Goal line Technology

[I.T.K]

Normally this topic comes up after a refereeing ****** up and tends to lead to heated debated that fly's off in different tangents.

I have always thought that football should start with technology that will be able to check if the ball has crossed the goal line or gone out for conner or throw in in top flight football.

Below is a press release from Hawkeye which seems to answer a lot of the usual "technology in football" questions.

I draw your eyes point 4 of the press release. It highlights that with the correct sponsorship the system is free.

I hope you find it of interest

 

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/June%202010%20Press%20release_3.pdf

Hawk-Eye Innovations, Press release June 2010

[I.T.K]

Hawk-Eye Innovations, Press release June 2010

It took a series of poor line calls in the 2004 US Open as the catalyst for change for electronic line

calling in tennis. If this incident is the same catalyst in football, then whilst it is disappointing that

FIFA have been reactive rather than proactive, at least football will change for the better in the

long run. However, FIFA may decide to stick by their guns, and not allow this incident to change

their decision. If they adopt this approach, they may use the following arguments to justify their

decision, each of which is responded to below:

1) HAWK-EYE IS NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH

This is simply not true. Hawk-Eye has been independently tested by the English Premier

League and the IFAB (International Football Association Board), and shown to work in all

instances tested. These tests included having many people around the ball as it crosses the

line. The official press statement after the IFAB meeting in March 2010 accepted that their

decision was NOT because the technology did not work, but because of the fundamental

issue of whether technology is good for the game. Despite this, more recently Sepp Blatter

did justify their goal line decision by stating that Hawk-Eye is not accurate. This is a mistruth, and Sepp Blatter is aware of that.

2) FOOTBALL IS BEST OFFCIATED BY HUMANS, AND THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT

SOLUTION IS A BETTER WAY TO GO

This solution has had mixed success in the European League. Whilst additional assistants

would have resolved this incident, if you look at a large set of close goal line incidents, many

of them only go over the line for a fraction of a second, and no human is able to fairly officiate

these incidents regardless of where you are standing.

3) FOOTBALL IS A BETTER SPORT WITH CONTROVERSY ? THIS IS ALL PART OF

THE DEBATE IN THE PUB AFTER THE MATCH

Maybe in 1966 when broadcast technology were far inferior, it was interesting to debate if it

was or was not a goal. Things have moved on since then, and the only debate following this

incident is ?Why don?t the governing bodies do something about this??

4) THE TECHNOLOGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE, AND IT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL THAT

GOAL LINE TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE AT ALL LEVELS OF THE GAME

The technology would be an attractive new sponsorship opportunity, as it is in tennis. Tennis

makes money from Hawk-Eye, by selling the sponsorship of Hawk-Eye for more than HawkEye is paid to provide the service. The same would be true in football. If you only adopt

technology if it is available at all levels, then you will always progress the sport at the pace of

the slowest. The biggest games are hyped, by the importance of winning, and by doing so

football has an obligation to provide the players with the best opportunity for the destiny to be

in their own hands. Everyone knows that the technology is available, and not using it

undermines the credibility of the sport.

5) WHERE DOES IT STOP? IF WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY FOR GOAL LINE, DOES IT

GET EXTENDED TO OFFSIDES, HAND BALLS ETC

Goal line incidents are the only decision which is entirely definitive and the answer can be

provided to the referee within 0.5 seconds in the incident happening. This makes a clear

distinction between goal line and other decisions. Referees want goal line technology, it

would be there to help them not to replace them.

[Gambo]

Totally against goal line technology.

[Shanks]

Totally against goal line technology.

 

 

Why?

[Gambo]

Why?

 

Attacking player knocks ball goalwards with hand, why are we only checking if ball crossed the line? Is the handball not wrong also?

[Gigolo-Aunt]

Attacking player knocks ball goalwards with hand, why are we only checking if ball crossed the line? Is the handball not wrong also?

 

I'm with the point you are making, Gambo.

 

Also...

 

Once/if they let goal line in, thats the start of slowly but surely having...

 

Inside outside the box

Hand ball

Offside

Corner Kick

 

etc etc

 

 

Once it in, it ain't going to go away - and its impact will get more and more.

[Shanks]

Attacking player knocks ball goalwards with hand, why are we only checking if ball crossed the line? Is the handball not wrong also?

 

 

Yea I can see what you mean, so do you think things should be left the way they are? I think we need to do something to help the refs.

[Gambo]

Yea I can see what you mean, so do you think things should be left the way they are? I think we need to do something to help the refs.

 

 

Yes, i think they should leave things the way they are.

