Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
Words cannot describe how annoying I found that comment.
Words cannot describe how annoying I found that comment.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Technology And Refereeing
- Thread starter COYS
- Start date
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
Para 1: the fourth official merely tells the ref who was flagged offside and whether in his judgement as an official he was interfering with play. It's still up to the ref on the pitch to make the final judgement call. I see no problems there tbh.
Para 2: first, it works the other way far more often, ie the attacking team is penalised incorrectly for offside having just scored a perfectly legitimate goal. Is it really more important to weigh the scales in favour of the opposition against the extremely rare chance that play has to be called back after they have gone down the other end and scored within the 45 seconds?
Second, it already happens from time to time that the flag goes up but the ref overrules his asst ref and waves play on, so what's the difference?
Para 3: you do have a point there, but only a minor one imo because such a situation could in theory already materialise under present rules. The ref already has the discretion to wave play on when a foul has been committed only to bring it back for a FK if the advantage does not materialise.
Para 4: Disagree that the ball is more likely to go out of play but even if it is, that's still beside the point. To base your logic on that chance seems a tad bizarre tbh!
RE:
Para 1: the fourth official merely tells the ref who was flagged offside and whether in his judgement as an official he was interfering with play. It's still up to the ref on the pitch to make the final judgement call. I see no problems there tbh.
Para 2: first, it works the other way far more often, ie the attacking team is penalised incorrectly for offside having just scored a perfectly legitimate goal. Is it really more important to weigh the scales in favour of the opposition against the extremely rare chance that play has to be called back after they have gone down the other end and scored within the 45 seconds?
Second, it already happens from time to time that the flag goes up but the ref overrules his asst ref and waves play on, so what's the difference?
Para 3: you do have a point there, but only a minor one imo because such a situation could in theory already materialise under present rules. The ref already has the discretion to wave play on when a foul has been committed only to bring it back for a FK if the advantage does not materialise.
Para 4: Disagree that the ball is more likely to go out of play but even if it is, that's still beside the point. To base your logic on that chance seems a tad bizarre tbh!
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
The offside rule is not really black and white in every instance (is he interfering with play or not???) but to be honest that is a problem they have created themselves, and one they could probably remedy with another tweak to the rule. Like was mentioned this could be decided 10-20 seconds down the line if need be.
There is a fundamental point at the heart of the technology debate and it's one that Sepp has highlighted. Are bad decisions a part of the game or not? Once you answer that then the path is clear. Either accept that there are fudges ups and get on with it, or make the officials life easier and use technology where and when you can.
The goal line stuff is a no brainer. If the ball crosses the line then it's a goal. Simple.
What about removing the time keeping element from the ref and giving it to the 4th official, and maybe linking it to the stadium/match clock? Simple to do and would eradicate time wasting in one fell swoop.
What about retrospective punishment? Has to help with diving and off the ball brick.
There are a tonne of small things that could be introduced if the will was there all of which would make the game more about the football than the gamesmanship.
The offside rule is not really black and white in every instance (is he interfering with play or not???) but to be honest that is a problem they have created themselves, and one they could probably remedy with another tweak to the rule. Like was mentioned this could be decided 10-20 seconds down the line if need be.
There is a fundamental point at the heart of the technology debate and it's one that Sepp has highlighted. Are bad decisions a part of the game or not? Once you answer that then the path is clear. Either accept that there are fudges ups and get on with it, or make the officials life easier and use technology where and when you can.
The goal line stuff is a no brainer. If the ball crosses the line then it's a goal. Simple.
What about removing the time keeping element from the ref and giving it to the 4th official, and maybe linking it to the stadium/match clock? Simple to do and would eradicate time wasting in one fell swoop.
What about retrospective punishment? Has to help with diving and off the ball brick.
There are a tonne of small things that could be introduced if the will was there all of which would make the game more about the football than the gamesmanship.
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
To be honest, I hope football just brings in the thing from rugby: "Did anything happen in the last 15 seconds to stop that goal being a goal?" That'd help with offside goals being ruled out incorrectly, handballs being missed, etc.
Yes, but again it's the time before he decides advantage or free kick that is the difference. Neil Warnock was going nuts when we had 3-5 seconds which is about the usual time. 2 is too short and I very rarely see a ref pull something back after 7 seconds. Compare that to 45 seconds, it's a lot of time.
Two players are running in the box, they both fall over... If the player is running towards goal, the ball is likely to go out. If the player is running away from goal the defender should not be touching him. If the player is running to the sides of the pitch, it depends if there are any players to prevent the ball rolling out.
With an offside decision, the player only becomes offside when he touches the ball usually, so the majority of the time he will have controlled it, after which anything can happen.
