With the disallowing of Englands goal the Goal Line technology firms are again touting for business. With this type of technology allready used in tennis and cricket are we not losing the meaning of SPORT, which is games played by by one or more players for their own pleasure (not money) and in which the golden rule is "the umpire/referee is always right, even when they're wrong". It is my belief that sport died when the olympic games allowed proffessionals.
Referees/Umpires
- Thread starter maltaron
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I think you'll find that sport over the years has become more professional and the amount of money involved is ludicrous.
When I was a lad and jumpers for goalpost, if the ball was over the line the goal was conceded by the other side, no linesmen or refs needed, but we were not earning our wages and being watched by paying spectators or the TV viewing medium.
It's time that technology was brought in to the game, football is one of the biggest money generating sports in the world and the decisions made on the pitch become increasing vital, they decide to reinvent the football every major tournament, so it's about time the game moved on with the times.
There were two outrages decisions made yesterday, that led to a goal not being given and goal being allowed that was not a goal.
Get rid of the dinosaurs at FIFA and move on.
When I was a lad and jumpers for goalpost, if the ball was over the line the goal was conceded by the other side, no linesmen or refs needed, but we were not earning our wages and being watched by paying spectators or the TV viewing medium.
It's time that technology was brought in to the game, football is one of the biggest money generating sports in the world and the decisions made on the pitch become increasing vital, they decide to reinvent the football every major tournament, so it's about time the game moved on with the times.
There were two outrages decisions made yesterday, that led to a goal not being given and goal being allowed that was not a goal.
Get rid of the dinosaurs at FIFA and move on.
When 40'000 people in a stadium and millions watching on TV around the world see a ball cross a metre over the line, and one referee doesnt, then to me the phrase 'the referee is always right' is wrong.
The technology is already there, TV cameras.....if the ref is unsure of a big decision like that, it will take him 20 seconds to check on a monitor
The technology is already there, TV cameras.....if the ref is unsure of a big decision like that, it will take him 20 seconds to check on a monitor
The technology is available to tell if the ball goes over the line, but it cannot tell if the player who kicked the ball was onside or offside when the ball was kicked to him.
If the equipment indicates that it was over the line and the ref gives it as a goal and they kick off again, then subsequent viewing of the tv cameras shows that the player was offside how is technology going to score that goal, will it be a goal or not.
Regarding the ref always being right, even when he is wrong, works just as well for both sides, so don't knock it.
If the equipment indicates that it was over the line and the ref gives it as a goal and they kick off again, then subsequent viewing of the tv cameras shows that the player was offside how is technology going to score that goal, will it be a goal or not.
Regarding the ref always being right, even when he is wrong, works just as well for both sides, so don't knock it.
Sponsored Links
FIFA look at contraversial decisions as being good for the game as it brings out the passion in people.
It IS good that everyone is talking about poor decisions the next day and keeps up the interest in football.
It IS good that everyone is talking about poor decisions the next day and keeps up the interest in football.
It can also cost a team a world cup trophy, a league team promotion etc etc
It would only be used for big decisions.......look at Kaka for example, sent of at the world cup finals because a player ran into him!
All club managers and even referees want it, one man (Blatter) doesn't. It works well in Rugby League and other sports. apparently when the ref yesterday seen the replay at half time he said 'oh my god!'......he knew then he had made a massive mistake. 20 seconds to look at a monitor and all would have been ok
Interesting replies, but some miss the point. When "sport" becomes an activity where the participants are paid huge amounts of money, it ceases to be sport and becomes a business-in which case technology is valid to ensure fairness. In genuine sport taking part is more important than winning, and in the case of the disallowed goal,the team that stood to gain would have lobbied the ref.
J
joinerjohn
I don't think it would have taken even 10 seconds to check on the monitor, yesterday.
It could have urged England on had they gone to the break at 2-2. But now we will never know.
The German goalkeeper, in the interests of fair play, could have admitted at the time it was over the line, but chose not to.
I
imamartian
the point most people seem to be missing is, that in tennis, rugby, cricket etc. the game has a natural stoppage in which to check the video.
Say for example that the ball didn't cross the line yesterday, and germany launch a counter-attack and are four on two with our defence, should the ref stop play to check the vid, and germany lose their chance? what if in the counter attack a german player gets brought down and does his cruciate ligament, the ref then goes back to check the video, and it is a goal.... the ref can't undo the injury.
i personally would prefer technology, but it doesn't fit the nature of the game. And if you accept that refs are only human, their errors should balance out at the end of the day.
Say for example that the ball didn't cross the line yesterday, and germany launch a counter-attack and are four on two with our defence, should the ref stop play to check the vid, and germany lose their chance? what if in the counter attack a german player gets brought down and does his cruciate ligament, the ref then goes back to check the video, and it is a goal.... the ref can't undo the injury.
i personally would prefer technology, but it doesn't fit the nature of the game. And if you accept that refs are only human, their errors should balance out at the end of the day.
J
JMLanders
What you say is entirely true up to a point imam. However, the fact that the goal was not awarded when it should have been changed the course of the game. Indeed, while there was an argument going on, several players and indeed the referee had their focus elsewhere, which in itself is yet another parameter into the pot.
Even accepting what you did say, would it not be possible to use this technology to apply the knowledge retrospectively. For example, during half time, it would have been possible to have awarded the goal. Or in the event of an unfair booking (eg a player diving having pretended to be hit in face etc leading to penalty and red card for opposite team member), then this could have been over-ruled and the goal awarded from a penalty withdrawn etc?
Even accepting what you did say, would it not be possible to use this technology to apply the knowledge retrospectively. For example, during half time, it would have been possible to have awarded the goal. Or in the event of an unfair booking (eg a player diving having pretended to be hit in face etc leading to penalty and red card for opposite team member), then this could have been over-ruled and the goal awarded from a penalty withdrawn etc?
I
imamartian
you can't analyse the game after and changing the result in some way... i mean, how would you give a penalty after the game was finished.
Although there's certainly merit in the idea of punishing players after a match who are shown to have used violence, or reversing cards for the Kaka mistake...
Although there's certainly merit in the idea of punishing players after a match who are shown to have used violence, or reversing cards for the Kaka mistake...
J
JMLanders
Easily. If the incident happened in the first half, then the decision could be made and a penalty given at the start of the second half prior to kick-off. If the incident happened during the second half, then the penalty could be given at any time that the ball went out of play, or at the end of the game. They do have headphones after all.
I
imamartian
that's all a bit too clinical for me landers.... a penalty needs to be taken in the context, and the game to continue afterwards... what if your penalty taker was fit during the match, but injured after the match, when you decide to give the pen?
J
JMLanders
The alternative is to allow a clear mistake pass by then
That seems unfair to me.Think we'll have to agree to differ here - potentially too much ironing out details of something that ain't going to happen anyway
I
imamartian
The alternative is to allow a clear mistake pass by then
But we've agreed that he ref referees the match... so the 'mistake' is only your view of things....
and you're right, there's too much to iron out, and ultimately you'll end up with an "ask the audience" panel judging on fouls and offside.
I think big tournament football is begging for technology, but i don't think it suits the nature of the game.... Blatters arguments for not using it are farcical though!!
Sponsored Links
