Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I'm not against technology on the whole but think the game needs to keep it's natural flow and not have prolonged and numerous breaks. As a fellow poster has already referred to at what levels would you have the technology down to? It could be expensive and at lower levels some clubs may struggle with the financial side. There are some grounds, Old Trafford being one where there is a stigma over the years of injustice on decisons. To an extent I agree that is the case, these perceptions may sway some referee's to make decisions that they may not make usually. I would be fuming as well if a legitimate goal had been disallowed and cost us promotion or caused relegation. I would be in favour of using the technology if the goal is in the net but then if you have it that way, teams will try and appeal goals they feel are offside and it could open a whole new can of worms. As I've suggested earlier in the thread technology should be used BY THE OFFICIALS to confirm a decision is correct. I would not allow teams to appeal against any decision given, but I would expect the referee to consult the 4th official to confirm that the correct decision has been given, so that a game changing incident is refereed correctly and as fairly as it can be. From the photo the linesman had an excellent position to view the incident, and still got it wrong. A quick check with the 4th official and the goal would have stood. It is quite interesting how often managers and players have different views about incidents, and often managers have to be shown certain incidents like offsides before they will accept the officials were correct, equally when an official gets it wrong there are endless replays on tv, does anyone agree the technology might actually improve the standards of the officials, just has it has in test cricket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 If I was a ref, I'd be lobbying for it actively. All league clubs already have cameras at their first team games, so I think the costs would be fairly minimal. Maybe it could be introduced in one division for one season as a test. I do agree with the posters who say they'd not want the flow of the game interrupted too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1t_ref_again Posted January 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 It goes to show, even with being in a good position how difficult it is to see when the ball is played and look along the line at the same time, particularly with a quick player running through. I agree with not wanting to upset the flow of the game and having "time outs" etc but it should be possible to review certain passages of play either whilst waiting for the restart or allow play to continue and be brought back and correct a bad call. Also agree with the poster that the ref nearly shafted us by allowing Southampton to attack whilst we celebrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 He got it wrong because he guessed and made something up that didnt happen. That is correct. The officials are supposed to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacking team. As they couldn't have seen Maynard offside (because he wasn't) then they pretty much guessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 TV technology doesn't have to slow up the game and is long overdue. It could be based on a similar arrangement to that of other sports, whereby each team is allowed, say, 3 "decision challenges" per half which are resolved by the 4th official with the aid of TV replays. This only works in other sports where there is a natural break in play. What do you do when the ball hits the underside of the crossbar, the goal line and bounces out for another 3 minutes of open play? Stop it & restart with a drop ball? Where from? Does the attacking team lose advantage? How long do they have to challenge? Can they wait until the defenders break? Or do you wait 3 minutes for it to go out of play and then find out it was a goal? What happens to the lost time? It's simply not practical in football. Nor is the technology actually proven to work reliably enough yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Of The Dolman Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I do feel sorry for the referee's assistants these days, players are getting quicker and quicker. They have a full time job as well unlike their refereeing counter parts who are now full time. They should be getting the decisions right but people are not perfect. There is going to be the odd mistake, they are only human after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 This only works in other sports where there is a natural break in play. What do you do when the ball hits the underside of the crossbar, the goal line and bounces out for another 3 minutes of open play? Stop it & restart with a drop ball? Where from? Does the attacking team lose advantage? How long do they have to challenge? Can they wait until the defenders break? Or do you wait 3 minutes for it to go out of play and then find out it was a goal? What happens to the lost time? It's simply not practical in football. Nor is the technology actually proven to work reliably enough yet. The chip in the ball idea was the one that always seemed most appealing to me. No break in play as it would instantly alert the officials. I have no idea what happened with the technology with regard to this idea but considering the wealth within the game it could be made to work quite easily