Technology

[JAL]

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.

Linesman being responsible for judging wether the ball has crossed the line....now your talking Le chuck.

Or rather than linesman, we'll call him the assistant referee, put him/her another assistant referee(linesman) behind the goal line and I'd agree the most practical solution to the problem is there but not in some sort of technological gadget being erected in the goals causing extra, huge expense.

Platini's experiment in the Europa league may not be a bad idea afterall.

[LeChuck]

Linesman being responsible for judging wether the ball has crossed the line....now your talking Le chuck.

Or rather than linesman, we'll call him the assistant referee, put him/her another assistant referee(linesman) behind the goal line and I'd agree the most practical solution to the problem is there but not in some sort of technological gadget being erected in the goals causing extra, huge expense.

That's not what I meant.

I meant in lower/amateur leagues they'll just continue as normal, using the referee and/or assistants to judge.

In the Premier League/World Cups etc. they'll use technology to judge.

You don't have to use exactly the same methods at every level; cricket, tennis, rugby - they all do it with ease.

There is so much money at the top end of the game that cost really isn't an issue.

[JAL]

In the Premier League/World Cups etc. they'll use technology to judge.

You don't have to use exactly the same methods at every level; cricket, tennis, rugby - they all do it with ease.

There is so much money at the top end of the game that cost really isn't an issue.

Technology to judge, now your taking a small part of the game out of the hands of the referee are you not, and allowing in a potentially corrupt third party.

The other issue is money at the top end of the game but not necessarily at the bottom end of the game.

[Eddie]

Potentially corrupt third party?

[JAL]

Potentially corrupt third party?

Not a technician but i'd imagine it would be very easy to show a replay with the ball being manipulated into a different position than its real position by a a competent TV technician...... could be a good thing for the far east betting cartels.

[unluckymorton]

Technology to judge, now your taking a small part of the game out of the hands of the referee are you not, and allowing in a potentially corrupt third party.

The other issue is money at the top end of the game but not necessarily at the bottom end of the game.

So what your saying is that if the fourth (or would it be a fifth) official had access to a screen you wouldn't believe it anyway because there is likely to be a TV tecnician involved in a far eastern betting ring?

I'm a traditionalist and have never been in favour of goal line technology and I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around but I can see the argument for technology and it has come into effect in other sports and works extremely well, so far without a corrupt technician doctoring the footage in the matter of seconds between the decision being challenged and the official confirming the decision....

[JAL]

So what your saying is that if the fourth (or would it be a fifth) official had access to a screen you wouldn't believe it anyway because there is likely to be a TV tecnician involved in a far eastern betting ring?

I'm a traditionalist and have never been in favour of goal line technology and I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around but I can see the argument for technology and it has come into effect in other sports and works extremely well, so far without a corrupt technician doctoring the footage in the matter of seconds between the decision being challenged and the official confirming the decision....

Where theres money involved and big money at that dont be suprised.

What gets me is everyone looking at it from a supporters angle, which is fair enough, but what about the frequency of these type of goals. I'd say they are pretty low, in fact when was the last time at Ewood we could have done with goal line technology?.

Cost x frequency x maintanance x retraining x changes to Laws of the game = for the outcome

Seems a massive amount of effort on all levels concerned for what could amount to a one season wonder.

[JAL]

What I will say is when the costs do come down, and the referee has instant access via an 'eye screen' linked to a monitor then the technology will be implemented.

Because the game wont be stopped if the referee has constant access to pictures of the game which should also eliminate any mistakes made by the officials without affecting the Laws of the game.

[unluckymorton]

Where theres money involved and big money at that dont be suprised.

What gets me is everyone looking at it from a supporters angle, which is fair enough, but what about the frequency of these type of goals. I'd say they are pretty low, in fact when was the last time at Ewood we could have done with goal line technology?.

Cost x frequency x maintanance x retraining x changes to Laws of the game = for the outcome

Seems a massive amount of effort on all levels concerned for what could amount to a one season wonder.

I agree JAL, as I said I am a traditionalist and I think the game should be left alone. Human error has always been a part of the game and as the season goes on you'll get decisions for and against you.

Would it be used for offside? If so how many challenges would a team get throughout a game? I think off side is a far more serious issue than the ball crossing the goal line. There are not many dodgy decisions through a full season and the Lampard goal at the world cup was a freak incident that was highlighted so much because it was England in the world cup. If it was Rovers in the league it wouldn't have hit the back page and would have gone unnoticed to all who are not Rovers fans.

