Goal-line technology and reviews

[Friday's Legacy]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/03032012/ ... light.html

Goalline technology has been approved in principle by football's lawmakers and could be used for the first time at FIFA's Club World Cup finals in Japan at the end of the year.

The eight-man International Football Association Board said that the technologies of two companies, Hawk-Eye from Britain and GoalRef, a German-Danish company, would be subject to further tests until a final decision was taken at a special IFAB meeting in Kiev on July 2.

IFAB, which comprises four representatives from the world governing body FIFA and four from the British associations, also agreed in principle to overturn the decision they took in 2007 and will now allow Islamic women footballers to wear a hijab, or headscarf, when they play.

The hijab decision, taken after a presentation to the Board by FIFA executive committee member Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein of Jordan, was agreed by all eight members and will also be subject to further testing with a view to a final decision on July 2.

"I am deeply grateful that the proposal to allow women to wear the headscarf was unanimously endorsed by all members of IFAB," Prince Ali said.
"I welcome their decision for an accelerated process to further test the current design and I'm confident that once the final ratification at the sepcial meeting of IFAB takes place, we will see many delighted and happy players returning to the field and playing the game they love."

In other decisions, a proposal from FIFA to allow a fourth substitute in extra time in Cup matches was withdrawn while further discussions will be taken regarding the "triple punishment" sanction when a player concedes a penalty, is sent off and faces a suspension for preventing a goal-scoring opportunity.
IFAB also approved the use of "vanishing spray", the temporory marker sprayed on to the pitch by the referee so defenders stand 10 yards (9.15 metres) from free-kicks, can also be used in matches, It also allowed rolling substitutes in amateur and veterans matches.

The issue of goalline technology has been on and off IFAB's agenda over the last decade, but FIFA president Sepp Blatter, once a staunch opponent, changed his mind after Frank Lampard's infamous phantom goal for England against Germany in the 2010 World Cup finals was disallowed when it was clearly over the line.
Blatter said before the meeting he "would rather die" than witness another blunder like that in a future World Cup and with his support, the introduction of the system became more likely.

Alex Horne, the general secretary of the English FA who hosted the meeting south of London, told a news conference: "Eight goal-line technology systems were tested, and now two are going forward to final testing - Hawk-Eye and GoalRef. They will go into phase two of testing and be tested to 'destruction'.
"We expect, following the conclusion of those tests by EMPA (the Swiss testing laboratory), that one or more of the companies will fulfil the criteria, amd that we will be passing that into the laws on July 2."

Jerome Valcke, FIFA's general secretary, added: "If it is approved on July 2, then there is nothing to stop it being used on July 3, but in reality, the first FIFA competition it might be used at would be the Club World Cup finals in Japan in December. It should also be used at the Confederations Cup in Brazil next year before the World Cup in 2014."

The Confederations Cup is used as a rehearsal for the finals and between four and six World Cup stadiums should feature in that tournament.
A number of issues remain to be settled regarding technology including future licensing agreements, the costs involved and to what playing level the systems can be used.

Both systems, and future ones yet to be developed, could eventually be licensed with costs expected to reduce over time.
The system used by Hawk-Eye, which is used in tennis and cricket, is based on optical recognition with cameras while GoalRef uses a magnetic field with a special ball to identify a goal situation.

Reuters

[Ian Royal]

about bloody time.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Ridiculous waste of money. Debate over whether a ball crossed the line is part of the game at all levels

[TheMaraudingDog]

If you want something done, don't hire the FSF.

[Franchise FC]

So now that England have benefited from a goal-line escape Sepp Batter says that goal-line technology is an absolute requirement.

Sepp really does not like England at all does he ? When we didn't get the goal against Germany he was at pains to say it was 'part of the game', but now now.

He's going to be on a collision course with Michel Platini, whose idea was the extra 2 'helpers' to avoid the technology.

What I don't get is this. Why are the two extra helpers on the same side of the goal as the lineos ? Surely someone brighter than me would have worked out that one looking in from each side would have a much better chance of seeing any incident in the game and even more so when there's the question of the ball going in. In fact, in that situation, players blocking a view from one side are more likely to not be blocking the view from the other.

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.

[ZacNaloen]

Sepp Blatter changed his stance after the world cup.

Officially board of this talking point.

[Franchise FC]

Sepp Blatter changed his stance after the world cup.

Officially board of this talking point.

Officially don't post on threads you are bored of then

[ZacNaloen]

Might be bored of it, but that's no reason not to correct bullshit.

[TBM]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10452713

29 June 2010
Blatter told a press conference the error had convinced him to reopen the debate on goal-line technology at a board meeting in July.

[ZacNaloen]

The real problem with the UEFA/FIFA commentary on this decision is the fact that the initial pass was about a yard offside so even if it did cross the line, it wouldn't have stood if the officials had been doing their jobs properly to begin with.

This point seems to be getting ignored in the furore.

[Geekins]

Doesn't make a decent enough story though Zac.

[ZacNaloen]

Yeh I know *sigh*

[ZacNaloen]

If anything last night raises the spector of Final Man Technology to determine offsides.

[Franchise FC]

If anything last night raises the spector of Final Man Technology to determine offsides.

I think we should ditch real players and just play FIFA 09/10/11/12/13.... etc.
That way the technology can be built in and can be used for every decision.

Besides, No.2 son could get a game for England at FIFA

[superreadingfan]

you benefited in 1966

[Ian Royal]

you benefited in 1966

Prove it.

[Jackson Corner]

you benefited in 1966

Technology was not available in 1966. Last nights goal or non goal aks more questions. Yes it was over the line, but the video ref could go back in the play and say a Ukraine player was offside in the build up to the goal and as such not give it? Rather like a cricket team asking for a review of an LBW only to find it was a no ball.

[superreadingfan]

The goal was onside, the ref rightly didn't flag, not sure why england fans are so blinkered when historically they are on the right side of dodgy decisions. ooh boo hoo uefa out to get us. hilarious

[superreadingfan]

a goal that didn't cross a line that the linesman admitted that he wanted to the germans to lose because of stalingrad and another goal "counted" with fans standing on the pitch... flukiest world cup win ever.. you guys going to pitch invade during the euro final ( if you make it ? ) seems like you are getting warmed up for it

[Franchise FC]

The goal was onside, the ref rightly didn't flag, not sure why england fans are so blinkered when historically they are on the right side of dodgy decisions. ooh boo hoo uefa out to get us. hilarious

Oh yes he was - oh no he wasn't
Oh yes he was from the original ball from back to front - he ran back from an offside position to collect the ball and play the through ball.

The ref would never flag - he hasn't got one - the assistant referee should have.