and probably very quickly. It also got me thinking the other day if something like that could be made to work for offsides? with the players wearing some sort of sensory device? It sounds ridiculous even as I type it but it seems to me that if it could be made to work for goal line technology it could theoretically be made to work for offsides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 This only works in other sports where there is a natural break in play. What do you do when the ball hits the underside of the crossbar, the goal line and bounces out for another 3 minutes of open play? Stop it & restart with a drop ball? Where from? Does the attacking team lose advantage? How long do they have to challenge? Can they wait until the defenders break? Or do you wait 3 minutes for it to go out of play and then find out it was a goal? What happens to the lost time? It's simply not practical in football. Nor is the technology actually proven to work reliably enough yet. Blow the whistle at the end of the phase of attack(s) i.e. when possession moves to defending team. 30 second break once or twice a season for each team based on the above scenario. Goal kick to follow. Easy peasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Blow the whistle at the end of the phase of attack(s) i.e. when possession moves to defending team. 30 second break once or twice a season for each team based on the above scenario. Goal kick to follow. Easy peasy. It would be a couple of times a half not once or twice a season when you consider all the types of incidents that would be challenged, and how on earth does a goal kick solve the problem? What about when a goal is given, challenged and found to be in error? There are just too many problems with this. The only way we can introduce technology here is if it does not introduce any breaks in play and is accurate to greater than 999/1000 IMO. It meets neither criteria yet as far as I'm aware. I would favour technology being used to severely punish cheaters post match, by which I mean 10 game plus bans and more so the risk/reward of cheating is dramatically altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Surely though- maybe this wouldn't work in practice or is oversimplistic but let's say 2 officials watching a screen- there need not be any particular breaks in play, as they'd press one button for yes, one for no. Penalties or red cards may be harder to work out I'll grant you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Of The Dolman Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 It is more a case in my opinion of where do you draw the line on the use of technology. The goal line technology with the chip in the ball is something I would be in favour of as it quick and easy. Do we really want a game where every little thing could be scrutinised and challenged? I don't want to see the game stopped while there is a dispute on if the ball has gone out for a throw in or for those hard goal kick or corner decisions where it is a tough call and both players are claiming they are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaunbcfc Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 The main point is that the mighty Bristol City won a well deserved 3 points, ended the scummers 25 match unbeaten run and the gas are going down!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 This only works in other sports where there is a natural break in play. What do you do when the ball hits the underside of the crossbar, the goal line and bounces out for another 3 minutes of open play? Stop it & restart with a drop ball? Where from? Does the attacking team lose advantage? How long do they have to challenge? Can they wait until the defenders break? Or do you wait 3 minutes for it to go out of play and then find out it was a goal? What happens to the lost time? It's simply not practical in football. Nor is the technology actually proven to work reliably enough yet. I think goal line technology is the simplest thing in the world. You would only have to have sensors set up - it'd be far simpler than the average burglar alarm. You could get a beep in the ref's earpiece if the ball fully crossed the line - no need to view footage of the incident. Viewing things like penalties and 'offside' goals would be involve the 4th offical replaying a tape - although software could help with offside decisions - so it's more controversial. But all these football decisions are much more straightforward than the fine distinctions that blight cricket and rugby. Goal line technology is a must, but other calls must be at the discretion of the ref - if he has a clear view then his word is the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 This only works in other sports where there is a natural break in play. What do you do when the ball hits the underside of the crossbar, the goal line and bounces out for another 3 minutes of open play? Stop it & restart with a drop ball? Where from? Does the attacking team lose advantage? How long do they have to challenge? Can they wait until the defenders break? Or do you wait 3 minutes for it to go out of play and then find out it was a goal? What happens to the lost time? It's simply not practical in football. Nor is the technology actually proven to work reliably enough yet. The ball crossed the line controversy is a different kettle of fish and requires goal-line technology - not what I was advocating. In general - in my experience - most 'non-goal line' controversial moments usually precede