you have to be realistic here. there's no such thing called only goal line technology. its gonna be controversial decision technology. are you telling me once they bring this in and there's a penalty decision deciding a teams relegation in the 90th min last game and the technology is there, it wont be used because of technicality? You will need something like that to move the post to penalty decision, then it will be red card decisions etc etc. There's no way once the technology is there people will accept just goal line
Goal Line Technology
- Thread starter Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot
- Start date
gooney said:
Spot on. Where do we draw the line? we can't have penalty decisions or offsides done this way. There is a difference with it in other sports as there is a natural break in play where there can be a review there isn't in football. It's not for me.
mcfc1996 said:
It's simple. The Fourth Official would be part of the refereeing team. He would spend his time hooked up to a monitor and could be used in two ways. He could be available to the on field referee to offer advice if the on field referee asks for it, and he would be expected to point out any obvious errors made by the on field refereeing team.
bluemoondays
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 2,435
You can do it two ways, have the off-field official only used when the ref or lino is unsure OR make him a key part of the team with the power to get the ref to blow up for a break in play.
Cases in point,
Chelsea goal on the weekend, ref consults video guy who tells the ref not a goal. Game defaults to a free kick for Spurs from their goal line.
Rooney forearm smash, video ref tells ref to blow for a foul - Rooney gets a red card and walks.
I don't think you can (or should) just limit it to goal-line incidents, in the above 2 examples one is clearly a very serious red card incident which could have been punished at the time.
Cases in point,
Chelsea goal on the weekend, ref consults video guy who tells the ref not a goal. Game defaults to a free kick for Spurs from their goal line.
Rooney forearm smash, video ref tells ref to blow for a foul - Rooney gets a red card and walks.
I don't think you can (or should) just limit it to goal-line incidents, in the above 2 examples one is clearly a very serious red card incident which could have been punished at the time.
yerwot?
Well-Known Member
one of the technologies in consideration involves multiple cameras and soft-ware that decides if the ball has crossed the line,which triggers a signal in the ref's ear-piece.No delay at all,the pundits who defend the status quo are of a similar mind-set to those who keep perpetuating the lie that standing areas caused the tragedy at Hillsborough,probably long for leather studs and nails to make a return .As for the offside rule, why not scrap it, another relic from the very distant past.The game would benefit from a more open playing area and the farce of active-inactive would be ended.As long as Sky have no input into decisions via technology, i can only see benefits from moving into the modern world.
hgblue said:
But its hard to make decisions on the spot. alot of the decisions we are talking about is very close and you can show it two people and they will disagree. Specially penalty decision and offsides. I just think this is opening can of worms. I can see managers question every decision and argue with the fourth official to look at it
MCFC BOB
Well-Known Member
No to GLT. Yes to BLT.
gooney said:
As I say the Fourth Official would be able to offer advice when required and to rectify obvious mistakes. He isn't there to referee the game. For example, the referee could have asked for his advice about whether the ball had crossed the line in the Chelsea v Spurs game. He would have been advised that it hadn't. End result? Bad decision reversed. In the Arsenal v United game the Fourth Official would have notified the referee that he had missed a handball. End result? Penalty correctly awarded to Arsenal and a Red Card for Vidic. I could go on because there were several more high profile mistakes in just those two games, but I don't want to labour the point. To my mind, Video Technology is one of those changes which will quickly become part of the game and people will ask 'why didn't we do this years ago?' Bit like the pass back rule, or the automatic Red Card when denying a goal scoring opportunity, or allowing substitutes, or changing the offside rule, etc, etc. Football evolves and is starting to look silly when other sports are embracing technology. It would have the added benefit of completely eradicating cheating and the suspicion that referees are favouring the bigger teams when making their decisions. I don't see a negative in this at all.
bluemoondays
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 2,435
hgblue said:
This would also have helped on the Rooney forearm smash, the ref could have asked the video ref to say what had gone on when he sees the player on the ground and Rooney running on.
bluemoondays said:
You could also ask yourself the question would players do stuff like that if they knew there was zero chance of getting away with it? What would be the point of trying to con the ref if you know that the Fourth official would tune him in even if you managed it? It would soon get through to even the dullest of all the pros that this sort of stuff is now counter productive, and would go a long way to cleaning up the game, as well as it's primary objective of ensuring no more embarassing clangers are dropped. It makes officials look stupid when they make high profile mistakes and they must be gutted when they watch games back, but by then it's too late.
There needs to be goal line technology.
Rugby have it and it works really, really well. It doesn't slow down the game.
And what I like about rugby as well is that we can hear exactly what the refs are saying.
Refs also are more involved with the players, to the fact that he pulls aside the captain and says if you don't stop doing x someone will get a card.
But that can't really happen in rugby as it is a lot more start stop.
Tennis has it, where players have a certain amount of times they can go and challenge a decision..this might be more suitable for football.
The GAA are testing goal line technology in Croke Park, now if any of you understand how old fashioned and fossil like they can be..it would say a lot if the GAA got video technology ahead of football.
Football is the biggest sport in the world, and they're still back refusing to enter this century.
Rugby have it and it works really, really well. It doesn't slow down the game.
And what I like about rugby as well is that we can hear exactly what the refs are saying.
Refs also are more involved with the players, to the fact that he pulls aside the captain and says if you don't stop doing x someone will get a card.
But that can't really happen in rugby as it is a lot more start stop.
Tennis has it, where players have a certain amount of times they can go and challenge a decision..this might be more suitable for football.
The GAA are testing goal line technology in Croke Park, now if any of you understand how old fashioned and fossil like they can be..it would say a lot if the GAA got video technology ahead of football.
Football is the biggest sport in the world, and they're still back refusing to enter this century.