Goodbye Ghost Goals!

[Maksimov]

I didn't know goal line technology was being implemented in the Premier League this season, but apparently it is:

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11661/8860360/richard-scudamore-certain-hawkeye-will-wipe-out-goal-line-controversies

 

Finally a decision from the league officials that I'm sure everyone approves of.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Maksimov

[ForeverCarefree]

Although I approve of the use of technology.

 

I do love the debate and outrage controversial decisions bring. 

[erskblue]

Anybody else remember this 'goal that never was ' ?

 

[erskblue]

 

 

Mind you we got this one given

[Stim]

Money best spent elsewhere, like getting rid of diving or punishing incidents refs miss. And punishing refs for bad performances.

[jlynch_1990]

Why don't they bring in stoppages?  Each team has 2 appeals each, so if you reckon Nani dived for a pen then Jose could ask for an appeal, ref stops for 2 mins to check the replays then confirms... It would add an extra 10 mins to the match yes but it would be extremely fair. American Football do it and it's a brilliant feature, but they stop ALL the time, that's why I would have a cap on how many times we can appeal.......

[ForeverCarefree]

Why don't they bring in stoppages?  Each team has 2 appeals each, so if you reckon Nani dived for a pen then Jose could ask for an appeal, ref stops for 2 mins to check the replays then confirms... It would add an extra 10 mins to the match yes but it would be extremely fair. American Football do it and it's a brilliant feature, but they stop ALL the time, that's why I would have a cap on how many times we can appeal.......

 

Because a goal being scored is black and white. It either went in or it didn't. 

 

Fouls/dives are down to the referees interpretation and so you would then be passing it on to a 4th official to decide. 

 

A lot of games are already too stop start as it is and so giving teams the ability to stop games to review decisions would just make it worse. It would also be open to abuse as teams could use their appeals late in the game as a means of distributing the other team. 

 

I'm all for the goal line technology but for now I think that's where it should end. 

[Maksimov]

Money best spent elsewhere, like getting rid of diving or punishing incidents refs miss. And punishing refs for bad performances.

 

Yes, because you can eradicate diving from the game with money.

 

I'm glad they finally have the goal line technology. Finally there's one thing less the refs can make a mess of.

[Bluehatter]

Why don't they bring in stoppages?  Each team has 2 appeals each, so if you reckon Nani dived for a pen then Jose could ask for an appeal, ref stops for 2 mins to check the replays then confirms... It would add an extra 10 mins to the match yes but it would be extremely fair. American Football do it and it's a brilliant feature, but they stop ALL the time, that's why I would have a cap on how many times we can appeal.......

That's because in american football they stop every minute anyway so it doesn't interrupt the flow of the game. If that rule was brought into our game I'd have to seriously consider if I wanted to watch anymore. It would just be awful

[Englishman]

Why don't they bring in stoppages?  Each team has 2 appeals each, so if you reckon Nani dived for a pen then Jose could ask for an appeal, ref stops for 2 mins to check the replays then confirms... It would add an extra 10 mins to the match yes but it would be extremely fair. American Football do it and it's a brilliant feature, but they stop ALL the time, that's why I would have a cap on how many times we can appeal.......

 

 

Cricket uses technology for decisions and look at the troubles they're having with it. I agree with introducing it in football for goal line decisions as it's a clear cut issue; the ball crossed the line or didn't. However most other decisions in football, like dives, penalties, tackles, offsides etc are ones of interpretation, so technology won't really solve anything. I'd much rather they put more effort into stamping out violent conduct and retrospectively punishing players for it.

[Stim]

Yes, because you can eradicate diving from the game with money.

 

I'm glad they finally have the goal line technology. Finally there's one thing less the refs can make a mess of.

 

Yeah, probably. Get a group together who can judge incidents and hand out retrospective punishments.

 

There are far worse things in football that needs to be addressed than the 5 goal line incidents every 10 years.

[bluedave]

So we shouldn't do anything about goal-line disputes (which can make or break a season/competition) even though we know exactly how to do it because there are larger problems that are much more difficult to solve. Sorry but I can't follow that logic at all.

[Stim]

So we shouldn't do anything about goal-line disputes (which can make or break a season/competition) even though we know exactly how to do it because there are larger problems that are much more difficult to solve. Sorry but I can't follow that logic at all.

 

Make or break a season or competition? You honestly think the game is plagued so much by 'ghost goals' that you need to put up tech for every game on football pitches up and down the country to monitor for the miniscule amount of times something like this happens?

 

Sure we know exactly how to do it, but that doesn't make it worth the money does it. The linesman do a good enough job and its such a rare occurence.

