Sepp Blatter Appologises To England and Mexico

[dmcg]

Englands goal clearly never went passed the line though

 

[Spud21]

You're not trying to stop bad decisions with this - you stop bad decisions by weeding out bad referees. You want this technology to stop mistakes being made on difficult calls - there is a difference.

I don't see why you're up in arms about people suggesting it only be used on a certain number of calls. That's how it works in tennis, and it's fine. To be honest, you're making a bit of a straw man here - you don't like the idea of a moderate system, so you're constructing the idea of a ludicrously unworkable system because that's easier to argue against.

Besides, how many truly awful decisions are there per match? England v Germany had Lampard's goal. Argentina v Mexico had Tevez being offside. Spain v Portugal had Capdevila's apparent diving. Looks like 1 each. 2 challenges per half should be more than enough.



Why? That's another straw man. I doubt Hawk-Eye gets used at every level of professional tennis.



The cost of implementing goal line tech would apparently be 300k per ground. I have no idea how workable that is, so I'll leave it to someone else to comment on that.

Hawk eye works in tennis because you can without changing too much replay a point, however say for example in football a similar thing happens, ball hits the bar, bounces down and doesn't cross the line but is bloody close, play doesn't stop but the opposition have the opportunity of a break away keeper, pings the ball out and sets his side on a break which could easily result in a goal. The side that hits the bar want to appeal against the decision, perfectly reasonable, but where in the name of god to you stop play ? why should a team be denied the chance of a break because someone disagrees with the ref? you can hardly after checking to find that the officials were right then ask all the players to take up the positions they were in all moving the same way they were and then resume play. You are simply moving the injustices to another place.

If every time a contentious decision was given or something that you wanted to check happened when the ball was naturally dead (like it is in rugby) then i would have no issue with it at all, but it doesn't work like that in football, for me with goal line technology it would have to be some system that gives an instant decision as to mean play doesn't need to be stopped needlessly, and then i'd still argue that there is no difference between a goal not given when it crosses the line as there is one when a player is given offside in certain circumstances and scores, my view is that you either use it for everything or nothing, or have an extra official just to watch the goal line.

The problem is that the media are constantly undermining the ref's so it's not really any wonder there is no respect for them, countless times watching football on TV you see a commentator lambast officials for a decision that at ful speed (and with a far better view) they agreed with only to watch 15 slow motion replays and suddenly decides the officials have made an error of epic proportions on a par with field marshal Hague, it's a joke frankly.

Of course it has to be used at all levels of professional football, why should it make a difference if you are Man U or Leyton Orient? do Man U deserve better decisions as they have more money than Leyton Orient (or debt to put it more accurately)

300k per ground really isnt viable as there are plenty of clubs that can't spend that on a player, let alone on a stupid system that will only actually get used to any real effect every few months or so is a bit ridiculous.

I think the best way forward is to have some kind of trial, pick a league and trial it for a couple of seasons and see how it works, see what impact it actually has and see if it really worth the massive outlay that will have to be put out to pay for it.

Implementing it on a national/international scale would be of enormous cost, as if you are going to do it at international level that is an enormous number of grounds that are going to need it, as why should England have the tech when they play away in a qualifier in say France but not in San Marino ?

 

[Psymonkee]

Point out, why it wouldn't "ruin" football.

Technology would only offer benfit to the top clubs, the ones you watch and Sky promote, the Premier league. Who's going to pay for technology for the league 2 sides?

Whats going to happen when Chelsea go down to a league 2 side in the F.A. Cup and there are no replays because the F.A. / Sky won't pay for them to have it?

Football is a fast, flowing game, why stop it to "replay" mistakes? They've always happened and football has done quite well without it so far in its history.

Who's going to pay the extra official to sit in front of a television? Should we just have Andy Gray do it?

Debate would be killed, Football fans love to talk about the offside decision that shouldn't of been given.

Are FIFA going to pay for technology in all the leagues?
Football isn't as slow or stop start as other sports that have technology.
It would create a have V have not in regards to tech. Rich clubs have money, skint clubs don't but on the pitch they can't change decisions.

Basketball has technology and is fast and flowing

Potentially pivotal calls are notified (at the officials request), then reviewed at half time or a timeout where appropriate.

Doesn't interrupt play but keeps things on the level.

Simples!

Similar things could be applied to football no?

 

[sammo62]

I'm amazed by the amount of people against technology in football. Everyone wants a game to be called fairly don't they? Technology works in just about every other sport that it's ever been used in, so why not football?

I don't buy any of the nonsense about destroying the free-flowing nature of the game,the ball is only in play for about 28 minutes per half anyway.

 

[Weebull]

Hawk eye works in tennis because you can without changing too much replay a point, however say for example in football a similar thing happens, ball hits the bar, bounces down and doesn't cross the line but is bloody close, play doesn't stop but the opposition have the opportunity of a break away keeper, pings the ball out and sets his side on a break which could easily result in a goal. The side that hits the bar want to appeal against the decision, perfectly reasonable, but where in the name of god to you stop play ? why should a team be denied the chance of a break because someone disagrees with the ref? you can hardly after checking to find that the officials were right then ask all the players to take up the positions they were in all moving the same way they were and then resume play. You are simply moving the injustices to another place.

You do realise this kind of thing happens in football already? It's called "fouling". Players do it all the time to stop the opposition when they're on a legitimate break, it's practically a defensive midfielder speciality. Opposition break, bundle over the guy on the ball before he gets too far ahead, make it look like a bit of an accident, maybe get a yellow card. Job done.

I suggest you work on a solution to this before using it as a reason to decry video replays. And anyway, this is assuming only one particular model (an appeals-based system). Can we just debate the relative merits/downsides of technology before getting into criticising the specifics of something we know nothing about yet?

Of course it has to be used at all levels of professional football, why should it make a difference if you are Man U or Leyton Orient? do Man U deserve better decisions as they have more money than Leyton Orient (or debt to put it more accurately)

Man Utd already get better decisions than Leyton Orient, because the "better" refs get automatically moved up to the higher divisions. Why aren't you railing against the current system?

300k per ground really isnt viable as there are plenty of clubs that can't spend that on a player, let alone on a stupid system that will only actually get used to any real effect every few months or so is a bit ridiculous

...the guy behind Hawk-Eye was saying it could be free to implement if they were allowed to utilise sponsorship. Which, given how much of a massive advertising whore football is, I doubt would be a problem

 

[Participant]

say for example in football a similar thing happens, ball hits the bar, bounces down and doesn't cross the line but is bloody close, play doesn't stop but the opposition have the opportunity of a break away keeper, pings the ball out and sets his side on a break which could easily result in a goal. The side that hits the bar want to appeal against the decision, perfectly reasonable, but where in the name of god to you stop play ?

During their break away, the video ref looks at the replay and notifies the ref. The ref blows his whistle and awards the goal, cutting the (in any case illigitimate) attack short.

 

[Weebull]

I don't think Football needs technology, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I think if anything, first we should raise the standard of refereeing.

What better way to raise the standard of refereeing than implementing a more objective, more transparent system of decision making? As someone else said earler in the thread, it would also be a great way of fighting ref corruption too. You have one man whose potential flaws range from how much money he has in his pocket to whether he was standing in the right place in time, versus a system that suffers from neither of those.

The argument that it works in other sports is silly, Its another sport.

But it shows that it works in sport.

Rugby is a good comparison. Big field, incidents could be anywhere, cameras need to monitor several angles, and only certain things are checked. It's not an all or nothing approach that you seem to keep thinking it will be.

I don't think for the sake of a handful of decisions per season or competition that technology would be worth it. I mean the debate about it only comes up when Sky/BBC/ITV decide that a decision was wrong and that technology would fix this.

Are you just against this because Andy Gray is for it? Of course bad decisions are talked up by TV. Because that's where they're seen. Watching a game live and you miss things that happen in a split second, much like the ref will.

But that doesn't make a decision right. It just makes it wrong and missed.

I think it would create a two tier level of Football, which is a bad thing.

Wake up and smell the coffee Tummy, there's already a split between the top clubs and the bottom ones, and it's in way more than just two tiers.

I've played in games with some absolutely shocking refs in before, because that's what you get at lower levels. If the Premiership started using video technology, I'm hardly going to start expecting it in my games, or assuming it will automatically be present at Conference games.

There's already plenty of differences between top and bottom level football. Why do you keep suggesting that technology is the start of the slippery slope towards division, rather than just a signpost halfway along?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Hawk eye works in tennis because you can without changing too much replay a point, however say for example in football a similar thing happens, ball hits the bar, bounces down and doesn't cross the line but is bloody close, play doesn't stop but the opposition have the opportunity of a break away keeper, pings the ball out and sets his side on a break which could easily result in a goal. The side that hits the bar want to appeal against the decision, perfectly reasonable, but where in the name of god to you stop play ? why should a team be denied the chance of a break because someone disagrees with the ref? you can hardly after checking to find that the officials were right then ask all the players to take up the positions they were in all moving the same way they were and then resume play. You are simply moving the injustices to another place.

If every time a contentious decision was given or something that you wanted to check happened when the ball was naturally dead (like it is in rugby) then i would have no issue with it at all, but it doesn't work like that in football, for me with goal line technology it would have to be some system that gives an instant decision as to mean play doesn't need to be stopped needlessly, and then i'd still argue that there is no difference between a goal not given when it crosses the line as there is one when a player is given offside in certain circumstances and scores, my view is that you either use it for everything or nothing, or have an extra official just to watch the goal line.

I agree that tennis is simpler because you can replay a point in isolation, but I don't see it being a problem in football. Whether a goal is or isn't scored should be capable of being fed back immediately using the tech, so if there isn't a goal and the defence break then that's no different to the position now where there's a close call. For goals stemming from offside, play would be stopped anyway at a goal. For fouls, you'd have stopped play anyway.

The problem is that the media are constantly undermining the ref's so it's not really any wonder there is no respect for them, countless times watching football on TV you see a commentator lambast officials for a decision that at ful speed (and with a far better view) they agreed with only to watch 15 slow motion replays and suddenly decides the officials have made an error of epic proportions on a par with field marshal Hague, it's a joke frankly.

Lack of respect for the refs is endemic to football culture at all levels, I think it's a bit of a leap to lay the blame at the media, as though that somehow trickles down to the players in real time.

Of course it has to be used at all levels of professional football, why should it make a difference if you are Man U or Leyton Orient? do Man U deserve better decisions as they have more money than Leyton Orient (or debt to put it more accurately)

It would only have to be consistent across leagues, not across the whole spectrum of things. It's an extra benefit for leagues that can afford it. The issue that I will concede would be cross-league things like the FA cup, where you would end up with some games using it and some not.

I think the best way forward is to have some kind of trial, pick a league and trial it for a couple of seasons and see how it works, see what impact it actually has and see if it really worth the massive outlay that will have to be put out to pay for it.

That I can agree with.