[I.T.K]

Attacking player knocks ball goalwards with hand, why are we only checking if ball crossed the line? Is the handball not wrong also?

 

 

 

Hawkeye technology is not used to check that a ball has been handled or not.. Thats still up to the ref and linesmen to decide as would a goal scored from off side or by foul.

 

Hawkeye is just their to advise them.

[dobmisterdobster]

Attacking player knocks ball goalwards with hand, why are we only checking if ball crossed the line? Is the handball not wrong also?

 

We could have instant replay for that. Each manager will have a limited number of challenges.

[Gambo]

Hawkeye technology is not used to check that a ball has been handled or not.. Thats still up to the ref and linesmen to decide as would a goal scored from off side or by foul.

 

.

 

 

If it is good enough for the ref/linesman to decide if its handball/offside etc then it is good enough that they can decide wether the ball has crossed the line or not.

 

 

 

Say NO to technology in football.

[dobmisterdobster]

If it is good enough for the ref/linesman to decide if its handball/offside etc then it is good enough that they can decide wether the ball has crossed the line or not.

 

 

 

Say NO to technology in football.

 

I don't know if you watched the World Cup last year.

 

There was an incident where the ball crossed the line but the goal was not given, and the replay clearly showed it did.

 

Just sayin.

[Gambo]

I don't know if you watched the World Cup last year.

 

There was an incident where the ball crossed the line but the goal was not given, and the replay clearly showed it did.

 

Just sayin.

 

 

And replays showed plenty of free kicks/pens/throw in/corners/goal kicks/handballs/offsides that were given/not given, that should have been given/not given.

[dobmisterdobster]

And replays showed plenty of free kicks/pens/throw in/corners/goal kicks/handballs/offsides that were given/not given, that should have been given/not given.

 

You think those things have the same importance as goals? Really?

[I.T.K]

Yes, i think they should leave things the way they are.

 

Agree do disagree,,

 

I'm more then up for a change, especially in Scotland. Other I would like to see changed in the next 5 years are, fair distribution of prise money, amalgamation of SPL and SFL, option of TV refs, and Desso grass pitches.

[Gambo]

You think those things have the same importance as goals? Really?

 

 

Do you not think these things lead to goals?

 

 

 

I will ask again, do you think it is right that a ball 1yard out is punched towards the line and hawkeye signals a goal?

 

 

No technology in football please.

[I.T.K]

Do you not think these things lead to goals?

 

 

 

I will ask again, do you think it is right that a ball 1yard out is punched towards the line and hawkeye signals a goal?

 

 

No technology in football please.

 

 

 

Hawkeye will not give the goal, the ref will. Hawkeye will just say the ball has crossed line thats all.

 

I ask you,,,, Do you think its right that a legitimate goal is scored, then not given as the ref did not see it.

[Gambo]

Hawkeye will not give the goal, the ref will. Hawkeye will just say the ball has crossed line thats all.

 

I ask you,,,, Do you think its right that a legitimate goal is scored, then not given as the ref did not see it.

 

 

And if the ref missed the handball he gives the goal. Do you think that is right?

 

 

The referee/linesman will have made a mistake, it happens, just like they make mistakes with offside/pens/free kicks etc. As GA said, where will it stop?

[I.T.K]

And if the ref missed the handball he gives the goal. Do you think that is right?

 

No, of course not this would be the fault ref. That has nothing to do with Hawkeye.

 

 

The referee/linesman will have made a mistake, it happens, just like they make mistakes with offside/pens/free kicks etc. As GA said, where will it stop?

 

 

Referees are human and will make mistakes Where will it stop? I would be more then happy to have the introduction TV replay for big decisions. Offer the ref the option to double check penalty decision he is unsure of or allow team captains a challenge system where they can question a goal scored by a hand ball.

 

Not saying we will cut out all mistakes, but least we cut out the big ones and stop cheating.

[DETTY29]

We aren't mature enough yet for technology in football.

 

Let's say technology was extended, not just for goal line incidents (which damn well hardly ever happens in the grand scheme of things) and all teams were allowed challenges.

 

Player A goes through the back the back of player B but makes minimal contact on the ball and just ahead of clearing the man out.

 

Clear red for dangerous foul play, but how many people would be willing to accept the 4th officials decision to ratify the red? Well obviously depends who you support.

 

Footy fans are all 2 faced by their/our nature.

[Gambo]

No, of course not this would be the fault ref. That has nothing to do with Hawkeye.

 

 

 

 

 

Referees are human and will make mistakes Where will it stop? I would be more then happy to have the introduction TV replay for big decisions. Offer the ref the option to double check penalty decision he is unsure of or allow team captains a challenge system where they can question a goal scored by a hand ball.

