Goal Line Technology
Discussion
I have a question about this that no one has been able to answer to my satisfaction.
Whenever we think about this, we imagine the Lampard scenario in the last world cup, i.e. ball over the line, ref doesn't give it, players appeal, ref would call for a decision based on technology, a replay, then the goal would be given. That's fine.
But what if it's the other way round. Ball is lobbed towards goal, keeper claws it out from under the bar in mid air, ref gives the goal, defenders go mad. Ref calls for technology, decision comes back no goal. How does the ref restart the game? When he blew to give the goal the ball was heading back into the 6 yrd box. If he hadn't blown for a goal, the attacking team might have gone on to score anyway. Or defenders may have cleared it.
Football doesn't lend itself to a tennis style hawkeye system. The ball doesn't always touch the ground in a disputed goal, and you can't float a sensor in the middle of the ball. So replay is the only effective way of deciding.
I have to say I'm against goal line technology. I think crap decisions are part of the passion of the game. Even when they go against us, like in the last world cup. And by and large, it does even out. The best teams win the league, and the worst are relegated, regardless of decisions. If anyone thinks their team got relegated because of a bad decision, after 38 games, they're kidding themselves. Germany beat us in the world cup because they were miles better than us. Sure, we might have gone in at 2-2 for half time, but all this "it would have been a different game" is nonsense. They would have caned us either way.
Whenever we think about this, we imagine the Lampard scenario in the last world cup, i.e. ball over the line, ref doesn't give it, players appeal, ref would call for a decision based on technology, a replay, then the goal would be given. That's fine.
But what if it's the other way round. Ball is lobbed towards goal, keeper claws it out from under the bar in mid air, ref gives the goal, defenders go mad. Ref calls for technology, decision comes back no goal. How does the ref restart the game? When he blew to give the goal the ball was heading back into the 6 yrd box. If he hadn't blown for a goal, the attacking team might have gone on to score anyway. Or defenders may have cleared it.
Football doesn't lend itself to a tennis style hawkeye system. The ball doesn't always touch the ground in a disputed goal, and you can't float a sensor in the middle of the ball. So replay is the only effective way of deciding.
I have to say I'm against goal line technology. I think crap decisions are part of the passion of the game. Even when they go against us, like in the last world cup. And by and large, it does even out. The best teams win the league, and the worst are relegated, regardless of decisions. If anyone thinks their team got relegated because of a bad decision, after 38 games, they're kidding themselves. Germany beat us in the world cup because they were miles better than us. Sure, we might have gone in at 2-2 for half time, but all this "it would have been a different game" is nonsense. They would have caned us either way.
Has not done cricket or tennis any harm , & at the end of the day i want to see the correct decision being made
As for the Lampard world cup goal , who knows what would have happened @ 2-2 without us chasing for a goal ,
Football is the worlds biggest game that comes with some of the worst decisions ,
Goal line technology is a must in my opinion ,
As for the Lampard world cup goal , who knows what would have happened @ 2-2 without us chasing for a goal ,
Football is the worlds biggest game that comes with some of the worst decisions ,
Goal line technology is a must in my opinion ,
i agree that goal line technology is becoming a must now. There is simply too much for a ref and 2 linesmen to see and react too. They are only human and do make mistakes.
What would be wrong with a referee watching the game on a tv and watching the replays and relaying the message to the Referee? As your scenario plays out surely the play would carry on and then when the video referee calls up the match referee and says "hang on a sec that ball crossed the line" the match ref could just blow the whistle. It then becomes largely irrelevant where the play is at that time because it would have been another kick off, corner throw in etc.
Just in my opinion.
What would be wrong with a referee watching the game on a tv and watching the replays and relaying the message to the Referee? As your scenario plays out surely the play would carry on and then when the video referee calls up the match referee and says "hang on a sec that ball crossed the line" the match ref could just blow the whistle. It then becomes largely irrelevant where the play is at that time because it would have been another kick off, corner throw in etc.
Just in my opinion.
U T said:
But what if it's the other way round. Ball is lobbed towards goal, keeper claws it out from under the bar in mid air, ref gives the goal, defenders go mad. Ref calls for technology, decision comes back no goal. How does the ref restart the game? When he blew to give the goal the ball was heading back into the 6 yrd box. If he hadn't blown for a goal, the attacking team might have gone on to score anyway. Or defenders may have cleared it.