 

its my opinion of course, you don't have to agree with it. I just think its a waste of time and money. Only reason they stick in your head is because they are so rare. People can mention a ghost goal from the 80's but you've probably lost count about how many rubbish referee displays happen up and down the country. Tackle that first, then worry about little intricacies like whether the ball did really cross the line. Punish the linesman for missing it, don't absolve them from the duty at cost.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stim

[Maksimov]

There are far worse things in football that needs to be addressed than the 5 goal line incidents every 10 years.

 

Goals decide matches/championships/relegation, so I think this is a big improvement.

 

Five incidenst every ten years, eh? From the SkySports article I linked to in my original post:

 

"There were 31 incidents last year that could have benefited from this technology."

[Maksimov]

The linesman do a good enough job and its such a rare occurence.

 

Why settle for "good enough" when you can have the best. By best I mean a system that gets the decision right every time, not most of the time.

[Stim]

"There were 31 incidents last year that could have benefited from this technology."

 

31 incidents in the premier league? Or all divisions?

 

I meant clear over the line misses, not the ones where you watch a replay 100 times and still not know

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stim

[Maksimov]

Get a group together who can judge incidents and hand out retrospective punishments.

 

Goal line technology is a question of whether or not the ball crossed the line. There's no grey area in goal line technology, but when you start retrospectively judging incidents the decision can be affected by opinion and/or bias. I say such a committee would be a costly operation and you couldn't guarantee that they get things right. For example, in many diving cases only the player who dived knows the truth.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Maksimov

[Stim]

It's a different topic anyway.

 

My opinion is it's spending time and money on a rare mistake by a linesman. You don't have to agree. Put the onus on linesman not technology for such a rare occurence.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stim

[Maksimov]

31 incidents in the premier league? Or all divisions?

 

As it's Scudamore who said it, I'm assuming he means Premier League.

 

The full quote from the article:

 

"There is no goal-line incident in the 21-year history of the Premier League that this system wouldn't have been able to identify. There were 31 incidents last year that could have benefited from this technology. It will work, it's been fully tested."

 

 

I meant clear over the line misses, not the ones where you watch a replay 100 times and still not know

 

What's the difference when it comes to goal line technology? The technology will tell whether the ball crossed the line or not in every case. No need to watch replays (not 10 or 100 times).

[Maksimov]

My opinion is it's spending time and money on a rare mistake by a linesman. You don't have to agree. Put the onus on linesman not technology for such a rare occurence.

 

Why rely on the linesman, who can and will make mistakes, when you can use technology and get it right every time? With technology the linesman can concentrate more on seeing if there are any fouls or other activity in and around the box that would cause the goal to be disallowed. Without the technology they have to make sure they see both and as they are only human, they can't see/notice everything.

[bluedave]

Am I right in thinking that this technology can also be used for goal kicks and throw ins as well, so it's not exclusively for goal-lines disputes?

Edited August 8, 2013 by bluedave

[Stim]

If you want to spend tons of money to solve this small issue, fine. I don't see the point. There are more important things to deal with.

 

Lets assume that of the 31 incidents, half of them were over, the other half weren't. 16 incidents, in 360 PL games. And we are going to put 14 cameras on each field never mind the other costs to stop this epidemic.

 

Sorry, but there are more important issues to tackle than this.

 

Perhaps I would call it a big step in football trying to crack down on things, they are just cracking down on something very small. To me it's like those goal line officials in europe. They don't do much at all.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stim

[Maksimov]

If you want to spend tons of money to solve this small issue, fine. I don't see the point.

 

I still don't see how this is a minor thing. I don't think it's as black and white that if we spent the same money somewhere else, that it would solve this other problem. We know what the goal line technology, so we know what we will get. 

 

Lets assume that of the 31 incidents, half of them were over, the other half weren't. 16 incidents, in 360 PL games. And we are going to put 14 cameras on each field never mind the other costs to stop this epidemic.

 

I still think the goal line technology is more cost effective than any committee that would decide on retrospective bans and punishments.

 

 

Am I right in thinking that this technology can also be used for goal kicks and throw ins as well, so it's not exclusively for goal-lines disputes?

 

I'm not sure about that, but that would make it very handy tool to have, because the refs often make mistakes when awarding goal kicks and throw ins.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Maksimov

[Stim]

I still think the goal line technology is more cost effective than any committee that would decide on retrospective bans and punishments.

 

That was an off the cuff, off topic remark on how you'd stop diving with money   Dunno why you keep trying to compare them.

 

We disagree on this matter, let's leave it at that shall we.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stim

[Maksimov]

That was an off the cuff, off topic remark on how you'd stop diving with money   Dunno why you keep trying to compare them.

 

You brought it up, that's why I keep comparing them. Can you tell me a good alternative for what the money could have been used for? Something concrete.