Goal line technology

[Grimbeard]

Has it made any difference? Has it even been used in anger this season?

[CumbrianRam]

Not really but the media over-hype saying every goal just over the line is down to it, when in fact only one or two have, the rest were obvious.

[Shuff264]

I dunno, would a ref have got this right?

 

"http://giant.gfycat.com/PerfumedUntimelyAmericancrow" alt="PerfumedUntimelyAmericancrow">

[CumbrianRam]

OK, that is the one.

[Bris Vegas]

I don't think it will be used frequently... I mean, how often do shots 'just creep over the line'

 

It's clearly there to stop those one in a thousand moments such as the Lampard goal against Germany.

 

It will probably be called into question twice/three times a season... 

[Mafiabob]

I don't think it will be used frequently... I mean, how often do shots 'just creep over the line'

It's clearly there to stop those one in a thousand moments such as the Lampard goal against Germany.

It will probably be called into question twice/three times a season...

The problem I've got with it is that there will be calls to use video for everything, think we are on a slippery slope myself, and all because if pound shillings and pence (and the media of course)

[Bris Vegas]

The problem I've got with it is that there will be calls to use video for everything, think we are on a slippery slope myself, and all because if pound shillings and pence (and the media of course)

 

Yep, soon they will want technology for every little decision.

 

But in this respect, I don't see the problem as the game doesn't need to be stopped at any point and it's instant.

 

As long as players keep to the rule 'play to the whilste' they should assume - in those one in a thousand moments - the ball hasn't crossed the line until the ref says so.

[Day]

4th official, wired up to the ref watching TV...game doesn't even need to stop, what's the harm in another set if eyes. Go for it I say.

[Mafiabob]

4th official, wired up to the ref watching TV...game doesn't even need to stop, what's the harm in another set if eyes. Go for it I say.

I can see it benefits goaline stuff and ball in and out of play where is matter of fact, but problem is it will get abused by under pressure managers and I really do think we will end up stop starting games. I E a team winning 1-0 but getting pummelled will use it for advantageous ways of breaking up play. All purely hypothetical of course. bris you're right. Play to the whistle.

[Derbados]

Thing is, lets say we need it one day, let me set the scene - we are at the I-pro, Robert Madely's the ref, were playing forest, its 1-1 and we are in stoppage time, if we win we go up, if Forest draw or win they stay up. a Derby player hits a Lampard esque screamer that hits the crossbar and bounces down and out of the goal. It looks like it might have gone over the line but Robert Madely being a n incompetent t**t says no goal and sends off three of our players for the hell of it before blowing the full time whistle and cartwheeling down the tunnel. Forest stay up and we miss out on promotion. TV replays later show the ball was over the line by a at least a foot. How distraught would you be? how big would your sense of injustice be? for the sake of a couple of seconds a little bit of technology can show it was in fact over the line and Robert Madley no matter how much it pains him to do so has to give the goal. We go up, Forest go down, everyones 'appy! 

[Leicester Ram]

It was needed for our decision against Burnley, certainly. The ref had blown his whistle, there's no play going on anymore so why wouldn't he refer to video technology to help make a decision? Would have been season changing if he'd been able to refer to video technology to decide whether it was a dive or a penalty.

[Grimbeard]

I have two main problems with it.

 

1. It's too expensive to be used in ALL games. Previously, whether you were playing in the World Cup final or playing for The Dog and Duck, the rules were the same, this is no longer the case.

 

2. It takes away the arguments, where's the fun in that? And how can we bear a grudge for the next twenty or thirty years when it's been proven beyond doubt that the ref was right all along?

[HeyHudson]

1. It's too expensive to be used in ALL games. Previously, whether you were playing in the World Cup final or playing for The Dog and Duck, the rules were the same, this is no longer the case.

 

That was always Blatter's main argument against it. He believed football should be a universal game which could be played equally at all levels.

 

Does that mean FIFA are going to free up some money so the Dog & Duck can get Prozone in and start using sports scientists? If not, then his argument falls down somewhat. There are always going to be differences between the technology/resources available at different levels of the game.

[trekkie_ram]

That was always Blatter's main argument against it. He believed football should be a universal game which could be played equally at all levels.

 

Does that mean FIFA are going to free up some money so the Dog & Duck can get Prozone in and start using sports scientists? If not, then his argument falls down somewhat. There are always going to be differences between the technology/resources available at different levels of the game.

 

Can hawk-eye be implemented on a pile of jumpers and a tree stump?

[Grimbeard]

That was always Blatter's main argument against it. He believed football should be a universal game which could be played equally at all levels.

 

Does that mean FIFA are going to free up some money so the Dog & Duck can get Prozone in and start using sports scientists? If not, then his argument falls down somewhat. There are always going to be differences between the technology/resources available at different levels of the game.

No, Prozone and sports scientists have no effect once the players have crossed the white line, the game it's self is not affected by tools such as these. It's not often that I agree with Blatter, but in this instance he's quite right.

[duncanjwitham]

I have two main problems with it.

 

1. It's too expensive to be used in ALL games. Previously, whether you were playing in the World Cup final or playing for The Dog and Duck, the rules were the same, this is no longer the case.

 

But it's already different.  Games involving the Dog and Duck don't have proper 4th officials, and at really low levels they won't even have official linesmen.  

[Gritstone Ram]

What league do the Dog and Duck play in? Who plays for them? Pluto and Donald?

[blackNwhites]

I dunno, would a ref have got this right?

 

"http://giant.gfycat.com/PerfumedUntimelyAmericancrow" alt="PerfumedUntimelyAmericancrow">

GOOOOOAAAAAL

[Grimbeard]

But it's already different.  Games involving the Dog and Duck don't have proper 4th officials, and at really low levels they won't even have official linesmen.  

4th official dunt really do owt. A linesman is a linesman, how competent he might be is neither here nor there.

[rynny]

An old article on goals that should have counted.

I have highlighted the biggest effect of 1 of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1207101/The-goals-Sportsmails-time-favourite-Phantom-goals.html

BOLTON WANDERERS v Everton, September 1997

Bolton were denied victory at the Reebok Stadium when referee Stephen Lodge failed to spot that Gerry Taggart's looping header had fallen six inches behind the line before it was cleared by defender Terry Phelan.

This story gets worse, particularly if you are a Trotters fan...

The match ended goalless, and the teams finished level on points at the end of the season. Bolton were relegated on goal difference, Everton stayed up.