So tech is back on the agenda ..

[Alpherah]

the tests will be divided into three parts:

* shots from all over the pitch into an empty net. A 100% success rate is needed to pass phase one.

* 'dynamic' tests: a ball-shooting machine will fire shots into the goal where a fixed wall will at first stop the ball crossing the line, and then be moved back inside the goal at different distances from the line. A 90% success rate is needed to pass phase one.

* 'static' tests: a ball is placed on a sledge and moved at slow motion across the goal-line, sometimes with the ball rotating. A 90% success rate of this test is also needed to pass phase one.

For each test, an immediate signal that the ball has crossed the line must be sent to a referee's watch. Companies that successfully pass phase one of the process - which will take place between September and December - will be subjected to more rigorous and scientific testing in a second phase between March and June next year.

Isnt the above just over-complicating things?
No one is really, really asking for the above? with all the camera's in the stadium taking out 5 seconds to consult a video official is surely accurate, quick (enough) and very easily doable, without billions of tech hurdles to jump?

 

[drunkenmaster]

Isnt the above just over-complicating things?
No one is really, really asking for the above? with all the camera's in the stadium taking out 5 seconds to consult a video official is surely accurate, quick (enough) and very easily doable, without billions of tech hurdles to jump?

Its just to appease the guys asking for technology, using normal camera's for checking if the ball crosses the line also means the ref is capable of checking EVERY decision and thats something Uefa very obviously don't want to happen.

So instead of the simple cheap all in option of using video replay and a certain amount of "challenges" as in every other sport in the world, they want to create needlessly expensive and stupid idea's that can't be used for every other decision in the game.

Its stupid, camera's, 3 challenges in a game, get one wrong, lose the challenge, get it right, keep your challenge.

Seriously introduce this, we'll have a couple weeks insanely funny games, dozen's of red cards for shirt pulls at corners and stuff, and after that people will stop cheating, stop diving, stop shirt pulling, and offside calls will get more accurate.

Thing I keep saying is, referee's can review what happened after a game but, its too late, giving them the ability to with the image from their angle fresh in their mind, see the replay and see what really happened will simply lead to referee's getting MUCH better in the first place. It will be terrible stop/start games with loads of red cards for a couple weeks, followed by years of probably less cheating, less incorrect calls and more fluid football.

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Isnt the above just over-complicating things?
No one is really, really asking for the above? with all the camera's in the stadium taking out 5 seconds to consult a video official is surely accurate, quick (enough) and very easily doable, without billions of tech hurdles to jump?

Over the years, the authorities have made changes to keep the game flowing, passing back to goal keeper, revised off-side etc.. Problem is, there is no natural stoppage apart from when the ball is out or when an infringement has occured.

I do agree of not over complicating matters and the includes tech.. as this will no doubt bring it's own problems and create very shaddy grey areas. The offside rule for example, used to be [fairly] black and white.. Either you were offside or you weren't with a slight mixture of was he or wasn't he.. Now, we have the added complication of if a player was interfering with play, was he obstructing the goal keepers view? Crazy!

Personally, I think the linesman need more authority on the game and the decisions made.. You don't see the ref consulting as much as they once did.. I'm sure of that.

Besides, what would come of the game without a bit of controversy. Most teams have been on both ends and evens out.

 

[platypus]

If professional rugby can use try line technology to such a successful end, I really don't see why football can't. It doesn't ruin the flow of the game, it doesn't undermine the referee's authority and it clears up "unsafe" decisions. Try line technology is one of the greatest improvements to the modern game.

I understand they use video technology for hearings after games eg when a player has committed a bad offence (eg out of shot of the referee), so why not during the games?

 

[guyfawkes5]

Besides, what would come of the game without a bit of controversy. Most teams have been on both ends and evens out.

Football?

I'd prefer to actually see the game played without antics and flow properly over the 'drama' of bad refereeing decisions to be honest. If people's view of the sport would significantly change without the fighting or fouling, then maybe they should reconsider the what they're watching it for and adjust their viewing/spectating accordingly?

 

[G|mp]

Have I wandered into an episode of the Gadget show?

 

[Tummy]

I'd rather we get the standard of refereeing up before we even think about Technology, of which I'm against anyway.

 

[Weebull]

They should get that chip they gave Cartman in the south Park film. Only instead of swearing, it could be diving. And fouling.

Studs up? BZZT, stops you right in your tracks.

More than one roll? BZZZT. NOW you're in pain.

Doing that annoying "imaginary card" wave at the ref? BZZZZZT, down you go.

Jumping into the crowd? BZZZZZZT, involuntary bladder failure.

Lee Cattermole? BZZZZZZZZZZZZT, paralysis.

 

[fewfe3]

They should get that chip they gave Cartman in the south Park film. Only instead of swearing, it could be diving. And fouling.

Studs up? BZZT, stops you right in your tracks.

More than one roll? BZZZT. NOW you're in pain.

Doing that annoying "imaginary card" wave at the ref? BZZZZZT, down you go.

Jumping into the crowd? BZZZZZZT, involuntary bladder failure.

Lee Cattermole? BZZZZZZZZZZZZT, paralysis.

ha ha made me laugh, now that would make it intresting for the first few games untill they learnt better

 

[Tummy]

They should get that chip they gave Cartman in the south Park film. Only instead of swearing, it could be diving. And fouling.

Studs up? BZZT, stops you right in your tracks.

More than one roll? BZZZT. NOW you're in pain.

Doing that annoying "imaginary card" wave at the ref? BZZZZZT, down you go.

Jumping into the crowd? BZZZZZZT, involuntary bladder failure.

Lee Cattermole? BZZZZZZZZZZZZT, paralysis.

