[kingsholmmad]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17725064

Why are all the players and authorities so keen on goal-line technology whilst completely ignoring all other technology? Yes, it would have sorted out Chelsea's second "goal" against Spurs but it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to Ashley Young's balletic swallow-dive at Old Trafford.

The video technology that a video ref would need is already in place and being used by the broadcasters, it would cost the FA / clubs very little to introduce a video ref who could sort out all the controversial goals. Instead, they want to spend a lot more money on installing technology that is probably going to be used no more than once or twice a season at any given ground, mostly to just confirm the ref's decision, thereby making it redundant.

So why do they want goal-line technology and not video refs?

[Cll_ws]

because it happens often enough for it to cause major controversy, and sometimes can cost teams games and change results. In football today it could cost a clubs millions if they were relegated/denied a place in europe etc.
It's a one-off cost, once it's there it's there. It'd do no harm to have it in place.

Get goal line technology, add assistant refs behind each goal like they do in Europe. And mistakes like the goal Chelsea were given, and Youngs dive will be a lot less likely to be missed

[internet tough guy]

I think its because every one knows that a piece of techology to see whether or not the ball has crossed the line is relatively simple in that it would totally unambigious, no need for any replays, the ball I assume would have some sort of microchip and the referee could have something on them which beeps when it crosses the goal-line.

Compare this to introducing video referees to check on cheats, its debateable how long this could actually take up in time, I was looking at the Ashley Young incident and it took me a while to figure out whether a penalty should be given or not - yes he exagerrated it, but nonetheless there was contact, still, it was tricky working out for sure whose fault it was for this collison.

[Tommyjw]

Video refs are still subjective and will often require stopping of play to make decisions or else they will essentially be pointless.

'Was Youngs penalty a penalty?'
Video ref 1 - Yes, there was still contact, stamping on the foot, that would warrant a penalty if he went down normally without the dive thus it should be given
Video ref 2 - Never a penalty, dive makes any contact irrelevant, not enough contact for me (etc)

What do they do? Who makes the decision? If it is just one ref, how do we trust they make the best call in a short amount of time?
How long will it take them/him to decide? Play would certainly need to be stopped for it, how long should it be justified to stop for? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? Anything more than a few seconds for every decision like this in a game would ruin the flow of the game completely.

Technology would be limited too.
When handball appeals are raised (for example in the Wigan game) nothing can be done about that. We cant just suddenly stop the game and check can we? What about harsh tackles that the ref lets play on? Cant do anything there.
Etc etc, video refs would be limited to what they can actually do at all bar goal line stuff, offsides (which can only be done if they do it quick and are 100% sure) and decisions when the ball goes out (Wigan corner that shouldnt have been)

Tl;dr

Technology should and can only be used for easily decided black and white decisions, such as goal-line stuff. Not much else is so clear cut and can be so quickly decided as to justify using it for those instances

[Zerforax]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Video refs are still subjective and will often require stopping of play to make decisions or else they will essentially be pointless.

'Was Youngs penalty a penalty?'
Video ref 1 - Yes, there was still contact, stamping on the foot, that would warrant a penalty if he went down normally without the dive thus it should be given
Video ref 2 - Never a penalty, dive makes any contact irrelevant, not enough contact for me (etc)

What do they do? Who makes the decision? If it is just one ref, how do we trust they make the best call in a short amount of time?
How long will it take them/him to decide? Play would certainly need to be stopped for it, how long should it be justified to stop for? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? Anything more than a few seconds for every decision like this in a game would ruin the flow of the game completely.

Technology would be limited too.
When handball appeals are raised (for example in the Wigan game) nothing can be done about that. We cant just suddenly stop the game and check can we? What about harsh tackles that the ref lets play on? Cant do anything there.
Etc etc, video refs would be limited to what they can actually do at all bar goal line stuff, offsides (which can only be done if they do it quick and are 100% sure) and decisions when the ball goes out (Wigan corner that shouldnt have been)

Tl;dr

Technology should and can only be used for easily decided black and white decisions, such as goal-line stuff. Not much else is so clear cut and can be so quickly decided as to justify using it for those instances

So better to provide a misinformed decision on an incident because it might be too grey to give an obvious answer?

I'd rather have a subjective but considered decision, even if it took 20 seconds. The flow of the game is ruined anyway with all the pissing around with walls and if they are 10 yards, players rubbing balls dry with towels, players adjusting goalkick and corner positions numerous times, players surrounding the refeering and general time wasting.

Apparently only 55-60 minutes of football are played in each 90 minute game due to the above. Don't see why having video decisions would make it any worse.

I'd rather someone had a proper look at got 95/100 decisions right than the 70-80 out of 100 it must be now.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Zerforax)
The flow of the game is ruined anyway with all the pissing around with walls and if they are 10 yards, players rubbing balls dry with towels, players adjusting goalkick and corner positions numerous times, players surrounding the refeering and general time wasting.