If the keeper was the last to handle it before the whistle, then maybe it should be a corner. Puts the ball back into play in the box, seems fair. I have also seen drop balls done (like hockey) after the whistle is blown for a bad injury or something. Drop ball at the 18?Edited by mko9 on Saturday 3rd December 15:44
Black can man said:
Has not done cricket or tennis any harm , & at the end of the day i want to see the correct decision being made
As for the Lampard world cup goal , who knows what would have happened @ 2-2 without us chasing for a goal ,
I know...we would have lost 5-2!! You can't lose a game 4-1 and then say 1 bad decision cost the game. They thrashed us. 4-1 flattered us I thought.As for the Lampard world cup goal , who knows what would have happened @ 2-2 without us chasing for a goal ,
U T said:
Black can man said:
Has not done cricket or tennis any harm , & at the end of the day i want to see the correct decision being made
As for the Lampard world cup goal , who knows what would have happened @ 2-2 without us chasing for a goal ,
I know...we would have lost 5-2!! You can't lose a game 4-1 and then say 1 bad decision cost the game. They thrashed us. 4-1 flattered us I thought.As for the Lampard world cup goal , who knows what would have happened @ 2-2 without us chasing for a goal ,
Black can man said:
Whaoaa down there , they beat us fair & square , but we was chasing a goal
We weren't chasing a goal when we kicked off, but were 2 down in no time at all. If we'd come out for the 2nd half at 2-2 we would have still lost, because they were far too good for us.I knew the game was lost as the camera panned along the 2 teams during the national anthem. Them (apart from Kloser)---clean cut, clean shaven, focused, determined. Us-----tatooed, unshaven, skinheaded, gum chewing.
Lampard was the only one who didn't look like an extra from film about Neanderthal man.
U T said:
Black can man said:
Whaoaa down there , they beat us fair & square , but we was chasing a goal
We weren't chasing a goal when we kicked off, but were 2 down in no time at all. If we'd come out for the 2nd half at 2-2 we would have still lost, because they were far too good for us.I knew the game was lost as the camera panned along the 2 teams during the national anthem. Them (apart from Kloser)---clean cut, clean shaven, focused, determined. Us-----tatooed, unshaven, skinheaded, gum chewing.
Lampard was the only one who didn't look like an extra from film about Neanderthal man.
Frank is a sexy guy i'll give you that if being a little tubby is your thing
I just mean that Frank always looks smart. No stupid haircuts or facial hair, no tatoos. Whether he's good looking or not is not the point.
Maybe I'm being old fashioned but if you turn up for work looking like you're going to work, instead of looking like a tramp, you might perform at your job better??
Maybe I'm being old fashioned but if you turn up for work looking like you're going to work, instead of looking like a tramp, you might perform at your job better??
U T said:
But what if it's the other way round. Ball is lobbed towards goal, keeper claws it out from under the bar in mid air, ref gives the goal, defenders go mad. Ref calls for technology, decision comes back no goal. How does the ref restart the game? When he blew to give the goal the ball was heading back into the 6 yrd box. If he hadn't blown for a goal, the attacking team might have gone on to score anyway. Or defenders may have cleared it.
But the rule will have changed. The ref would blow his whistle whenever the ball goes dead and they go to the replay. Bing o said:
U T said:
But what if it's the other way round. Ball is lobbed towards goal, keeper claws it out from under the bar in mid air, ref gives the goal, defenders go mad. Ref calls for technology, decision comes back no goal. How does the ref restart the game? When he blew to give the goal the ball was heading back into the 6 yrd box. If he hadn't blown for a goal, the attacking team might have gone on to score anyway. Or defenders may have cleared it.
But the rule will have changed. The ref would blow his whistle whenever the ball goes dead and they go to the replay. If the ball falls back into the box after a goal-line clearance, obviously defenders are still going to try to hack it clear, whereas attackers will still try to score, even if they think they have scored already.
That way, if the ball gets smashed in on the rebound, it doesn't matter if it crossed the line the first time (although they may decide to award to goal to the first "scorer" for stats if it did cross the line) ... And if the ball gets cleared and it works it's way out for a throw in somewhere, the ref goes back and checks if it crossed the line. If it did... goal. If it didn't... throw in.
