Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why do they want goal-line technology?

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Nope. Lived in Manchester more than half my life.

    Now go take your boring attempts at being a troll elsewhere
    Whatever mate. How about you actually try and respond to the points I made in my first post.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanLorenzo)
    Thought this would be fairly obvious...
    Read my original post and you'll find out that, remarkably, it isn't.

    (Original post by Nightufury)
    So you can tell who scored after what 20 seconds...
    The technology they're intending to introduce probably wouldn't take more than about five seconds. Trouble is, it would hardly ever be used.

    (Original post by 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.
    Which is basically what I'm saying. Give the pitch refs more support and the benefit of the technology that everybody watching the game on the tv has. Then we'll get some decent decisions.

    (Original post by midlandsman)
    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.
    Exactly my point. Goal-line technology won't solve anything. Video refs would.


    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Not much at all tbh.
    Granted there isn't as much time wasted with diving as there is with mobbing and abusing the ref, complaining about the diving, but in truth football wastes an awful lot more of its playing time (and is worse value for money) than any other sport. And you want to keep it that way?


    (Original post by IAmTheWumAndOnly)
    Goal line technology would destroy the fluidity of gameplay. I would probably no longer watch football if they brought it in/
    That's because you haven't got the imagination to see how much the game could be improved by using technology. Football used to be called "The Beautiful Game" in the days of Cruyff and Keegan when it was a flowing, competitive sport. It's not called that nowadays because it's nothing but diving and refs' wrong decisions which makes it a lot more stop-start than it used to be. Why do you want to keep this broken shadow of what the game used to be? Why not take this chance to mend it?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midlandsman)
    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...
    He like the shiny red colour!
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The arguments against video technology are poor. The main one is that it is time consuming. You would know this how? It takes seconds to watch a video...
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)

    Granted there isn't as much time wasted with diving as there is with mobbing and abusing the ref, complaining about the diving, but in truth football wastes an awful lot more of its playing time (and is worse value for money) than any other sport. And you want to keep it that way?
    Nothing at all about video refereeing suggests more time will be sent playing

    Quite the opposite actually

    Literally amazed that only you cannot see that. Despite it being the flaw everytime its brought up, and mentioned by the press, pundits, refs, players etc. But i guess you know better
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think video refs are definitely the answer.

    They work very well to decide tries in rugby. Granted, they can sometimes take a minute or two to come to a decision, but it would be a lot faster in football, as there are usually far fewer bodies in they way/touchlines touched.

    Plus, as someone (perhaps OP?) said, most league matches have enough cameras set up for this already, so it would be a tiny fraction of the cost of installing Hawkeye/Goalref/similar.

    This could (although I'm undecided about whether or not I support this) also be used for fouls, as having an official who is able to review contentious or difficult decisions could be very helpful for the referee. Having said that, it would have to be done sparingly to avoid long breaks in play for deliberation.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    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.




    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.
    Simple but wrong. Of course he would need to see multiple angles for very close decisions. Of course he would have to do that after the play had stopped. What he wouldn't have to do is get the pitch ref to stop the play. That wouldn't work and that's not what I'm suggesting. The ref plays an advantage and goes to the video ref if something major develops. Otherwise keep playing.


    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 pitch ref making an instant decision from one point of view is the fallible, less reliable option. The video ref making a considered decision from several points of view is the option with a higher accuracy rate, especially in close calls. That's just a fact; look at every other sport. You want to use the two refs the other way around and my idea is bizarre? Get a grip.


    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.
    Yes, they play an advantage. If the video ref says it was a handball, they go back to where that took place. If he doesn't, they take the throw-in.
    Potential offside, video ref needs to judge too, do we wait til it goes out? no.
    Yes, they play an advantage. If it was offside, the defending side gets the free kick, if not then play restarts for the corner / goal-kick / however the ball went out of play.

    What they DO NOT do is use the video ref for every potential offside, handball, foul AND goal-line incident. The pitch ref ONLY goes to the video ref for incidents that directly impact on goals, penalties and possibly corners.

    If the ref plays an advantage, the defending side regains possession and they start moving back up the pitch, the ref cancels the advantage and they play on = no video ref.
    If an attacker appears to handle the ball and then overhits a pass which goes out of play, the ref can give the throw-in / goal-kick to the defending side (or can choose to make a decision on the handball) = no video ref.
    If an incident that might involve the video ref takes place in the centre circle while the attacking side haven't got any players far enough ahead of the ball to make use of any unfair advantage that might accrue, the pitch ref makes the decision = no video ref.