An extra linesman on the goal line as they did in the Europa League would do for me. He can keep his eye on challenges in the box and he could be the goal line technology we need.

[LeChuck]

What I will say is when the costs do come down, and the referee has instant access via an 'eye screen' linked to a monitor then the technology will be implemented.

Because the game wont be stopped if the referee has constant access to pictures of the game which should also eliminate any mistakes made by the officials without affecting the Laws of the game.

I don't think either of the technologies suggested works like that.

It's either the Hawk-Eye system used in tennis/cricket, or a chip in the ball that detects whether it goes over the line. Either way a response is triggered to the referee in less than one second.

The cost is not an issue. The top level can afford it easily, the lower levels can carry on as normal.

Here is a BBC article explaining the two main types of technology suggested.

[JAL]

I don't think either of the technologies suggested works like that.

It's either the Hawk-Eye system used in tennis/cricket, or a chip in the ball that detects whether it goes over the line. Either way a response is triggered to the referee in less than one second.

The cost is not an issue. The top level can afford it easily, the lower levels can carry on as normal.

Here is a BBC article explaining the two main types of technology suggested.

Chip in the ball with an instant response to the referee, sounds a simple and most effective way forward LeChuck regarding technology.

[tony gale's mic]

Chip in the ball with an instant response to the referee, sounds a simple and most effective way forward LeChuck regarding technology.

So you're now saying that this form of goal line technology is a good thing?

I agree with the viewpoint that video technology shouldnt be used for most things, but I do think goal line technology is worth implementing as it happens so quickly that sometimes it can be really difficult, almost impossible to tell. Having said that Lampard's goal was so far in it wasn't funny.

[JAL]

Chip in the ball with an instant response to the referee, sounds a simple and most effective way forward LeChuck regarding technology.

Having read that there has to be several number of sensors implemented around the goal area. I, go back on the statement above has its still could involve potential outside inference. Hope that answers your question Tony gale's mic.

[greco]

if tennis can do it, so can football.

cant remember whehter it was lampards goal or the off side goal. that gave aregntina the lead over mexico, but it was clear that the referee and his assistant realised their mistake, when they watched the replay on the big screen.

but they werent allowed to change their verdict, even with solid proof, just because of stupid rule. Seems retarded when you consider the fact, the huge emphasis fifa place on fair play.

[JAL]

if tennis can do it, so can football.

cant remember whehter it was lampards goal or the off side goal. that gave aregntina the lead over mexico, but it was clear that the referee and his assistant realised their mistake, when they watched the replay on the big screen.

but they werent allowed to change their verdict, even with solid proof, just because of stupid rule. Seems retarded when you consider the fact, the huge emphasis fifa place on fair play.

Think you'll find that the referee was ushering players away from his assistant with both not realising at the time that they'd made a mistake. If he had then the referee would have given offside on the evidence given to him by his assistant which the assistant failed to do.

I bet you'll find at the time there was so much going on around them the ref and assistants that the replay on the large TV screen was completely missed.

[jodrell]

if tennis can do it, so can football.

cant remember whehter it was lampards goal or the off side goal. that gave aregntina the lead over mexico, but it was clear that the referee and his assistant realised their mistake, when they watched the replay on the big screen.

but they werent allowed to change their verdict, even with solid proof, just because of stupid rule. Seems retarded when you consider the fact, the huge emphasis fifa place on fair play.

It was the Argentina game, the Mexicans were going to the center until they saw the replay. Then went to the linesman.slightley off topic. was it Spurs or Notlob that got in trouble for showing a controversial replay in the prem.

[thenodrog]

All this debate about goal line technology is mainly cos we've just been done out of an obvious goal that would have been routinely spotted by 99% of all linesmen. The biggest issue imo which happens many times each and every week and not once every blue moon is correctly identifying cheating i.e. fouls and dives. Hawkeye technology is not for that. The way forward for all can only be video technology by a 5th official behind the scenes.

[Steve Moss]

. . . The way forward for all can only be video technology by a 5th official behind the scenes.

I would personally be in favor of any kind of video review, including (at a minimum) an after game review of the tape with appropriate cards given for undetected cheating.

[JAL]

All this debate about goal line technology is mainly cos we've just been done out of an obvious goal that would have been routinely spotted by 99% of all linesmen. The biggest issue imo which happens many times each and every week and not once every blue moon is correctly identifying cheating i.e. fouls and dives. Hawkeye technology is not for that. The way forward for all can only be video technology by a 5th official behind the scenes.

You advocate a 5th official to run the game, how much would this be open to abuse?