Goal-line technology and reviews

[Ian Royal]

I just don’t think a review system fits football. It works in rugby to decide if a try has been scored (has the ball been put down over the line, or not); it works in cricket for run outs (is the batsman over the line, or not) and lbws (is the batsman hit in line, or not) – how would it be used in football?

Is it a penalty or not? Is it handball or not? A video doesn’t tell you if a handball was deliberate; a video doesn’t show you conclusively whether a player was looking for a foul, going down too easily, making the most of minor contact etc. Technology works for yes/no decisions, that’s it, which is why I support goal-line technology (did the ball go in the goal, or not), but not an artificial system that breaks up play and allows team to review situations with many variables.

The same way it works in Hockey.

THe video doesn't tell you anything. It's the trained official watching it and interpreting what (s)he sees in exactly the same way as a ref does with what he sees live. The only difference is the official watching the video has more, and often better, data with which to make the decision.

[Ian Royal]

I’d sooner the laws were changed to allow video to be used to retrospectively punish players for cheating or reckless play.

Hell. And Yes.

[Royal Rother]

At this stage a review system for anything other than goal decisions is fantasy. But it'll come, of that there is not a shadow of a doubt, though maybe not in my lifetime. Progress cannot be held back.

Goal line technology is happening. Review of a goal from 5 seconds before the ball crossed the line, looking for offsides and fouls will probably be next. Followed by reviews of penalty decisions - was it a dive etc., followed by greater sophistication in a potential review / appeal system like that discussed in the last couple of pages.

LOL at people walking away from football when these things come in. The younger generations of supporters won't care but they'll be damned if they'll accept a game run and officiated in a way that allows fallible human beings and incorrect decisions to determine the outcome of results without any attempt at correcting them.

It's naivety of the most ridiculous proportions to think otherwise.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

The essential problem is that a lot of decisions in football are completely subjective. Anything that involves intent (fouls, dives, handballs etc) has to be "in the opinion of the referee" - and putting it out to a panel of more people, using more cameras, doesn't guarantee in any way you get the "right" answer - especially since they lose the advantage of actually being right up with the play, first-hand, that a referee should have. I was at the Olympics hockey semi-final where there was an appeal - we sat there for 5 minutes while it was watched again and again, and the eventual decision was "inconclusive" and the umpire's original decision stood. So I can't see that this adds to anything - and frankly I'm very suspicious that the loudest voices in favour of replays systems all seem to be coming out of TV companies - no surprised there, as it's a perfect opportunity for them to increase their stranglehold over the game.

"Line" decisions, though, are another thing. No subjectivity involved - it was either over the line or it wasn't, and if technology can provide an instant notification it's a no-brainer ... just as much as replacing ribbons with wooden crossbars was.

[ZacNaloen]

Offsides is another area I think refs need help.

I don't mean make the decision for them, but a notification that a player is offside would be a massive boon.

It's then up to the linesman to decide involvement in play and all that sort of thing.

It would basically stop offside goals cos the play was too quick.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Offside I'm less clear-cut on. If there's a way it can be scientifically proven if a player was offside or not then I'd happily go along with a technical aid to help the referee make his decision (which is what we're talking about here.)

But it's need to take into account way too much that's still subjective, like whether a player was seeking advantage or interfering with play (or whatever this year's wording is!) as well as who last played the ball. Fiendishly difficult to devise a system to tell that, and again the principle applies that adding more pairs of eyes to the mix doesn't mean you then get the right decision.

[Hoop Blah]

It's naivety of the most ridiculous proportions to think otherwise.

Dirk has pretty much spoken for my views on this, but it's not naive or LOL'able to think the game is better served being left as it is or that I'd walk away from watching leagues with technology assisted review panels making decisions.

[Royal Rother]

Sorry, but I'd LOL at you.

Ok, you can't embrace it yourself but can you acknowledge that if the same antiquated objections to technology still held sway in say 30 years' time that the youngsters of the day would shake their heads in total incomprehension at the ridiculously old-fashioned way in which the game was being run? And walk away from it?

I mean, seriously.

[Hoop Blah]

I couldn't care less what youngsters think in 30 years time, I just know that I'd rather watch the sport I know and love in its current form instead of a disjointed technology interrupted cousin of the beautiful game.

As someone who's had a significant involvement with grass roots football I'd have no qualms about walking away from the professional leagues if the game changed too much. To be honest, it's not too far off that scenario already with the way modern football has evolved.

[ZacNaloen]

Offside I'm less clear-cut on. If there's a way it can be scientifically proven if a player was offside or not then I'd happily go along with a technical aid to help the referee make his decision (which is what we're talking about here.)

But it's need to take into account way too much that's still subjective, like whether a player was seeking advantage or interfering with play (or whatever this year's wording is!) as well as who last played the ball. Fiendishly difficult to devise a system to tell that, and again the principle applies that adding more pairs of eyes to the mix doesn't mean you then get the right decision.

It doesn't need to take anything into account. All it need to say is that a player is in an offside position. The the rest is up to the ref/lino.

