Terrible refereeing ruining football - the saga continues.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

why would play have to stop at all?

Ref signals via a mic to an official viewing on a screen to review it. If the play needs pulling back, then it gets pulled back, otherwise carry on.

There's no reason at all for everyone to stop and wait for a big goal/no goal to appear on the scoreboard.

[SLAMMED]

Exactly ^

All this stuff about it stopping and starting is just LOLable.

[paultheroyal]

why would play have to stop at all?

Ref signals via a mic to an official viewing on a screen to review it. If the play needs pulling back, then it gets pulled back, otherwise carry on.

There's no reason at all for everyone to stop and wait for a big goal/no goal to appear on the scoreboard.

But realistically that would not work would it. Yesterday was a clear decision, but by the time the tv production team cut to the replay, and then it gets viewed you are probably 45 seconds into the game. What if the team go up the field of play and someone is hacked down for a penalty, does he get sent off whilst still trying to clarify whether ball went over the line or not. Just wont work.

It really is simple. Incident on line. Ref stops game. Incident is viewed. Goal given or Goal kick. Wont stop flow of game. No different to kicking ball out of play when someone goes down injured, only for that player to get up again. It is simple.

[Sun Tzu]

Most of the cameras are already at the game

Most cameras are not positioned level with the goal line, neither can they see through players.

Of course cameras are present at high profile games, but not all games.

The game would also be dependent on the TV companies for decisions, which as cricket has shown is not a wise move.

[paultheroyal]

Most of the cameras are already at the game

Most cameras are not positioned level with the goal line, neither can they see through players.

Of course cameras are present at high profile games, but not all games.

The game would also be dependent on the TV companies for decisions, which as cricket has shown is not a wise move.

As above but only to be used at tournament football and cup finals / play offs etc.

[Sun Tzu]

It really is simple. Incident on line. Ref stops game. Incident is viewed. Goal given or Goal kick. Wont stop flow of game. No different to kicking ball out of play when someone goes down injured, only for that player to get up again. It is simple.

PEDANT ALERT

Couldn't be goal or goal kick surely ?

Corner would be another option.

[paultheroyal]

It really is simple. Incident on line. Ref stops game. Incident is viewed. Goal given or Goal kick. Wont stop flow of game. No different to kicking ball out of play when someone goes down injured, only for that player to get up again. It is simple.

PEDANT ALERT

Couldn't be goal or goal kick surely ?

Corner would be another option.

Only if ball is kicked directly out of play by a defender, but i am sure 99.9% of the time goal kick or goal would be the only options.

[Sun Tzu]

It really is simple. Incident on line. Ref stops game. Incident is viewed. Goal given or Goal kick. Wont stop flow of game. No different to kicking ball out of play when someone goes down injured, only for that player to get up again. It is simple.

PEDANT ALERT

Couldn't be goal or goal kick surely ?

Corner would be another option.

Only if ball is kicked directly out of play by a defender, but i am sure 99.9% of the time goal kick or goal would be the only options.

I'd say a fair few goal line incidents involve some kind of deflection off a defender, perhaps a half save from the keeper which he tries to grab and pull back.

If the game is stopped and the ball was shown to be not over the line but last touched by a defender then surely you restart with a corner - or have I misunderstood the proposal !!

To be honest I think Dirk's position that you need a system where (say ) a buzzer sounds in the ref's earpiece if the whole of th eball is over th eline between the posts is the only reasonable one, and is basically how Hawkeye works in tennis.

[Royal Rother]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

TV replays are a must for tournament football - goal line decisions only. Any issue with ball over the line - whistle is immediately blown - this then answers Dirks point and prevents further controvesy. Replay is looked at, decision is made - either a goal is awarded, or a goal kick to the defending team - job done.

So by stopping play you've denied Germany the chance to attack on the break. Football isn't a series of individual plays like tennis or cricket, it's a continuously evolving narrative. You can't just stop it at will - and if you did, who decides when you stop it? If you let a team appeal or challenge, that'll just be used by some as a means to stop an attack against them.

What a pile of crap.

Play is constantly being stopped by cheating divers and incompetent referees who can't tell a fair tackle from a machete attack so stopping the game for something that would prove or disprove whether a ball has crossed the line is hardly such a big deal now is it? In fact it is absolutely common sense, something that FIFA possess in the absolute opposite of abundance.

Facilitate the game flowing more by massively fining players and their clubs / countries' associations when simulation is proved beyond reasonable doubt. That'll stop the cry-baby cock-sucking cheating-scum from ruining my enjoyment of the game more than ensuring correct decisions are made on goal line incidents, which can actually be done in little more than a nanosecond.

I haven't read the whole thread so if this point has already been made or if I've missed the real point somewhere along the line then I apologise.

There are people out there in cloud cuckoo land who seriously think there is no place for technology on football and that there never will be. Can anyone actually picture football being played in 2060 with the same lack of assistance from technology? The idea is beyond laughable. Sadly it is also beyond laughable that it is the case in 2010.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

why would play have to stop at all?

Ref signals via a mic to an official viewing on a screen to review it. If the play needs pulling back, then it gets pulled back, otherwise carry on.

There's no reason at all for everyone to stop and wait for a big goal/no goal to appear on the scoreboard.

But realistically that would not work would it. Yesterday was a clear decision, but by the time the tv production team cut to the replay, and then it gets viewed you are probably 45 seconds into the game.

that's because the tv people have to wait for a natural gap in the play to show a replay. It doesn't mean it takes 45 second to be able to view the replay.

If the game gets called back then it gets called back. If someone scores, tough shit.

[paultheroyal]

But seriously, how often does a ball hit a defender, hit the crossbar, land on the line, spin out, get a 180 degree spin on it and back over the cross bar for a corner, erm never!!

Chip, ball, ear piece is a crazy idea with so many options for things to go wrong.

Over the line or not. Stop play. View it. Goal or Goal kick. Simple.

[paultheroyal]

why would play have to stop at all?

Ref signals via a mic to an official viewing on a screen to review it. If the play needs pulling back, then it gets pulled back, otherwise carry on.

There's no reason at all for everyone to stop and wait for a big goal/no goal to appear on the scoreboard.

But realistically that would not work would it. Yesterday was a clear decision, but by the time the tv production team cut to the replay, and then it gets viewed you are probably 45 seconds into the game.

that's because the tv people have to wait for a natural gap in the play to show a replay. It doesn't mean it takes 45 second to be able to view the replay.

If the game gets called back then it gets called back. If someone scores, tough shit.

But FIFA or FA would be reliant on the tv companies similar to cricket and rugby league. Footage you see is there footage and 45 seconds would not be far off the mark.

[cmonurz]

During this World Cup the TV companies have been regularly turning around replays (many in super slo-mo) of tackles and the like in 10 seconds or so.

[handbags_harris]

why would play have to stop at all?

Ref signals via a mic to an official viewing on a screen to review it. If the play needs pulling back, then it gets pulled back, otherwise carry on.

There's no reason at all for everyone to stop and wait for a big goal/no goal to appear on the scoreboard.

But realistically that would not work would it. Yesterday was a clear decision, but by the time the tv production team cut to the replay, and then it gets viewed you are probably 45 seconds into the game.

that's because the tv people have to wait for a natural gap in the play to show a replay. It doesn't mean it takes 45 second to be able to view the replay.

If the game gets called back then it gets called back. If someone scores, tough shit.

So what about yellow and red card challenges during the play that is effectively rendered meaningless? Do they get wiped as well? You have so many variables during that next phase of play that you simply couldn't have play carry on, you couldn't have play stopped for a possibility of a goal. The decision has to be made there and then for me, we have the technology for that, so let's use it. I really can't see why the debate has raged on for so many pages when a hawkeye or the chip-in-the-ball system are both readily available and give a definitive indication when the ball has crossed the line to a referee within a maximim of 0.5 seconds.

[handbags_harris]

But seriously, how often does a ball hit a defender, hit the crossbar, land on the line, spin out, get a 180 degree spin on it and back over the cross bar for a corner, erm never!!

Chip, ball, ear piece is a crazy idea with so many options for things to go wrong.

Over the line or not. Stop play. View it. Goal or Goal kick. Simple.

1) How often does a ball hit the crossbar, land on the line, spin out, get a 180 degree spin on it and back over the cross bar for a corner, erm never!!

2) What's wrong with hawkeye then?

3) Too stop the game for the possibility of a goal being scored is just wrong in my eyes.

[paultheroyal]

Another world class performance from the english officials tonight, and with England out, Webb and his team are edging towards officiating the final.

[Sun Tzu]

But seriously, how often does a ball hit a defender, hit the crossbar, land on the line, spin out, get a 180 degree spin on it and back over the cross bar for a corner, erm never!!

Chip, ball, ear piece is a crazy idea with so many options for things to go wrong.

Over the line or not. Stop play. View it. Goal or Goal kick. Simple.

Your scenario is wrong !

Hitting cross bars, 180 degree spin, over the cross bar are all irrelevant.

Attacker has shot, deflection off defender, keeper dives and saves but possibly from behind the line.

Play is stopped, ball sown to be not over the line.

You can;t give a goal kick as the last player to touch it was a defender. You have to restart somehow - it has to be a corner.

[paultheroyal]

You can change the laws to whatever you want, but in your example it cant be a corner because it never crossed over the line, compromise is a drop ball halfway between penalty D and centre circle which is a nonsense. Have a goal kick and be done with it.

[Urinal Mint]

thought webby had a good game tonight. also the linesman got some tough calls right.

[Sun Tzu]

You can change the laws to whatever you want, but in your example it cant be a corner because it never crossed over the line, compromise is a drop ball halfway between penalty D and centre circle which is a nonsense. Have a goal kick and be done with it.

If it didn't cross the line it can't be a goal kick either though.

Your rule is simply wrong as it is unjust.

If you are going to stop the game to make a decision the restart has to be fair. It would not be fair to award a goal kick (and the chance to punt the ball up the other end of the field) for no reason.

I think what it highlights is your 'solution' doesn't work because you don;t have a sensible way to restart the game if the ball had not crossed the line.

The buzzer version (which has been trialled successfully) seems clearly the right one. You say there are too many things that could go wrong but you haven't listed any. If the technology is robust (and it's had years of development in tennis and cricket) and all 4 officials are connected then I can;t see anything that would go wrong - and even if something did it would put us in no worse a place than we are now as it would be an ADDITION to the eyes of the officials, who do get the vast majority of calls right anyway.