Goal-line technology and reviews

[cmonurz]

Personally I think Stuka makes a sound point on retaining the human element to the sport. The rights and wrongs, discussions and feeling for being hard done by is a massive part of being a football fan.

Agree with that completely - in terms of the stuff where it's subjective (offsides, handball, fouls, where you have to judge context and things like intent).

But for straightfoward line decisions where it';s just a "YES/NO -was it over the line?" I can see no reason not to use technology - just as long as the indication to the officials is instant and there are no delays.

^This.

I'm all for human error in sport (although DRS hasn't dumanised cricket to the extent I thought it would and indeed has shown just how consistently good the umpires are) - but any technology that can ensure near to 100% accuracy in an important decision like 'is it a goal?' should be welcomed.

[cmonurz]

And I think the design of any system that understands the current state of the offside rule would be Nobel Prize worthy.

[Franchise FC]

And I think the design of any system that understands the current state of the offside rule would be Nobel Prize worthy.

Is Stephen Hawking a football fan ?

[cmonurz]

Armchair supporter.

[Franchise FC]

Armchair supporter.

You know when there's that moment you shouldn't laugh but do

I meant - to use him because of his particular intellectual power.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Armchair supporter.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Not that bothered by it, it's just more money going to the elite.

goal line technology would result in more money going to the elite?

[Simon's Church]

Well, more money being spent on the elite. Unless it's down to the clubs themselves to fund their own systems.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Probably a condition of promotion to a certain level that a club has these in place. And that's my only worry - it might gain smaller clubs from gaining promotion in the same way that ground grading does sometimes.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I can't exactly imagine it being a major slice of a club's budget.

[Hoop Blah]

Personally I think Stuka makes a sound point on retaining the human element to the sport. The rights and wrongs, discussions and feeling for being hard done by is a massive part of being a football fan.

Agree with that completely - in terms of the stuff where it's subjective (offsides, handball, fouls, where you have to judge context and things like intent).

But for straightfoward line decisions where it';s just a "YES/NO -was it over the line?" I can see no reason not to use technology - just as long as the indication to the officials is instant and there are no delays.

I kind of agree on the factual decisions as well, I'm just not sure it would stop there and perhaps it's not worth opening pandora's box by starting with this one. I don't think it's really worth all the hassle either, despite a few high profile examples over the last 4 or 5 years.

[Ian Royal]

I disagree with the slippery slope argument. There is a world of difference between an easily installed piece of equipment that serves a specific and easily definable role instantly.

How the hell would you put together a system to detect offsides that didn't involve stopping the game and having a video replay? It would be hugely complex and expensive.

People have to accept that in a time when technology is showing fans more and more when decisions are wrong, something has to be done to try and counter that so that the game has credibility. Especially with something as simple as some sensors in the posts and a transmitter in the ball.

[Jerry St Clair]

And why didn't UEFA employ the extra helpers who were a little less vain - wear the bloody glasses guys. I'm as pleased as anyone that we've won, particularly since there was a clear offside in the build up, but this was NOT a technology issue - it's a competence issue and the extra helper was incompetent.

This pillorying of match officials really grates.

We call them incompetent after we've seen half a dozen freeze framed replays of the incident. It was so tight there is no way the official behind the goal could be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the whole of the ball had crossed the line. It was, at best, 1cm over the line.

I think he was absolutely correct not too give a goal.

Note that none of the "expert" pundits called it in real time.

[Hoop Blah]

Agreed Jerry, giving the goal for that margin of the ball going over would've been an exceptionally brave decision and 90% guess work.

If the ball had been on the ground then it's a lot easier to call.

[Ian Royal]

Agreed Jerry, giving the goal for that margin of the ball going over would've been an exceptionally brave decision and 90% guess work.

If the ball had been on the ground then it's a lot easier to call.

I agree. The thing is, they were put in place for exactly these decisions, so whilst you can't blame them for not getting it right. You have to ask what was the oxf*rd point of putting them there, as they add virtually nothing other than two more sets of eyes to miss things. Their introduction was an absolutely horrendus idea.

[Hoop Blah]

Agreed, and that was a point I made earlier in the week.

[Friday's Legacy]

Sky are reporting this will get the go-ahead in the next day or two, and the PL are very supportive of it and will introduce it as early as possible.

[EPR]

Looks like Hawkeye has been installed at the Mad Stad. Presumably not "live" yet but the cameras are all there.

[Millsy]

... Is even more of a ****ing moronic dinosaur than I previously thought you were.

No other way of putting it, sorry.

[parky]

There is no reason why you cant simply review a goal similar to the NFl when every scoring play is reviewed on video.