This is part of the ongoing battle for power between Twatter and Twatini.

UEFA have the glamour and the cash of the Champions League so FIFA need something to show they are the boss.
The Euros are normally better international football without the raft of crap teams from god-knows-where making half the World Cup group games a waste of time (cue Republic of Ireland comments).

Twatini (UEFA) is the advocate of the extra official on the goal line.
Seems like a good idea to me as long as he is there for more than just "did it cross the line" decisions - dodgy penalties, divers, push and shove at corners, etc.
The game the other night though shows not reliable even for goal line desisions.

Twatter (FIFA) is now going big-time for the technology - but I suspect just because he wants to embarass Twatini and his extra official proposal.
It wouldn't surprise me if he's been waiting for a chance to show that the extra official isn't going to work.
He wants to show he's the boss and the cheese-eating surrender monkey is a second-fiddle lapdog to be kept in his place.


I would also like to see a challenge system.
Each manager could have say 1 challenge per half.
A successful challenge means you keep your challenge.
Lost challenge means no more for that half.

They could have something like one of those flag things that referees in American Football have - a bit like a coloured hanky wrapped round a small weight.
Throw it on the pitch in front of the technical area to register a challenge.
Everybody would see it's a challenge and no arguments about was it a challenge or not - like shouting, grabbing the 4th offcial or waving your arms.
If the manager wants to challenge a decision, he could throw the flag on the field within say 3 seconds of the incident, tell the 4th offical what the challenge is about and the decision is reviewed at the next break in play.

Keys and Grey were discussing this with Patrick Barclay about 10 minutes ago. Barclay raised the point that it needn't cost the reported £250,000 per stadium to install, because it's already there, (tv cameras which pick it up anyway). Think of the Spurs goal that never was v United, the goal the other night for the Ukraine and many, many other examples where the camera already picks up whether it crossed the line or not. He, (Barclay), also couldn't think of one incident since the 66 goal where a goal has not been able to be judged if it crossed the line using a TV replay, especially since the 90's when football on tele has become what it is now. So fuck buzzers and lasers. A man in a booth somewhere watching Sky's coverage is all that is needed.

Wasn't it at the friendly game between Belgium and England a series of camera inserted into the goal posts?

Start it at a world cup where all the stadia are usually new build and insist cameras in all goals for any of the venues.

If the goal has or has not crossed the line there is usually protests from players no different than say stopping play to allow for player to be treated. 4th official reviews camera and determines goal or not.

If the technology is simply limited to this one function during the biggest football competition on the planet, where is the cost. Hardly any and it ensures the integrity of the WC IMO.

You can then debate as long as you want whether it should be extended to qualifiers and the like or whether it would filter down and be adopted in other competitions such as EC or ACON. IMO it is long over due and the sooner in place the better.

Absolutely this.

Once technology is brought in for one thing it won't stop.

Fifa does not want to add technology in football just because they are afraid of losing their control on some games.
But nowadays all other sports are using "mechanical eyes", so they are forced to do something... but it will be only a small change.

I've still in my eyes what happened in 2002 world cup with Corea.

This is why you're not thinking of the bigger picture.

If you pre-empt all this nonsense about 'bringing in technology' for other incidents, by including off the ball incidents and possible offsides etc., leading to a goal, then there will be nowt to complain about as it's already implemented.

People misunderstand the advantages of a 'challenge' system. Two per game to a team would be entirely enough. Sure, some clowns would try to abuse the system, BUT frivolous use and you run the risk of claiming on a real incident as the ref reverts back to full control on his decisions. No one could argue cos the clown was being a tw@ and possibly costing his team points. It would quickly dissipate as an idea and I believe you would get honesty brought back into the game.

The only reason Young doesn't dive too much, any more, is cos the media picked up on it and he got a bashing for it. Did it change the penalty decisions or stop a player being sent off?? No, because it was all after the fact. There and then and Young would have been carded whatever colour after a review.

The method is simple and demands players and refs to be honest because they cannot hide.

To be fair, he did say it should come in after fat Fwank's non-goal in South Africa two years ago.

Just to end this thread & all talk of challenges etc - I'm a clown & I'm throwing a challenge at 10/11 seconds in on the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYMDkx1qHkk&feature=related

Anybody have any issues with that?

Thought not.

What the fook are you talking about??? Again and again you never understand the issue that you yourself posts about!!

Who are you talking about throwing in a 'challenge'?

City? QPR?

Who about what?

Why?

Nonsense as per usual!!

I used to be in the 'for' camp about goal-line tech. But that alone. I have to say I have changed my mind. I feel if every decision is correct because of video evidence, buzzers as a ball crosses a line or challenges made by managers or what ever. It wouldn't improve the game, it wouldn't improve the experience, it wouldn't improve that which makes football the most exciting and compulsive viewing. It would simply make the result of every 'crucial' action in the game correct.

In short it would become what a DVD is to vinyl.