 

Not saying we will cut out all mistakes, but least we cut out the big ones and stop cheating.

 

 

What do you class as a 'big decision'?

 

A throw in award for Stoke City in the opposition half = a huge decision for them, so do we get tv replays/technology for that?

 

Captains/managers would be challenging most decisions near the box.

 

 

How many times do you watch a replay and disagree with the commentators version of events?

 

Your idea of replays/challenges would IMO destroy the game.

[naeclue]

"WHERE DOES IT STOP? IF WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY FOR GOAL LINE, DOES IT

GET EXTENDED TO OFFSIDES, HAND BALLS ETC

Goal line incidents are the only decision which is entirely definitive and the answer can be

provided to the referee within 0.5 seconds in the incident happening. This makes a clear

distinction between goal line and other decisions. Referees want goal line technology, it

would be there to help them not to replace them."

 

This

[The People's Chimp]

I'm with the point you are making, Gambo.

 

Also...

 

Once/if they let goal line in, thats the start of slowly but surely having...

 

Inside outside the box

Hand ball

Offside

Corner Kick

 

etc etc

 

 

Once it in, it ain't going to go away - and its impact will get more and more.

 

 

This is a very real worry; function creep happens all the time and would likely happen in football. What I find interesting is that most of the people who go on about technology in football (i.e. about 80% of them) are the stay at home fans, pub fans, man u "fans", barca "fans", chelsea "fans."

 

Having said that, the hawkeye technology seems good - but, how many goal line incidents do we see per season anyway? I can recall about one mildly controversial one this season. It really isn't that big an issue.

 

 

 

[Sheiky Baby]

How anyone can be against making the game better is beyond me...

 

This place sometimes

[The Merse]

This is a very real worry; function creep happens all the time and would likely happen in football. What I find interesting is that most of the people who go on about technology in football (i.e. about 80% of them) are the stay at home fans, pub fans, man u "fans", barca "fans", chelsea "fans."

 

Having said that, the hawkeye technology seems good - but, how many goal line incidents do we see per season anyway? I can recall about one mildly controversial one this season. It really isn't that big an issue.

 

If it doesn't happen very often then what is the harm of having the technology available for when it does happen?

 

If it isn't expensive and only takes a few seconds to check then what is the issue?

[DETTY29]

If it doesn't happen very often then what is the harm of having the technology available for when it does happen?

 

If it isn't expensive and only takes a few seconds to check then what is the issue?

In normal football no reason at all, in Scottish football, first time a marginal decision is given some poor can of kestrel will be getting air rifled in the the parks of the weedge.

[Ron 5]

Attacking player knocks ball goalwards with hand, why are we only checking if ball crossed the line? Is the handball not wrong also?

 

What are you on about, thats hand ball and there isn't even a debate about whether the ball crossed the line. Two seperate incidents, even without Hawk eye the same issue still applies.

 

Does the ref spot the hand ball or not, surely thats the only decision to be made, if he doesn't then its a case of iHawk eye being used to confirm if the ball is over the line. Without or without Hawk eye the ref either spots the hand ball or misses it.

[Gambo]

"WHERE DOES IT STOP? IF WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY FOR GOAL LINE, DOES IT

GET EXTENDED TO OFFSIDES, HAND BALLS ETC

Goal line incidents are the only decision which is entirely definitive and the answer can be

provided to the referee within 0.5 seconds in the incident happening. This makes a clear

distinction between goal line and other decisions. Referees want goal line technology, it

would be there to help them not to replace them."

 

This

 

So you would be happy for it to be handballed (missed by the official) over the line?

[Ron 5]

So you would be happy for it to be handballed (missed by the official) over the line?

 

Yep just like Robbo in the 95 semi against Aberdeen. Quality!!

[Gambo]

What are you on about, thats hand ball and there isn't even a debate about whether the ball crossed the line. Two seperate incidents, even without Hawk eye the same issue still applies.

 

Does the ref spot the hand ball or not, surely thats the only decision to be made, if he doesn't then its a case of iHawk eye being used to confirm if the ball is over the line. Without or without Hawk eye the ref either spots the hand ball or misses it.

 

Then using your logic then surely it is good enough for the officials to decide wether the ball has crossed the line?

 

Football has and will continue to be played without the need for gimmicks.

[Ron 5]

Then using your logic then surely it is good enough for the officials to decide wether the ball has crossed the line?

 

Football has and will continue to be played without the need for gimmicks.