What about swearing at camera's and asking for cards?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Over the years, the authorities have made changes to keep the game flowing, passing back to goal keeper, revised off-side etc.. Problem is, there is no natural stoppage apart from when the ball is out or when an infringement has occured.

I do agree of not over complicating matters and the includes tech.. as this will no doubt bring it's own problems and create very shaddy grey areas. The offside rule for example, used to be [fairly] black and white.. Either you were offside or you weren't with a slight mixture of was he or wasn't he.. Now, we have the added complication of if a player was interfering with play, was he obstructing the goal keepers view? Crazy!

Personally, I think the linesman need more authority on the game and the decisions made.. You don't see the ref consulting as much as they once did.. I'm sure of that.

Besides, what would come of the game without a bit of controversy. Most teams have been on both ends and evens out.

say my team got a offside goal or controversial goal in the final of the champions league, which in turn ends up with us winning the final.

now the following week in the carling cup the other team gets a controversial goal, knocking us out.

do you really think this has evened out? due to us getting a goal for and against?

 

[Tummy]

Football has always had decisions go for teams and go against teams, it's just part of the game.

Also, the linesmen are often under instruction from the Ref as to what they should or shouldn't give. The standard of refeering needs to improved before we even consider any other major changes to the way the game is played.

Offside is a little confusing, but I think most people understand it, it's just down to the officials understanding / reading of the situation. The lines about "nobody understanding it" pulled out by pundits, it's just an excuse.

 

[HangTime]

The problem with improving the 'standard of refereeing' is that it is very hard to do, even then when you look at the speed the game is played at and the size of the pitch, it simply isn't feasible for a human to get every decision right everytime in realtime.

Lets say for example we somehow did manage to improve the standard of referring; they are all physical monsters that can run 50 yards in 5 seconds, they have 20:20 vision, they talk to players, they judge every incident impartially, they are 100% consistent in their decision making. EVEN THEN, they will still be fallible, they still won't give penalties simply because there was a player obstructing their view, same for the lino 40 yards away on the touchline trying to see if the ball has gone over the line, or judge an offside when a ball is punted 50 yards down the pitch - if he's looking across the line of the last defender, he can't see the exact moment the ball was played. As Harry Redknapp put it the other day, the guy can make an honest decision as he sees it (or doesn't see it...), and he's still wrong, even if he positioned himself perfectly based on the current game situation.

 

[Accendo]

The only thing we really need is goal line technology, hawk-eye and such like would be useless though, as you coudn't just stop the game if there was no break in play, you would need something that notifies the ref as soon as the ball crosses the line, so I would say they are on the right lines with the vibrating watch idea.

The standard of refereeing has nothing to do with goal line decisions, sometimes it's just impossible to tell whether the ball has crossed the line or not, though I agree it does need to be improved as regards general play, linesmen as well, you can call 8/10 offside decisions correctly from watching on the T.V. straight away, yet they fail whilst looking straight down the line from about 30 yards away.

 

[233]

those saying stop it and look at replays,

what about games with no cameras in attendance?


this if implemented right could be cheap enough to be used right down to the lowest leagues

 

[Admiral Huddy]

say my team got a offside goal or controversial goal in the final of the champions league, which in turn ends up with us winning the final.

now the following week in the carling cup the other team gets a controversial goal, knocking us out.

do you really think this has evened out? due to us getting a goal for and against?

I know that Spurs have been on both ends.. Remember the goal v Man U that was disallowed.. yet at Huddleston this season got a goal vs Fulham that shouldn't have been that was...?? I do see your point but the stoppages would only slow down the game. You'd get players confronting refs to check the VT after minor incidents. As I said, where would MoD be without all the controversy

 

[platypus]

I know that Spurs have been on both ends.. Remember the goal v Man U that was disallowed.. yet at Huddleston this season got a goal vs Fulham that shouldn't have been that was...?? I do see your point but the stoppages would only slow down the game. You'd get players confronting refs to check the VT after minor incidents. As I said, where would MoD be without all the controversy

Why does it work so well for Rugby then? Hell, even Cricket.

Get out of my posts.

 

[mmj_uk]

I don't know why they don't use the challenges system as DM suggested.

All of this talk of camera reviews slowing the game is a red herring because when such events occur, it is usually followed by 1-2mins of players crowding the officials anyway and 99% of the time the decision remains 100% incorrect.

Limit the challenges to offside calls, goal-line incidents and penalty decisions.

 

[HangTime]

linesmen as well, you can call 8/10 offside decisions correctly from watching on the T.V. straight away, yet they fail whilst looking straight down the line from about 30 yards away.

I'd say 8/10 is maybe a bit optimistic (at least if you remove the blatant/'obvious' ones where the forward knows he is off), in realtime when there is a close call I'd say it's a bit lower. I do get surprised watching the replays sometimes.

There's an argument to suggest that even 8/10 isn't good enough, if we have the potential to do better.

Also I don't think it is quite that easy for the linesman, they can't ALWAYS be looking exactly straight down the line (wrongfooted by an agile defender, say, or the crazy situation you get sometimes where defenders are moving in different directions so you have to switch which is the last man), and that isn't their only job, they also need to know the precise moment the ball was played, we may be difficult if they need to be looking 40 yards back up the pitch for a long ball punted forward, meanwhile they've got the centrehalf pushing up and the striker starting his run the other way.

 

[Weebull]

those saying stop it and look at replays,

what about games with no cameras in attendance?

You use refs like you do now?

That's what they do in rugby. You can scale the refereeing just like you scale everything else.

and let's be honest, it's only the games with TV coverage where people bleat about "obvious" mistakes being made so much. Live, it's just as difficult a job as the officials.