    What you haven't grasped yet is the following:
    1) The pitch ref would not only continue to be used but would continue to be the person with the final say.
    2) The video ref would only be used three or four times at most in an average match.
    3) The video ref's decisions would mostly only take a few seconds. (How many times have you seen the pitch ref's decision was clearly wrong after seeing just one replay? Loads, I guarantee. And you've had less training than the video ref would have.)
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Yes, they play an advantage. If the video ref says it was a handball, they go back to where that took place. If he doesn't, they take the throw-in.
    Read up to here and got bored

    You have no idea what you are talking about, good to know so now i can ignore your bizzare posting You seem toi hasve this imnaginary idea its so easy and simple to let play carry on and then pull it back for whatever reason. It would completely destroy the flow of the game.

    Ah well, not my problem, everytime its been discussed the flaw is seen by players, officials and refs alike but apparently it doesnt exist for you so there is no point trying to get past your utterly stupid ideas.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I want to be able to debate the decisions in games, big talking points. It's human error which makes football so fun. However, knowing the fact that not giving a goal, or giving one unjustly could stop a team reaching a major cup final or being relegated and costing them £40million is a big one. Introduce goal-line technology, let the game be refereed by humans in real time, and bring in retrospective active against cheaters. (Like Ashley Young.) ... and I'm a united fan.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Nothing at all about video refereeing suggests more time will be sent playing
    Except the fact that it would give the Premier League / FA / whoever the perfect opportunity (which, I grant you, they would almost certainly ignore) to time the match using a play clock (for want of a better phrase) which can be stopped for serious incidents. Like the ones that would use a video ref. Which means that you would be much more likely to get 90 minutes of football instead of the 60 or so that you get at the minute.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Read up to here and got bored gave in.
    Sorted it for you.

    But humour me, explain to a poor ignorant fool like me why using an advantage would be so impossible (especially since they already have that option).
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    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.
    While I'd dispute the claim of 15+ minutes per half not spent in active play (10 might be more like it, assuming there isn't a serious injury or something that takes several minutes to resolve), you've stumbled across the reason why I feel it simply shouldn't matter how long it takes to look at the video. If a video ref is asked to look at an incident once the ball's gone out of play, by the time everyone's stopped pissing around and is ready to start the action again he'll have had ample time to review the footage. And if he begins looking before the ball goes dead, he takes even less time out of the game if need be.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Sorted it for you.

    But humour me, explain to a poor ignorant fool like me why using an advantage would be so impossible (especially since they already have that option).
    Please quote me where i said putting it in place would be practically impossible

    Thanks.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    OK, so I was paraphrasing a little. What you actually said was:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    You seem toi hasve this imnaginary idea its so easy and simple to let play carry on and then pull it back for whatever reason. It would completely destroy the flow of the game.
    What I actually don't understand is why it would be wrong / difficult to implement a situation which involved letting the players play some football rather than continually stopping the game. What I'm suggesting is giving the pitch refs the option to let the game keep going in spite of a possible infringement. How is that destroying "the flow of the game"?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    What I'm suggesting is giving the pitch refs the option to let the game keep going in spite of a possible infringement. How is that destroying "the flow of the game"?

    You are suggesting, if for example a potential handball in middle of pitch happened that the ref couldnt decide upon, for the play to carry on whilst a video ref analysed it. If this then is deemed a handball, the ref stops the game to issue the free kick in the position of the incident. Yes?

    I cant see how you dont think this would ruin the flow of the game..
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    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.
    Well it obvious does happen often enough, else there wouldn't be cries for it to be introduced every couple of months. And as I said, it'd be a one off cost, there's no harm in having it, and nothing would change from having it.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    You are suggesting, if for example a potential handball in middle of pitch happened that the ref couldnt decide upon, for the play to carry on whilst a video ref analysed it. If this then is deemed a handball, the ref stops the game to issue the free kick in the position of the incident. Yes?
    No. If it happens in the middle of the pitch, it is unlikely to directly impact on a goal or a penalty so no video ref. If the handball happens in (or just outside) the penalty area and the ball immediately bounces to an attacker who scores, then you go to the video ref who checks for the handball while the ball is being picked out of the net. No time lost and correct decision achieved.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 17, 2012
New on TSR

A-level results day

Is it about making your parents proud?

Article updates
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered football threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.