 

No, because the debate about whether a ball crossed the line occurs way more often than a debate about whether a player handled it over the line and the ref not spotting it. Even fewer debates arise over both matters at the same time.

[Erik]

Just because you CAN use technology to prove / disprove something, doesnt always mean that doing so is for the best.

 

I like football the way it is.

 

I like the element of human error involved.

 

I like that some things in football are open to opinion and dont stray in the the realms of black vs white.

 

Where would football be without the talking points that these sometimes controversial errors create? Stuff like Russian linesman chat still lingers about nearly 50 years on..... its like folklore - and thats one of the best things about football.

 

Granted, it might hurt when you are on the wrong end of a bad decision, but again, thats all part of the fun.

 

Football has managed just fine for what, a hundred and fifty years without the need for this kinda stuff - I think football has done alright for itself without needing to change it too much.

[Ron 5]

Just because you CAN use technology to prove / disprove something, doesnt always mean that doing so is for the best.

 

I like football the way it is.

 

I like the element of human error involved.

 

I like that some things in football are open to opinion and dont stray in the the realms of black vs white.

 

Where would football be without the talking points that these sometimes controversial errors create? Stuff like Russian linesman chat still lingers about nearly 50 years on..... its like folklore - and thats one of the best things about football.

 

Granted, it might hurt when you are on the wrong end of a bad decision, but again, thats all part of the fun.

 

Football has managed just fine for what, a hundred and fifty years without the need for this kinda stuff - I think football has done alright for itself without needing to change it too much.

 

I appreciate what you are saying but we are at a point now where money dominates everthing about the game (wrongly in my mind) which wasn't the case 150 or even 25 years ago. Teams have so much to gain and lose and decisions which can have a huge bearing on a clubs financial future should, in my mind, be aided where possible with technology (without going over board).

 

I also feel the stress and strain refs and linesman are under to get goal line decisions correct is unfair and i'm sure if you ask the refs they would happily settle for technology to help them out allowing them to concentrate more on other aspects of the game.

 

A linesman trying to figure out if the ball played prior to a goal line scramble was off side or not is going to need to process two desions (was the ball played through offside in the first place and has the ball now crossed the line). These decisions are made in a split second and with one of the decisions taken care of for him surely this can only aid his decision making skills for the first part of the debate (was the player offside).

 

Bit wordy but hope that makes sense!

[speedbump]

[Gambo]

Ron 5 , i think you will find plenty more examples over a season of 'handball' in the lead up to a 'goal' compared to over the line queries.

 

Goal line technology will not stop legal/illegal 'goals' being given/not given so what is the point.

[Ron 5]

Ron 5 , i think you will find plenty more examples over a season of 'handball' in the lead up to a 'goal' compared to over the line queries.

 

Goal line technology will not stop legal/illegal 'goals' being given/not given so what is the point.

 

 

It provides a definitive answer on whether a goal should stand or not, that is the point. The number of hand balls occuring in the run up to goals are exactly that (in the run up) that suggests that they haven't scored as yet and as such other forces still come into play in order for the ball to cross the line.

 

Whether the ball crosses the line or not though is a clear cut decision to be made and will affect the outcome of the game.

 

I dont follow your point about hand ball. The debate is surely about the merits of goal line technology and what it brings to the game not about other fouls during the match or in the run up to a goal.

 

Goal line technology is there to help process a decision which is often more difficult to determine than whether someone has handled the ball or not.

[topcat]

So you would be happy for it to be handballed (missed by the official) over the line?

 

 

 

This argument boils down to

 

"Sometimes the officials could make a second mistake which cancels the first one out so we shouldn't try to stop them making mistakes at all"

 

Which intuitively seems pretty weak

 

Goals that the referee gave despite it not crossing the line are rare occurences.

 

over the couse of 190 spl games there might be 2/3

 

Goals awarded that were actually handled into the net are similarly rare occurences.

 

Goals that were handled in the general direction of the net crossed the line but weren't awarded because the referee didn't think it crossed the line are rarer still

 

I can't remember it happening, ever.

[Ben Dover]

What perhaps bothers me more is that Blatter blatently LIED about the effectiveness of the equipment

Obviously the fat ^^^^ never got a bung

[tommythejambo]

How often do decisions as to whether the ball has crossed the line or not actually happen though?

[Boris]

Perhaps the answer lies with these extra assistants we see at Europa League & Champions League games.

 

That said, whenever I've watched a game with these extra officials on TV they rarely seem to do anything!

 

So in conclusion, Assistants should be more vocal, if that's the word, on incidents they see. They should have parity with the referee, a wee bit like in American Football.