That's just why I think it's more likely to go out of play on a penalty shout.
Fair enough, but that's how things are going, baby steps.
The reason it is going like that is because there are a number of people that don't want the game stopped often. It is easier to sell technology when you begin your pitch with "the game won't stop because it'll already be stopped".
My comments are purely on why it's difficult to see offsides being challenged. Compare offsides to goal line "did it cross the line" moments... Offsides are easier to see, there aren't a mass of bodies and things aren't usually so close as to require 10 replays... Andy Carroll's goal against Chelsea wasn't given and nobody knows if it did or did not cross the line even now. Offsides will result in matches having incorrect goals given/not given far more than "did it cross the line" moments, those moments hardly ever happen. A few a season vs half a dozen per team per season. But when you consider all of that, goal line technology is the one that'll come in. Why? Things are simpler "it was a goal" or "it was not a goal"... It hardly ever happens... It is acceptable to wait 30 seconds a few times a season but not 30 seconds a couple of times a game.
This is why my logic is strange. It has to be pitched to everyone, including "the game should remain pure, wrong decisions will even themselves out in the end" and other people with varying degrees of lunacy for reasons it should not be brought in. (See Blatter's "people can talk about decisions"...) The most sensible reasons against have to be listened to and trying to contest offsides like that is going to meet more resistance than if something can be contested while play has stopped.
-------------
I'm sure they will be. At the moment it's only the cost that stops it. Everyone can be wired up like motion capture people are, the lines on the pitch and the ball can all have sensors to effectively be run through a graphics engine that'll show the match in CGI with 100% accuracy. The only strange thing would be gloves being compulsory. Every possible matter of fact decision could be instantly checked and every other decision can be replayed from any angle. The only things that couldn't be seen would be things like spitting, but tiny mics could be used to catch anything said. Everyone and everything would be mapped out.
It really would be surprising if it took 20 years.
To be honest, I hope football just brings in the thing from rugby: "Did anything happen in the last 15 seconds to stop that goal being a goal?" That'd help with offside goals being ruled out incorrectly, handballs being missed, etc.
Not with offsides in that manner. I've never seen a ref overrule his assistant on the positioning of someone... Over whether or not he touched it/the ball was played back by the other team/the phase/etc yes, but not whether the guy was in an offside position. Unless you just mean a regular foul? In which case, yes, but the ref doesn't let play go on for 45 seconds then pull it back.
Yes, but again it's the time before he decides advantage or free kick that is the difference. Neil Warnock was going nuts when we had 3-5 seconds which is about the usual time. 2 is too short and I very rarely see a ref pull something back after 7 seconds. Compare that to 45 seconds, it's a lot of time.
Two players are running in the box, they both fall over... If the player is running towards goal, the ball is likely to go out. If the player is running away from goal the defender should not be touching him. If the player is running to the sides of the pitch, it depends if there are any players to prevent the ball rolling out.
With an offside decision, the player only becomes offside when he touches the ball usually, so the majority of the time he will have controlled it, after which anything can happen.
That's just why I think it's more likely to go out of play on a penalty shout.
Fair enough, but that's how things are going, baby steps.
The reason it is going like that is because there are a number of people that don't want the game stopped often. It is easier to sell technology when you begin your pitch with "the game won't stop because it'll already be stopped".
My comments are purely on why it's difficult to see offsides being challenged. Compare offsides to goal line "did it cross the line" moments... Offsides are easier to see, there aren't a mass of bodies and things aren't usually so close as to require 10 replays... Andy Carroll's goal against Chelsea wasn't given and nobody knows if it did or did not cross the line even now. Offsides will result in matches having incorrect goals given/not given far more than "did it cross the line" moments, those moments hardly ever happen. A few a season vs half a dozen per team per season. But when you consider all of that, goal line technology is the one that'll come in. Why? Things are simpler "it was a goal" or "it was not a goal"... It hardly ever happens... It is acceptable to wait 30 seconds a few times a season but not 30 seconds a couple of times a game.
This is why my logic is strange. It has to be pitched to everyone, including "the game should remain pure, wrong decisions will even themselves out in the end" and other people with varying degrees of lunacy for reasons it should not be brought in. (See Blatter's "people can talk about decisions"...) The most sensible reasons against have to be listened to and trying to contest offsides like that is going to meet more resistance than if something can be contested while play has stopped.
-------------
I'm sure they will be. At the moment it's only the cost that stops it. Everyone can be wired up like motion capture people are, the lines on the pitch and the ball can all have sensors to effectively be run through a graphics engine that'll show the match in CGI with 100% accuracy. The only strange thing would be gloves being compulsory. Every possible matter of fact decision could be instantly checked and every other decision can be replayed from any angle. The only things that couldn't be seen would be things like spitting, but tiny mics could be used to catch anything said. Everyone and everything would be mapped out.