Easy.
cotney said:
Bing o said:
U T said:
But what if it's the other way round. Ball is lobbed towards goal, keeper claws it out from under the bar in mid air, ref gives the goal, defenders go mad. Ref calls for technology, decision comes back no goal. How does the ref restart the game? When he blew to give the goal the ball was heading back into the 6 yrd box. If he hadn't blown for a goal, the attacking team might have gone on to score anyway. Or defenders may have cleared it.
But the rule will have changed. The ref would blow his whistle whenever the ball goes dead and they go to the replay. If the ball falls back into the box after a goal-line clearance, obviously defenders are still going to try to hack it clear, whereas attackers will still try to score, even if they think they have scored already.
That way, if the ball gets smashed in on the rebound, it doesn't matter if it crossed the line the first time (although they may decide to award to goal to the first "scorer" for stats if it did cross the line) ... And if the ball gets cleared and it works it's way out for a throw in somewhere, the ref goes back and checks if it crossed the line. If it did... goal. If it didn't... throw in.
Easy.
If the ref thinks a goal has been scored he has to give the goal. Still left with the problem of what to do on the restart if the technology says no goal.
To answer the initial question, whenever a ball appears to have crossed the line, players seem to stop, the keeper may have gathered the ball or the defenders may have cleared.
The ref can blow up at a sensible point unless the attack is still progressing - just like he might do for an offside.
Afterall, if the question is contentious such as a possible goal, then play would have already been stopped if the goal had been given.
The ref can blow up at a sensible point unless the attack is still progressing - just like he might do for an offside.
Afterall, if the question is contentious such as a possible goal, then play would have already been stopped if the goal had been given.
Carlton Banks said:
To answer the initial question, whenever a ball appears to have crossed the line, players seem to stop, the keeper may have gathered the ball or the defenders may have cleared.
The ref can blow up at a sensible point unless the attack is still progressing - just like he might do for an offside.
Afterall, if the question is contentious such as a possible goal, then play would have already been stopped if the goal had been given.
That's my point. The ref thinks it's a goal, so blows his whistle and play stops. The ball is in the 6 yrd box after the keeper pushed it out. The attacking team run away to celebrate and the defenders surround the ref saying it wasn't over the line. The ref calls for technology and the result comes back...not a goal, wasn't fully over the line.The ref can blow up at a sensible point unless the attack is still progressing - just like he might do for an offside.
Afterall, if the question is contentious such as a possible goal, then play would have already been stopped if the goal had been given.
What happens now?? It's a straight forward scenario and no one has given a decent answer. I haven't got one either.
Russ35 said:
The goal line technology to be used is supposed to be automatic isn't it? so no human interaction (replays etc) required. And the system is supposed to inform the ref within 1 second that it was a goal.
Sort of like an Ice hockey style flashing light and horn in the refs ear? Would make more sense than going to a video ref which would be a waste of time imo.Russ35 said:
The goal line technology to be used is supposed to be automatic isn't it? so no human interaction (replays etc) required. And the system is supposed to inform the ref within 1 second that it was a goal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-501...
No need for replays or slowing down the play.
Just out of interest - does anyone have any numbers on how many games have had this situation arise (lets say WC games only), obviously Lampard and the 66 final are two that spring to mind but are there many others?
Seems a lot of money to spend on complex technology when a camera or two by the goal would surely suffice (if that the road football wants to go down).
Seems a lot of money to spend on complex technology when a camera or two by the goal would surely suffice (if that the road football wants to go down).
mikeyr said:
Just out of interest - does anyone have any numbers on how many games have had this situation arise (lets say WC games only), obviously Lampard and the 66 final are two that spring to mind but are there many others?
Seems a lot of money to spend on complex technology when a camera or two by the goal would surely suffice (if that the road football wants to go down).
Exactly. There was the Bulgaria / Romania quarter final in 94. But it's quite rare. I like crap decisions. They're part of the game we love. As a football fan, there's nothing better than a terrible decision going your way. Especially away from home. Great fun.Seems a lot of money to spend on complex technology when a camera or two by the goal would surely suffice (if that the road football wants to go down).
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff