Goal-line technology and reviews

[Mike Hunt]

a goal that didn't cross a line that the linesman admitted that he wanted to the germans to lose because of stalingrad and another goal "counted" with fans standing on the pitch... flukiest world cup win ever.. you guys going to pitch invade during the euro final ( if you make it ? ) seems like you are getting warmed up for it

What country are you from, dear sir?
(Srs question)

[Bumblebee]

I'm so anti goal line technology, I can't even begin to articulate it.

[shadesrwrf]

The rules of the game state that if all of the ball goes over the line it's a goal. Personally can't see a problem with having technology that assists here. Presumably if similar to Hawk-Eye used in tennis then the technology would exist purely to signal when the ball passes the line and would make an immediate decision. All other decisions, such as offside would still be adjudicated by the officials.

That's my take anyway, but I'm open to the possibility that I've over-looked something.

[ZacNaloen]

Personally id want football to use as much technology to assist the refs as possible. Otherwise today we'd all be talking about that offside goal, and not the ball that crossed the line.


That wasn't the only offside decision the officials last missed either, there was that header over the bar as well.

[Hoop Blah]

The lino may well have flagged for that if his header had gone in, but that's giving him huge benefit of doubt considering other decisions he made.

I'd rather no technology really, but I can't argue against strict goal line technology to immediately signal in/out of play or goal/no-goal decisions. I don't think it'll have that big an effect on results to really warrant the fuss though, and, like Blatter and Platini, I do worry about where it'll lead. I never want to see replays etc cause havoc with the flow of the game.

[St Pauli]

The lino may well have flagged for that if his header had gone in, but that's giving him huge benefit of doubt considering other decisions he made.

I'd rather no technology really, but I can't argue against strict goal line technology to immediately signal in/out of play or goal/no-goal decisions. I don't think it'll have that big an effect on results to really warrant the fuss though, and, like Blatter and Platini, I do worry about where it'll lead. I never want to see replays etc cause havoc with the flow of the game.

This^^^.

At the end of the day it's only a game. It doesn't actually matter that much who wins a world cup or not, so decisions aren't actually that important and noone dies if someone gets them wrong.

[Ian Royal]

The lino may well have flagged for that if his header had gone in, but that's giving him huge benefit of doubt considering other decisions he made.

I'd rather no technology really, but I can't argue against strict goal line technology to immediately signal in/out of play or goal/no-goal decisions. I don't think it'll have that big an effect on results to really warrant the fuss though, and, like Blatter and Platini, I do worry about where it'll lead. I never want to see replays etc cause havoc with the flow of the game.

I disagree with anything that involves the potential to turn football into a stop start game. Goal line tech is great, it's instant and it's better than the eyes of three officials who are unlikely to be within 5 yards of the incident happening at pace and likely with bodies in the way.

Although I wouldn't be against a cricketesque 1 - 3 video reviews a game callable by a manager via the fourth official. Perhaps with it being frowned on to use them as frequently as possible. Perhaps limit them to a maximum number a season as well, so maybe 38 a season, but up to 2 a game. Just thinking out loud with this one.

Anything more than that in game though I'm not with. I think FIFA should embrace the fact that officials make mistakes and can't see everything and open up much more room for post match reviews of incidents which would relate to disciplinary action though.

[Royal With Cheese]

you benefited in 1966

Technology was not available in 1966. Last nights goal or non goal aks more questions. Yes it was over the line, but the video ref could go back in the play and say a Ukraine player was offside in the build up to the goal and as such not give it? Rather like a cricket team asking for a review of an LBW only to find it was a no ball.

^
THIS THIS and THIS
Fcuk off Blatter you useless bigoted peice of excrement.

[Bumblebee]

I look forward to goal horns replacing Tom Hark at the MadStad

HHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKK

[Silver Fox]

I'm so anti goal line technology, I can't even begin to articulate it.

You are Adrian Durham AICMFP

[Mr Angry]

In March 2010, the International Board rejected any idea for goal line technology; Blatter's main argument was that if the technology wasn't available to the whole of the football family, he was against it.

So presumably he is against the use of, for example: floodlights, a roof over a stadium, stadiums themselves, nets in the goal, lines marking out the pitch, the football, boots, grass on the pitches etc etc etc....all these things are "technology", and not all of the football family has access to all of them, therefore, following his logic, no-one should use them.

[Stuka]

you benefited in 1966

Technology was not available in 1966. Last nights goal or non goal aks more questions. Yes it was over the line, but the video ref could go back in the play and say a Ukraine player was offside in the build up to the goal and as such not give it? Rather like a cricket team asking for a review of an LBW only to find it was a no ball.

^
THIS THIS and THIS
Fcuk off Blatter you useless bigoted peice of excrement.

+1 to everything written above. I wouldn't bother changing anything as it happens.

[cmonurz]

Not sure how anyone can fail to support the introduction of technology that will determine without question whether or not a goal has been scored. That’s pretty important.

[Simon's Church]

Not that bothered by it, it's just more money going to the elite. How long before people want replays/tech for offsides? Then penalties?

It won't be long before they've ruined the sport I love.

[Stuka]

Not sure how anyone can fail to support the introduction of technology that will determine without question whether or not a goal has been scored. That’s pretty important.

For me it's a couple of reasons- the fact that technology doesn't always determine things 'without question' and are prone to error like anything else. It opens up a can of worms as well, as alluded to earlier, why not introduce some sort of 'off side alarm' too? I do think there's something to be said for maintaining the 'human' spontanaity of a live game. Maybe I'm old fashioned like that. I would have thought the latest idea of having extra official by the goal would be a good solution but evidentally not. There is also of course the matter of creating the start of a split between Champion's League/Premiership high budget "glamourous" football and lower league or developing world football where they can't afford all these fancy robot referees, the logical conclusion could be two completely different sports. I guess what it comes down to is football has so totally and completely shifted from a live experience to a televised one that this is just another step away from what always used to make the game appealing to me.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

That two-tier, with technology/without technology split was one of the reasons IFAB didn't look at GLT before, and added the two extra goal line officials as a sop.

In which case, why do we allow higher leagues to use radio headsets between the officials? That drives a cart and horses through the "one game, one set of equipment" argument.

[Hoop Blah]

A communication aid is slightly different to a piece of automated decision making technology, or even, heaven forbid the use of video technology.

The only place headset communication is really an advantage is where the crowd noise and time pressure plays a part, ie in the top professional leagues.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Any video technology can go swing - I hate the idea of anything that stops the game or takes it back a bit.

But GLT which helps the officials makes decisions (they make the decision not the technology) is, to me, no different to replacing the tape between the top of the goalposts in 1875 with a solid bar - or even giving a short-sighted referee a pair of contact lenses.

It's just using technology to help them do their job better, so they can concentrate more on the subjective decisions like fouls, handball and offsides etc.

[Hoop Blah]

How is it just helping them and not making the decision for them? If it says it's over they're taking that as gospel surely? Who's going to employ a system that the officials over-rule because they don't believe it when there's already some resistence to using it in the first place?

Personally I think Stuka makes a sound point on retaining the human element to the sport. The rights and wrongs, discussions and feeling for being hard done by is a massive part of being a football fan.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Personally I think Stuka makes a sound point on retaining the human element to the sport. The rights and wrongs, discussions and feeling for being hard done by is a massive part of being a football fan.

Agree with that completely - in terms of the stuff where it's subjective (offsides, handball, fouls, where you have to judge context and things like intent).

But for straightfoward line decisions where it';s just a "YES/NO -was it over the line?" I can see no reason not to use technology - just as long as the indication to the officials is instant and there are no delays.