[Hoop Blah]

How would it signal one player being in a offside position but a team-mate close-by being onside?

I know this is possibly asking for details of a system that hasn't been designed as yet, but it seems an obvious complication for officials to have to deal with before then processing their opinion on if they're active etc.

[ZacNaloen]

If you want to get into the nitty gritty it doesn't seem an extra level of complication for it to tell you if only the player who receives the ball was offside. I

I foresee it as basically being hawkeye except programmed to follow player positions as well as the ball.

But I'm sure there are other systems that can be used.

I've mentioned before pro zone can tell you this info nearly instantly and there are no cameras involved that we know of. The nuances of the rule can still be left in the hands of the humans but it combats the instances where things just happen too quickly or the lino just isn't focused properly which is only human.

[Hoop Blah]

No cameras that we know of?

How do you think it works then? I'll give you a clue, the bit above is totally wrong and it's based on at least 8 cameras tracking players movements.

I'm not knocking ProZone, it sounds an amazing product to be honest, but I'm not sure it does exactly what you think it does when it does. It tracks movements yes, but I'm sure a lot of the other data is collected by analysts reviewing the data post-match and considering the screenshots shown for our game against Spurs failed to record the cross/assist for Robson-Kanu's late goal I'm not sure it's the most reliable source for improving decision making.

[ZacNaloen]

For some reason I thought it was using rf tags in their clothes and worked it out by triangulation.

That's what I would have invented anyway....

[Royal Rother]

I couldn't care less what youngsters think in 30 years time, I just know that I'd rather watch the sport I know and love in its current form instead of a disjointed technology interrupted cousin of the beautiful game.

As someone who's had a significant involvement with grass roots football I'd have no qualms about walking away from the professional leagues if the game changed too much. To be honest, it's not too far off that scenario already with the way modern football has evolved.

You said "the game is better served being left as it is"... not quite sure how that would be the case if the youngsters in 30 years time aren't interested in the sport because the officiating is so antiquated.

There's a sensible pace at which these improvements to the accuracy of decision making should be introduced so that neither the old farts or young guns walk away - personally I think they've been too slow with goal line technology but hopefully they get the balance right so that everyone stays involved / interested.

Mind you, I'd be delighted to see you at Stag Meadow if you get driven away from pro-football. I'm sure we'd have some stimulating discussions about the state of the game.

[Hoop Blah]

IMO the game is better served bein left alone because it makes for a much better sport.

That's not rocket science is it?

[cmonurz]

RR I see your point of view, but where you LOL @ the thought of technology not developing over the next 30 years, equally I have to LOL at the thought that fewer and fewer kids will play our national sport just because a dodgy decision or two sees them lose a game they shouldn't have.

[Royal Rother]

Technology in sport (as in everything in life) will be so advanced in 30 years time that it is inconceivable that humans will still be ruling on potentially billion dollar game / season / life changing decisions without the aid of technology.

Can you not see that?

(I wasn't actually talking about the number of kids playing the game, rather the number of young men and women who would be prepared to pay thousands of pounds a season to watch a game where the outcome would ultimately be almost totally in the hands of fallible human beings... when it wouldn't need to be. They just would not accept it because for that generation it would be seen as a total farce.)

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Technology in sport (as in everything in life) will be so advanced in 30 years time that it is inconceivable that humans will still be ruling on potentially billion dollar game / season / life changing decisions without the aid of technology.

Can you not see that?

(I wasn't actually talking about the number of kids playing the game, rather the number of young men and women who would be prepared to pay thousands of pounds a season to watch a game where the outcome would ultimately be almost totally in the hands of fallible human beings... when it wouldn't need to be. They just would not accept it because for that generation it would be seen as a total farce.)

You're missing not only one of the key reasons that football is so popular across the globe but also a major part of human nature. People love to feel outraged/cheated/vindicated and to have something to argue about after the game - and this is a critical part of the game's appeal.

After every match, the major talking points - some of which live on for year and years - are 99% referee related. Take those out and the game is a whole lot less attractive to spectators and the media, and a whole lot less memorable. In terms of accuracy the game isn't perfect - and that is one of its appeals.

I personally can't conceive of a game of football where the post-match discussions are "Oh, Yes, every decision was correct" - take out the "We woz robbed" factor and you have a less attractive spectacle.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Well I think the game should be stopped after every ref's decision and that decision analysed to be sure it was correct. For example if he gets the award of a throw in wrong and then someone scores later in the game perhaps that wouldn't have happened if the ref had got the award right in the first place.

Then if a player mis-times a challenge or pass then I think play should be brought back until the players gets it right after all that mistimed challenge/pass could lead to a goal being scored but if the mistake hadn't have been made somethinmg else might have happened.

Finally every team sheet should be analysed for mistakes after all if a manager picks a player who is subconciously feeling unwell then that it could well be mistake to play him in the first place so they should analyse that players movements and if found by medical experts to be in anyway not as expected the game should be replayed.