All irrelevant to what we are discussing. As that time is spent once decisions are made, not when a decision needs to be made.

Apparently only 55-60 minutes of football are played in each 90 minute game due to the above. Don't see why having video decisions would make it any worse.

Because it would very clearly more mean stopping ... ?

I'd rather someone had a proper look at got 95/100 decisions right than the 70-80 out of 100 it must be now.

No need to completely over exaggerate.

[DanLorenzo]

Thought this would be fairly obvious...

[Nightufury]

So you can tell who scored after what 20 seconds...

[Architecture-er]

Anyone else remember the incident where the ball bounced 'just' over the line, then the ref said it wasn't a goal? They went back and checked but didn't remedy the score, since the ref had already called it...

I don't think goal-line tech is needed, they just need to exercise a bit of common sodding sense when watching the replay afterwards for confirmation.

[systeric]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Video refs are still subjective and will often require stopping of play to make decisions or else they will essentially be pointless.

'Was Youngs penalty a penalty?'
Video ref 1 - Yes, there was still contact, stamping on the foot, that would warrant a penalty if he went down normally without the dive thus it should be given
Video ref 2 - Never a penalty, dive makes any contact irrelevant, not enough contact for me (etc)

What do they do? Who makes the decision? If it is just one ref, how do we trust they make the best call in a short amount of time?
How long will it take them/him to decide? Play would certainly need to be stopped for it, how long should it be justified to stop for? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? Anything more than a few seconds for every decision like this in a game would ruin the flow of the game completely.

Technology would be limited too.
When handball appeals are raised (for example in the Wigan game) nothing can be done about that. We cant just suddenly stop the game and check can we? What about harsh tackles that the ref lets play on? Cant do anything there.
Etc etc, video refs would be limited to what they can actually do at all bar goal line stuff, offsides (which can only be done if they do it quick and are 100% sure) and decisions when the ball goes out (Wigan corner that shouldnt have been)

Tl;dr

Technology should and can only be used for easily decided black and white decisions, such as goal-line stuff. Not much else is so clear cut and can be so quickly decided as to justify using it for those instances

As a United fan you've got a vested interest - to the tune of about 10 points a season - for saying that.

Even if video replays would still require subjective judgements, at least those judgements would be better informed than those of the ref/linesman on the pitch.

Pretty much every game these days seems to be marred by controversy and I'm tired of it. Video replays would at least prevent the most ridiculous of decisions from standing. E.g. the Derry sending off and penalty, the offside Chelsea goals against Wigan.

The disruption argument doesn't hold weight for me. Think about hawk eye in tennis or replays in rubgy. They definitely don't detract from the game in any way. They probably add to the drama if anything. And before a penalty, after a sending off etc, there's normally 1 minute + off faffing about anyway. Replays would hardly make that much worse.

Honestly, what's going to spoil a game more - a team wrongly being down to 10 men for 80 minutes - or a small delay in the game to overturn a blatantly wrong decision?

I can't help but feel this goal line technology *******s is a smokescreen to dampen the calls for replays. Yes, we should have goal line technology too, but its importance has been massively over-egged. There's probably about 3 goal line controversies every season. It's really not that big a deal.

On the other hand there seems to be an incorrect penalty, sending off, offside goal, etc in pretty much every game. That could be fixed so easily.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by midlandsman)
As a United fan you've got a vested interest - to the tune of about 10 points a season - for saying that.

/yawn.

[Jordan_1]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
How long will it take them/him to decide? Play would certainly need to be stopped for it, how long should it be justified to stop for? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? Anything more than a few seconds for every decision like this in a game would ruin the flow of the game completely.

How much time is wasted by diving in football? If video technology was introduced where referee's could spot if a player was diving (which happens most games) they could then punish the offending player.

If referee's stuck to this I would like to imagine that diving in games would be severely reduced. This means eventually the added time from analysing videos would be equalled out by less players diving and rolling around the pitch for 5 minutes.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Jordan_1)
How much time is wasted by diving in football? .

Not much at all tbh.

[Jordan_1]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Not much at all tbh.

Only reason you're against it is because you are a Man United fan and won't get all the decisions your way.

[IAmTheWumAndOnly]

No point in goal line technology. The whole purpose of eyes were to see. Maybe give referees free glasses instead and a little go kart to get around the pitch faster. Just a thought.

Goal line technology would destroy the fluidity of gameplay. I would probably no longer watch football if they brought it in/

[systeric]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
/yawn.

Location: Bristol.

/Yawn

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by Cll_ws)
because it happens often enough for it to cause major controversy, and sometimes can cost teams games and change results. In football today it could cost a clubs millions if they were relegated/denied a place in europe etc.
It's a one-off cost, once it's there it's there. It'd do no harm to have it in place.