It really would be surprising if it took 20 years.
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
Don't follow rugby or American sports but sports like tennis and cricket are much more amenable to interference by their very nature. In tennis so much is dependent on where the ball lands. In 90% of cases where there is a dispute the ball has already gone out of play and a sensor quickly delivers a verdict. Again, in cricket, the ball goes out of play every few seconds so there's plenty of scope.
Whereas in footy, play may continue for minutes before the ball next goes out of play (especially when the likes of Barcelona are playing keepball) so it's that much more fraught to contest a decision (or non-decision) instantly without interrupting the flow of the game.
Don't follow rugby or American sports but sports like tennis and cricket are much more amenable to interference by their very nature. In tennis so much is dependent on where the ball lands. In 90% of cases where there is a dispute the ball has already gone out of play and a sensor quickly delivers a verdict. Again, in cricket, the ball goes out of play every few seconds so there's plenty of scope.
Whereas in footy, play may continue for minutes before the ball next goes out of play (especially when the likes of Barcelona are playing keepball) so it's that much more fraught to contest a decision (or non-decision) instantly without interrupting the flow of the game.
Steed Train
Clive Wilson
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
I think it should only be used for contentious goals or penalty decisions. Players scores and there's an offside in the buildup. The ball is dead and video can be referenced. I don't agree that stopping play could be implemented very effectively
I think it should only be used for contentious goals or penalty decisions. Players scores and there's an offside in the buildup. The ball is dead and video can be referenced. I don't agree that stopping play could be implemented very effectively
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
Solid post.
I think a lot of the "small things" you mention could be implemented a lot cheaper than goal-line technology and have a bigger impact.
There's a very solid chance that the goal-line technology won't have any influence on the next World Cup, if does it's likely to only be one or two games. Of course at some point an important decision in an important game will be helped by this to be fair.
Something like controlling time-wasting on the other hand would most likely influence the majority of games, both making it more fair and potentially more entertaining for the audience too.
This is why I think the goal-line technology debate is a red herring.
As for the offside rule, I disagree. Yes, there are judgment calls that would have to be made if a video ref is put in place. But those judgement calls are already being made real time by the refs on the pitch. I can't see any argument against the point that a video ref with a bit of time to watch a situation again, from various angles would be able to make a better judgement call than a ref on the pitch. This again would lead to better, more fair and more consistent decisions. Just because they wouldn't be perfect doesn't mean it's not a better alternative than what we currently have.
Also, if offside technology was implemented (possibly a couple of years away before it's feasible) the ref (or video ref) would only have to make the judgement call part of the decision and could trust the actual "was he ahead of the line at the time" decision. Would make their job easier.
Solid post.
I think a lot of the "small things" you mention could be implemented a lot cheaper than goal-line technology and have a bigger impact.
There's a very solid chance that the goal-line technology won't have any influence on the next World Cup, if does it's likely to only be one or two games. Of course at some point an important decision in an important game will be helped by this to be fair.
Something like controlling time-wasting on the other hand would most likely influence the majority of games, both making it more fair and potentially more entertaining for the audience too.
This is why I think the goal-line technology debate is a red herring.
As for the offside rule, I disagree. Yes, there are judgment calls that would have to be made if a video ref is put in place. But those judgement calls are already being made real time by the refs on the pitch. I can't see any argument against the point that a video ref with a bit of time to watch a situation again, from various angles would be able to make a better judgement call than a ref on the pitch. This again would lead to better, more fair and more consistent decisions. Just because they wouldn't be perfect doesn't mean it's not a better alternative than what we currently have.
Also, if offside technology was implemented (possibly a couple of years away before it's feasible) the ref (or video ref) would only have to make the judgement call part of the decision and could trust the actual "was he ahead of the line at the time" decision. Would make their job easier.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
Big difference between the games, tennis stops anyway after rallys.
Big difference between the games, tennis stops anyway after rallys.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
Lot of sense in that post, you can not compere football with tennis and cricket.
Lot of sense in that post, you can not compere football with tennis and cricket.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
Yes you are absolutely right. Goal line tech will have effectively have no impact on 99.9% of games. I think FIFA have focussed their attention on this to draw the spotlight away from real problems in the game.
Actually I'm not advocating video technology for offsides. In fact I think that is too far the other way. I could maybe see a situation where if a goal is scored they could verify it wasn't offside but that's about it. That wouldn't cure all ills but would at least rule out any wrongly awarded goals. There is plenty of other low hanging fruit that could be looked before offsides even come into the picture. There just doesn't seem to be any will to change things by the dinosaurs in charge. How long has goal line technology been talked about ffs? Old boys club nolikey change.
