laws of the game?

But what about in third world countries, your the governor of world football, not just in England but all the poorer less wealthier country's around the globe, how do they pay for its implementation ?

[modes98]

I'm against technology to be honest, too many variables.

Surely there are more variables by not having it in? A Hawk-eye system gives no variables at all.

Heard the cost of implementation is somewhere in the region of 100k per ground, now theres many a contributory league club that just simply cant afford this amount of extra expense and the government arent going to subsidise it, are they and thats in one of the g20 country's.

What about third world countries such as Africa, extra officials behind the goal line looks the most practical solution.

If you read 67splitscreen's post up the screen then you will see it is £50k. The cost isn't all that important to PL clubs as I believe most already have the cameras fitted anyway, as part of the prozone package which is widely used provide statistical data for teams. So it wouldn't be that much of an issue. As for lower leagues then it would have to be a case that all clubs in the division had them or none at all. It would be unfair to have some with and some without in a season.

I am sure "Africa" which has just spent some astronomical amount, I heard 3.5billion, on the world cup could spare £50k or even £100k to get a set of cameras fitted.

[67splitscreen]

Surely there are more variables by not having it in? A Hawk-eye system gives no variables at all.

If you read 67splitscreen's post up the screen then you will see it is £50k. The cost isn't all that important to PL clubs as I believe most already have the cameras fitted anyway, as part of the prozone package which is widely used provide statistical data for teams. So it wouldn't be that much of an issue. As for lower leagues then it would have to be a case that all clubs in the division had them or none at all. It would be unfair to have some with and some without in a season.

I am sure "Africa" which has just spent some astronomical amount, I heard 3.5billion, on the world cup could spare £50k or even £100k to get a set of cameras fitted.

You forgot it's 50k for five years.

If everyone in the game (except FIFA) is for the technology, they should all boycott the next WC but not until the opening ceremony.

They can have a Germany v Argentina final straight after. I'm sure they won't be arguing the point.

[neekoy]

It is ridiculous to use "grass roots" as an excuse, you are talking about the most important sporting competition in the world, what matters is getting a correct decision when it can be done instantly.

You should have as specialised video referee and they should be monitoring everything in the game by video. The only things that should be allowed to be disputed by replay are goals.

Offside rule, handball, penalties, ball crossing the line.

I got to agree with others, this is about allowing corruption, both legal and illegal, of the game not about protecting its sanctity, pure and simple.

[Nate]

The only technology needed is an AK 47 and a mobile phone to get Sepp Blatter, Jack Warner and Platini in the same room.

Have you ever read Foul! by andrew Jennings? It's bound to make you even more angry!

[philipl]

Why does Wimbledon have hawkeye but there is no technology to call my tennis shots in?

Just as football is imbalanced between pro footballers and amateurs, pro referees and amateurs, refs with ear pieces and those without, the FIFA stance on goal-line technology is plainly bonkers.

[JAL]

Why does Wimbledon have hawkeye but there is no technology to call my tennis shots in?

Just as football is imbalanced between pro footballers and amateurs, pro referees and amateurs, refs with ear pieces and those without, the FIFA stance on goal-line technology is plainly bonkers.

The ONLY imbalance in football is concerning money between different leagues and clubs, the game or the Laws of the game are standard from grassroots right upto International football and so it should be.

FIFA shouldnt give in to a bunch of 'moaning minnies'from a country that hasnt got the right balance to its own game of football by implementing goal line technology - just hit the back of the net for god dam sake!.

[ultrablue]

Blatter apologises for disallowed goal and says technology debate will be reopened.

More to follow

[Eddie]

That's just a ridiculous stance. It's so easy to implement at this stage, it would take nothing away from the game and it wouldn't hurt the game that it isn't exactly the same at every level. The league I play in doesn't have earpieces and mics for the officials. I don't mind. The league I play in doesn't have a panel that can then review video evidence and reduce or increase punishments. They do it in Rugby, American Football, Tennis, Cricket...the list goes on. The officiating so far in this tournament has been embarrassing, it has made the greatest sporting event on earth look amateurish.

[67splitscreen]

Blatter is all trousers and suspenders.

'He was Director of Sports Timing and Relations of Longines S.A. and was involved in the organization of the 1972 and 1976 Olympic Games. In the early 1970s, Blatter was elected president of the World Society of Friends of Suspenders, an organisation which tried to stop women replacing suspender belts with pantyhose.

Unfortunately on that one I would have backed him.

[Steve Moss]

FIFA shouldnt give in to a bunch of 'moaning minnies'from a country that hasnt got the right balance to its own game of football by implementing goal line technology - just hit the back of the net for god dam sake!.

Even that doesn't work. Ask our Edu or your Lampard. Or are the USA and England supposed to be so good that we spot the other WC squads one goal at the beginning of each match?

[American Rover12]

No no, I meant in the intervening period while you were waiting for the decision, what if someone scored/got a second yellow etc? Would they be stricken from the record or allowed? You can say 30 seconds isn't much time but you have to legislate for these things. That's why I'm much more in favour of an almost instantaneous result from something like Hawk-Eye which has been proven to be practically 100% accurate.

Very fair point. Logically I think that it would have to be stricken if my crazy scenario were real life, but if someone punches someone else in the face and then the goal is given/over-turned, I don't think I'd want them on the pitch.

Hawk-eye it is!

[Amo]

Mock the Week said it all:

"All this talk of technology, chips in the ball and lasers on the goal line. All they need is someone to rewind the video. Do Sky not have Sky Plus!?"

[tony gale's mic]

The ONLY imbalance in football is concerning money between different leagues and clubs, the game or the Laws of the game are standard from grassroots right upto International football and so it should be.

For christs' sakes, the law is still exactly the same, just the methods of applying it are more accurate and advanced. Which is perfectly in keeping for the professional level of the sport.

[JAL]

For christs' sakes, the law is still exactly the same, just the methods of applying it are more accurate and advanced. Which is perfectly in keeping for the professional level of the sport.

Look at the game of football from a world prospective and not as a cash rich country like England.

Theres probably a few Third world International countries that could'nt afford to implement the technology then ask yourself about the lower levels of professional football.

The laws of the game will have to be rewritten and does the referee have to become a qualified technician to ensure that the referee maintains ultimate control of a football match or does another third party become involved in the overall outcome to a game of football?

[LeChuck]

JAL...what are you talking about?

Tennis survives at grass-roots level without Hawk-Eye. Rugby is played without a video screen.

The linesman will just be responsible for judging whether the ball has crossed the line, exactly the same as it is now. The rules don't need to be changed, in fact nothing would need to be changed where the technology wouldn't be used.