an immediate break in play (an offside 'goal', a goal disallowed for 'offside', a foul that isn't, and so on..). The only thing I can think of that might not cause an immediate break in play is a 'foul' where play is allowed to proceed. But even in this, play can be brought back (no different to playing 'advantage', where advantage is not realised) after several seconds. However, there are - I agree - some occasions where play can continue for several minutes without a natural break. Perhaps the 'challenge rule' can be modified such that it is available only where there is an immediate break in play - which, for me, would be the majority of the time because the most controversial decisions usually occur where there is a foul, goal or sending off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I think goal line technology is the simplest thing in the world. You would only have to have sensors set up - it'd be far simpler than the average burglar alarm. You could get a beep in the ref's earpiece if the ball fully crossed the line - no need to view footage of the incident. Viewing things like penalties and 'offside' goals would be involve the 4th offical replaying a tape - although software could help with offside decisions - so it's more controversial. But all these football decisions are much more straightforward than the fine distinctions that blight cricket and rugby. Goal line technology is a must, but other calls must be at the discretion of the ref - if he has a clear view then his word is the law. You best get in touch with the Hawkeye people and tell them how to design it then because so far they haven't managed to make it reliable to FIFA's satisfaction. The ball crossed the line controversy is a different kettle of fish and requires goal-line technology - not what I was advocating. In general - in my experience - most 'non-goal line' controversial moments usually precede an immediate break in play (an offside 'goal', a goal disallowed for 'offside', a foul that isn't, and so on..). The only thing I can think of that might not cause an immediate break in play is a 'foul' where play is allowed to proceed. But even in this, play can be brought back (no different to playing 'advantage', where advantage is not realised) after several seconds. However, there are - I agree - some occasions where play can continue for several minutes without a natural break. Perhaps the 'challenge rule' can be modified such that it is available only where there is an immediate break in play - which, for me, would be the majority of the time because the most controversial decisions usually occur where there is a foul, goal or sending off. I think you're over estimating the breaks in play. In football there are generally two outcomes of any decision, one resulting in a break of play and one not. It'll be about half the time, and the lack of a break in play (ie a foul/offside/goal not given) is every bit as controversial. And when play continues, anything can happen, which compounds the problem when two controversial incidents happen in close succession (and they commonly do). Using technology in these circumstances will result in just as much complaining about unfairness IMO, and it will make it worse for the spectator. If technology gets good enough to be used without affecting the flow of the game then fine by me, let the refs choose to use it. But I don't want any more stoppages, they are very boring. You can deal with most of the problems by adopting a much stricter code of conduct for players and managers (and TV rights holders) and enforcing it with harsh penalties. You can deal with cheats post match. I don't think there's much of a problem with in game decisions really, they get most of them right and the odd one is just football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 You best get in touch with the Hawkeye people and tell them how to design it then because so far they haven't managed to make it reliable to FIFA's satisfaction. Aah, Fifa. That paragon of forward-thinking, ear-to-the-ground, decisive action The goal posts don't move. Sensors can be set to cover the entire area of the goal line. The ball can have two opposing micro-chips in its lining that would cost pence to implant but would trigger an alarm when both passed the beams. There, I've invented it! Or rather Cairos, a German company, have already invented it a while ago and it's in use in various vision impaired disability sports. It's a lot easier than determining LBWs. Basically, if we are all walking around with phones that can communicate with satellites it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to install a system that can tell if a ball crosses a fixed line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I think you're over estimating the breaks in play. In football there are generally two outcomes of any decision, one resulting in a break of play and one not. It'll be about half the time, and the lack of a break in play (ie a foul/offside/goal not given) is every bit as controversial. And when play continues, anything can happen, which compounds the problem when two controversial incidents happen in close succession (and they commonly do). Using technology in these circumstances will result in just as much complaining about unfairness IMO, and it will make it worse for the spectator. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see what the problem is concerning two incidents in close succession - have you never seen a situation where an attacking player pulls the shirt of a defender to gain an advantage, then the same off-balance defender pulls the attacker down in the box, only for the referee to award a free kick to the defending team for the original foul instead of a penalty? You take the incidents in chronological order. If the first incident is upheld, the second incident never happened, because the ball is dead! Besides, I only think there would be a challenge if there was a goal, a disallowed goal or a sending off, especially if challenges were limited. All of these involve a break in play, and there's nothing stopping the authorities from limiting the 'challenges' to these very specific situations. As for a break in play being a 50-50 chance based on the 'outcome' of a phase in play, consider: An attack on goal can only end in one of six outcomes - five of which results in a break in play (goal kick, goal, throw-in,free kick,corner kick) and the other the continous play outcome (possession changes and ball is cleared upfield and stays in play). So rather than being a 50-50 chance of a break in play, it is more a probablility of about 5/6 or about 83%. Admittedly, the frequency of these different outcomes vary wildly and I'm willing to admit that a clearance upfield is probably more likely than any of the other outcomes, but I am still of the opinion that most attempts on goal (which is where all the controversy is) ends with a break in play within, say, 5 seconds. It would be interesting to log the outcome of all goal attempts and whether they resulted in a break in play. Now I'm not saying that my figures are any more accurate or realistic than yours, but merely offering an alternative view that shows that you can arrange statistics and numbers to explain any side of an argument you wish. When all is said and done, it is about whether Officials need technology to resolve controversial incidents and I happen to think they do and that it doesn't have to be intrusive on the flow of the game if challenges to a decision are limited in both number and incident. If you disagree, fine! It's just an opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 It would be a couple of times a half not once or twice a season when you consider all the types of incidents that would be challenged, and how on earth does a goal kick solve the problem? What about when a goal is given, challenged and found to be in error? There are just too many problems with this. The only way we can introduce technology here is if it does not introduce any breaks in play and is accurate to greater than 999/1000 IMO. It meets neither criteria yet as far as I'm aware. I would favour technology being used to severely punish cheaters post match, by which I mean 10 game plus bans and more so the risk/reward of cheating is dramatically altered. How about something similar to tennis with the 3 Challenges per set rule. Each team can have, say, 2 challenges per match. If they think the ball has crossed the line then play can be stopped immediately upon the captain's request to the ref. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see what the problem is concerning two incidents in close succession - have you never seen a situation where an attacking player pulls the shirt of a defender to gain an advantage, then the same off-balance defender pulls the attacker down in the box, only for the referee to award a free kick to the defending team for the original foul instead of a penalty? You take the incidents in chronological order. If the first incident is upheld, the second incident never happened, because the ball is dead! Let's say the second incident is violent conduct? And bear in mind they can be much further apart than a couple of seconds. Besides, I only think there would be a challenge if there was a goal, a disallowed goal or a sending off, especially if challenges were limited. All of these involve a break in play, and there's nothing stopping the authorities from limiting the 'challenges' to these very specific situations. A disallowed goal doesn't have to result in a break in play, nor does a missed sending off. As for a break in play being a 50-50 chance based on the 'outcome' of a phase in play, consider: An attack on goal can only end in one of six outcomes - five of which results in a break in play (goal kick, goal, throw-in,free kick,corner kick) and the other the continous play outcome (possession changes and ball is cleared upfield and stays in play). So rather than being a 50-50 chance of a break in play, it is more a probablility of about 5/6 or about 83%. Errrr... slightly dodgy probability maths I think. The ref doesn't choose between six outcomes. In each of those cases the ref chooses between two outcomes. It crossed the line or it didn't. It was a foul or it wasn't. It was offside or it wasn't. Each side of those 50/50s can be equally controversial but only half of them stop play. Admittedly, the frequency of these different outcomes vary wildly and I'm willing to admit that a clearance upfield is probably more likely than any of the other outcomes, but I am still of the opinion that most attempts on goal (which is where all the controversy is) ends with a break in play within, say, 5 seconds. It would be interesting to log the outcome of all goal attempts and whether they resulted in a break in play. Agree the real frequency is varies and it would be interesting indeed and I think goal attempts are probably the most likely point it will prove possible to employ technology without stopping the flow of the game especially