Yes you are absolutely right. Goal line tech will have effectively have no impact on 99.9% of games. I think FIFA have focussed their attention on this to draw the spotlight away from real problems in the game.
Actually I'm not advocating video technology for offsides. In fact I think that is too far the other way. I could maybe see a situation where if a goal is scored they could verify it wasn't offside but that's about it. That wouldn't cure all ills but would at least rule out any wrongly awarded goals. There is plenty of other low hanging fruit that could be looked before offsides even come into the picture. There just doesn't seem to be any will to change things by the dinosaurs in charge. How long has goal line technology been talked about ffs? Old boys club nolikey change.
Last edited:
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
Re: O/T - Goal-Line Technology Approved For WC 2014
This is the nub of it really. They are in effect despots, able to bribe their way into power by offering plums to reps from the smaller nations and then do what the hell they like, such as give the WC to Qatar in return for who-knows-how-many-$quillions.
This is the nub of it really. They are in effect despots, able to bribe their way into power by offering plums to reps from the smaller nations and then do what the hell they like, such as give the WC to Qatar in return for who-knows-how-many-$quillions.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Michel Platini: Goal-line technology too costly for Champions League
WTF !!!!
No by not having it means you can fiddle games Michel !!!
Uefa president Michel Platini says goal-line technology is too expensive for use in the Champions League.
Platini, 57, said he would rather the money was spent on youth football.
"I prefer to put more money into youth football and infrastructure than spend it on technology when there's a goal in a blue moon that hasn't been seen by a referee," he said.
Platini added that he was happy with the five-man referee system, used in the Champions League and Europa League.
Fifa is set to use goal-line technology at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
Platini said the technology would need to be installed in 280 stadiums for European football, which the former France international sees as unnecessary.
"It would cost around 54 million euros (£46m) over five years for this technology, so it's quite expensive for the sort of mistake which happens once every 40 years," he said.
"In the Champions League, I'm very happy with the results (of a five-man team). Practically no mistakes have been made and the referees see practically everything that happens on the pitch."
WTF !!!!
No by not having it means you can fiddle games Michel !!!
Uefa president Michel Platini says goal-line technology is too expensive for use in the Champions League.
Platini, 57, said he would rather the money was spent on youth football.
"I prefer to put more money into youth football and infrastructure than spend it on technology when there's a goal in a blue moon that hasn't been seen by a referee," he said.
Platini added that he was happy with the five-man referee system, used in the Champions League and Europa League.
Fifa is set to use goal-line technology at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
Platini said the technology would need to be installed in 280 stadiums for European football, which the former France international sees as unnecessary.
"It would cost around 54 million euros (£46m) over five years for this technology, so it's quite expensive for the sort of mistake which happens once every 40 years," he said.
"In the Champions League, I'm very happy with the results (of a five-man team). Practically no mistakes have been made and the referees see practically everything that happens on the pitch."
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Re: Michel Platini: Goal-line technology too costly for Champions League
54 million my arse. How the hell can it cost that much?
Just push the cost back on the participants if they are afraid to dip into their reported reserves of $1.378 billion.
54 million my arse. How the hell can it cost that much?
Just push the cost back on the participants if they are afraid to dip into their reported reserves of $1.378 billion.
Last edited:
elyid
Milija Aleksic
Re: Michel Platini: Goal-line technology too costly for Champions League
So using Platini's figures it will cost £46 million for 280 stadiums across Europe (I guess this covers all the teams in qualifying rounds for CL and Europa) for 5 years...
Well, that's actually 165k per stadium for the 5 years, or 33k per year. Too expensive - joke.
Also, as Rorschach says, why not spend some of their billions if they are that concerned about youth football.
Platini and Blatter really are a couple of c**ts.
So using Platini's figures it will cost £46 million for 280 stadiums across Europe (I guess this covers all the teams in qualifying rounds for CL and Europa) for 5 years...
Well, that's actually 165k per stadium for the 5 years, or 33k per year. Too expensive - joke.
Also, as Rorschach says, why not spend some of their billions if they are that concerned about youth football.
Platini and Blatter really are a couple of c**ts.
elyid
Milija Aleksic
Re: Michel Platini: Goal-line technology too costly for Champions League
Just worked it out - he's probably looking for a bigger cut of profits from the suppliers of goal-line technology.
Goes public against giving them £46m of business, then I bet he changes his mind when they offer UEFA a better deal (or him a better kickback).
Just worked it out - he's probably looking for a bigger cut of profits from the suppliers of goal-line technology.
Goes public against giving them £46m of business, then I bet he changes his mind when they offer UEFA a better deal (or him a better kickback).