Get goal line technology, add assistant refs behind each goal like they do in Europe. And mistakes like the goal Chelsea were given, and Youngs dive will be a lot less likely to be missed

No it doesn't. The goal-line technology can only be applied to situations that happen on the goal-line. The big majority of significant / game-changing refereeing errors happen in or near the penalty area (eg Young's dive) but not on the goal-line; this technology is irrelevant.

(Original post by internet tough guy)
I think its because every one knows that a piece of techology to see whether or not the ball has crossed the line is relatively simple in that it would totally unambigious, no need for any replays, the ball I assume would have some sort of microchip and the referee could have something on them which beeps when it crosses the goal-line.

Compare this to introducing video referees to check on cheats, its debateable how long this could actually take up in time, I was looking at the Ashley Young incident and it took me a while to figure out whether a penalty should be given or not - yes he exagerrated it, but nonetheless there was contact, still, it was tricky working out for sure whose fault it was for this collison.

Yes, it would be tricky but that's what the refs are getting paid for. If video refs were brought in, it would be with appropriate, specific guidelines on how to interpret situations and on when they can or can't be used.

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Video refs are still subjective and will often require stopping of play to make decisions or else they will essentially be pointless.

'Was Youngs penalty a penalty?'
Video ref 1 - Yes, there was still contact, stamping on the foot, that would warrant a penalty if he went down normally without the dive thus it should be given
Video ref 2 - Never a penalty, dive makes any contact irrelevant, not enough contact for me (etc)

The video ref wouldn't be some bloke who just happened to end up sitting in front of a tv; he would be trained and (as in other sports) would almost certainly be a pitch ref for some matches, a video ref for others. Yes, there would still be some subjectivity involved but there would also be clear, unambiguous guidelines on what decisions a video ref should make.

What do they do? Who makes the decision? If it is just one ref, how do we trust they make the best call in a short amount of time?
How long will it take them/him to decide? Play would certainly need to be stopped for it, how long should it be justified to stop for? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? Anything more than a few seconds for every decision like this in a game would ruin the flow of the game completely.

That's the argument that too many people make; the game wouldn't be stopped, the pitch ref would play an advantage until the next break in play which almost always happens within a matter of seconds.

Technology would be limited too.
When handball appeals are raised (for example in the Wigan game) nothing can be done about that. We cant just suddenly stop the game and check can we? What about harsh tackles that the ref lets play on? Cant do anything there.
Etc etc, video refs would be limited to what they can actually do at all bar goal line stuff, offsides (which can only be done if they do it quick and are 100% sure) and decisions when the ball goes out (Wigan corner that shouldnt have been)

Tl;dr

Technology should and can only be used for easily decided black and white decisions, such as goal-line stuff. Not much else is so clear cut and can be so quickly decided as to justify using it for those instances

No. The pitch ref deals with the black and white decisions. The whole point of having a video ref is so that the close decisions can be decided fairly. The point you're missing is that he wouldn't be used until the ball had gone out of play and then only for major decisions.

One of the main reasons that they work in rugby and cricket is that they are given top-quality, clear, ongoing training. It would have to be the same for football refs. Do that and you would find that, within a couple of seasons, footballers started playing football again instead of the roll-around-sobbing-and-abuse-the-ref pantomime that we've got now.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Yes, there would still be some subjectivity involved but there would also be clear, unambiguous guidelines on what decisions a video ref should make.

Glad to see irrelevant points are necessary.

Like was said. Most of what a video ref can help with that he can decide quickly will be subjective things and things that require multiple angles.

That's the argument that too many people make; the game wouldn't be stopped

Just wrong tbh,m so very very wrong. Play would need to be stopped because the video ref will need to play back on a decision.

The video ref will not be some sort of alien who can see from every angle at once, he will need to look at a decision outside of real time. This requires stopping play. Very simple logic.

No. The pitch ref deals with the black and white decisions.

Ye like offsides or handballs. Because they get it all right..

Oh wait...

These decisions are the sole reasons video refs are asked for to to say they arent needed because the ref makes those calls is completely and utterly bizarre

The point you're missing is that he wouldn't be used until the ball had gone out of play and then only for major decisions.

How utterly stupid.
Potential handball that should have been a penalty, they wait until a throw in to give it do they? No, no they do not.
Potential offside, video ref needs to judge too, do we wait til it goes out? no.

One of the main reasons that they work in rugby and cricket is that they are given top-quality, clear, ongoing training.

Nope, one of the main reasons they work in those sports is they are a lot less fluid than football.

[systeric]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
...

Negging because you can't take a bit of banter? Mature.

What's your excuse for supporting United then? Greatgrandad's sister is from Manchester or something like that I suppose...

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by midlandsman)
What's your excuse for supporting United then? Greatgrandad's sister is from Manchester or something like that I suppose...

Nope. Lived in Manchester more than half my life.

Now go take your boring attempts at being a troll elsewhere