if they can get Red-Robbo's design working Now I'm not saying that my figures are any more accurate or realistic than yours, but merely offering an alternative view that shows that you can arrange statistics and numbers to explain any side of an argument you wish. When all is said and done, it is about whether Officials need technology to resolve controversial incidents and I happen to think they do and that it doesn't have to be intrusive on the flow of the game if challenges to a decision are limited in both number and incident. If you disagree, fine! It's just an opinion... I'd like officials to be the ones assessing the technology and choose whether or not to use it. I am fine with it being used if it doesn't intrude on the flow of the game but I don't agree with you that it wouldn't at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Let's say the second incident is violent conduct? And bear in mind they can be much further apart than a couple of seconds. Violent Conduct may be dealt with at any time by the referee, whether the ball is in play or not and will result in a dismissal. However, if the referee brought play back to a prior incident or the ball goes out of play, the violent conduct would not incur a free kick, or penalty if it happened in the penalty area. The referee can only restart the game compatible to the manner in which the game was originally stopped. That is, if the earlier incident was deemed to be a technical infringement, play would be restarted with an indirect free kick, if a foul or handball, a direct free kick, and so on, regardless of the violent conduct incident which occurred when the ball was out of play. For example, supposing Team A were defending an attack from Team B and Team A managed to steal possession and launch a counter-attack up the field. In the meantime, one of Team A and one of Team B are arguing in the Team A's penalty area which results in the Team A defender punching the Team B attacker. At the same time, give or take, Team A's counterattack has resulted in a perfectly legal goal being scored against Team B. What is the correct decision? 1) Goal to Team A or 2) Penalty to Team B and a sending off of the Team A defender? The answer is that this is a dilemma for the referee and he must use his discretion. By the letter of the Law, it all depends whether the ball was dead (ie. nestling in the back of team B's net) when the violent conduct took place. If the ball was dead, the only option the referee has is to give the goal, dismiss Team A defender for violent conduct and restart with a kick-off by Team B. If, however, the ball was in play at the time of the incident, he can pull play back, give the penalty, and dismiss the Team A defender. The significant thing to realise here is the the referee CANNOT legally, by the letter of the Laws of the Game, give a penalty if the ball is dead when the incident occurs. I would suspect however, that if such an incident occured in an actual game, the referee would use his discretion to decide what action to take. The Law clearly states that the referee can only restart the game in the correct way determined for the the way the ball goes out of play in the first place. A disallowed goal doesn't have to result in a break in play, nor does a missed sending off. I think again you are referring to goal-line technology (whether the ball crossed the line). The disallowed goal scenario I was referring to is where the goal goes in the net but there is an alleged incident prior to that event. To be politically correct, there is no such thing as a 'missed' dismissal. If the referee does not dismiss a player, it is solely his decision, regardless of what other participants may think. The FA has viewed video evidence and punished players after the event, but technology will never replace the subjective decision a referee makes as to whether or not to dismiss a player in terms of violent conduct. However, if a player deliberately prevents a goal being scored (for example, by handling the ball on the line) and the referees misses this and play continues, and there is no immediate (within say 5 seconds) break in play, then I agree that is almost impossible to resolve with technology - the upshot is that the referee missed the infringement and nothing can be done. Errrr... slightly dodgy probability maths I think. The ref doesn't choose between six outcomes. In each of those cases the ref chooses between two outcomes. It crossed the line or it didn't. It was a foul or it wasn't. It was offside or it wasn't. Each side of those 50/50s can be equally controversial but only half of them stop play. I disagree, the probability arithmetic IS correct, but it is the likelihood of each event which is misleading and inaccurate, but your reasoning is sound. However, my argument is that any decision the referee makes - generally - is ONLY controversial when a goal is scored following an alleged infringement or disallowed after scoring due to a prior infringement (such as offside or foul but excluding ball-over-the-line-or-not) or a player is dismissed. All these events result in a break in play and technology can be helpful here. I'd like officials to be the ones assessing the technology and choose whether or not to use it. I am fine with it being used if it doesn't intrude on the flow of the game but I don't agree with you that it wouldn't at this point. Me too - so I guess we simply disagree on whether technology is mature enough at this stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.