Goal Line Technology

[Christmas Tree 4827]

Will be used in the premiership from the start of next season.

[Christmas Tree 4827]

Debates over whether the ball crossed the line or not will soon be a thing of the past in the Premier League with the news that goal-line technology will be used from next season onwards.

 

The Premier League is understood to be in discussions with two companies, thought to be Hawkeye and GoalRef.

 

Fifa has already confirmed that the technology will be used at next year's World Cup in Brazil, while this summer's Confederations Cup will also employ the system.

 

A spokesman for the Premier League confirmed that all 20 clubs must have the equipment in place for the first day of the new season, "including those promoted".

 

Hawkeye works by using six cameras to focus on the goal and when the ball crosses the line an encrypted message is sent to the referee's wristwatch within a second, if a goal has been scored. GoalRef uses sensors on the posts and crossbar which detect any change in the magnetic field when the ball crosses the line.

 

It is likely that the league will now choose one system and deploy it across all 20 clubs, with the same system likely to be employed at Wembley for England international fixtures in the future.

 

A Premier League spokesman said: "We are in advanced discussions with two of the companies who provide the systems and we are working on the basis of having goal-line technology in place for the start of the season.

 

"All clubs will have to have the system to ensure the universal integrity of the competition, including those who are promoted."

 

The Premier League will make its decision on which system to use based on cost and ease of use.

 

The move should take the pressure off referees whose decisions have been greatly criticised by clubs and fans in the past.

 

The most high profile case in recent years was a Frank Lampard strike for England against Germany in the 2010 World Cup. Germany ran out 4-1 winners, but the incident happened when England were only trailing 2-1.

 

The International Football Association Board - effectively the game's rule-makers - will meet in Edinburgh on Saturday where officials are due to be told that the first use of the technology at the Fifa World Club Championship in Japan in December was a resounding success.

[Happy Face 29]

Another joy of the game eradicated.

 

[PaddockLad 17654]

Another joy of the game eradicated.

 

 

Thin end of the wedge iyam. They'll be using computers for lots of things in a decade. Ruins it. A game that was fine for over 100 years until the money men moved in. Cunts.

[Toonpack 9945]

Daft thing is the "over the line" happens rarely, wrong offside/onside goals on the other hand .................

[Happy Face 29]

Daft thing is the "over the line" happens rarely, wrong offside/onside goals on the other hand .................

 

The offside rule used to be a black coffee.

 

Now it's a half Caf, non fat Grande 4 shot late in a venti cup, with 1 pump mocha half a pump raspberry, 2 splenda, no foam, extra whip, extra hot, ad pumpkin spice topping and caramel syrup drizzled on the whip.

 

Only a shambles of a person prefers the latter.

[The Fish 10965]

Yeah, the argument against it seems to be that it will spell the end of impassioned debates in the pub. Will it bollocks. The majority of those are about red card or no? penalty and red card or just either/or? Formations? Line ups? Big club? Ref Bias?

 

How often does the "Did it cross the line or not?" debate actually occur?

[Happy Face 29]

Even mmore basic question...why do we WANT to stifle passionate debate?

[PaddockLad 17654]

Yeah, the argument against it seems to be that it will spell the end of impassioned debates in the pub. Will it bollocks. The majority of those are about red card or no? penalty and red card or just either/or? Formations? Line ups? Big club? Ref Bias?

 

How often does the "Did it cross the line or not?" debate actually occur?

 

Tbh thats just another reason for not bothering with cameras on the goaline...

 

Sky will choose to use Hawkeye, and the last i heard the Hawkeye technology isnt suitable for this gig. Sky like the pretty pictures Hawkeye produces. Sky also like the suspense that waiting for the images to appear builds up. The magneitc field/transmitter thing is better for goaline accuracy but not so good for the viewer, and its the viewer who will count in the long run iyam.

[Howmanheyman 33845]

".......and it's over to Jamie Redknapp to see if it's over the line after the break......and it's live!"

[The Fish 10965]

Even mmore basic question...why do we WANT to stifle passionate debate?

 

I think that's misrepresenting the reasoning behind the decision. Nobody wants to stifle passionate debate. The call for goal-line technology is coming from people who want to see errors in one of the few parts of the game that is black and white. The whole ball is either over the line, or it isn't. If it is, it must be given as a goal, if it hasn't it mustn't. That isn't stifling debate, it's removing doubt from an area of the game that doesn't require it.

 

 

Tbh thats just another reason for not bothering with cameras on the goaline...

 

Sky will choose to use Hawkeye, and the last i heard the Hawkeye technology isnt suitable for this gig. Sky like the pretty pictures Hawkeye produces. Sky also like the suspense that waiting for the images to appear builds up. The magneitc field/transmitter thing is better for goaline accuracy but not so good for the viewer, and its the viewer who will count in the long run iyam.

I don't disagree that there will be spectacle to the innovation; stadia with big screens will do that God awful thing of encouraging fans to "Ohhhhh" until a big sparkly "GOAL" is shown to be followed by a plastic "Wahey" by the tinpot fans who probably don't mind goal music, cheerleaders and half-time shows.

 

However, I think that the goal line tech is no different to the ref counting the number of players on the pitch. There mustn't be vaguery, it is a goal or it isn't.

[Toonpack 9945]

The offside rule used to be a black coffee.

 

Now it's a half Caf, non fat Grande 4 shot late in a venti cup, with 1 pump mocha half a pump raspberry, 2 splenda, no foam, extra whip, extra hot, ad pumpkin spice topping and caramel syrup drizzled on the whip.

 

Only a shambles of a person prefers the latter.

 

I agree but the latter causing an issue is WAY more frequent (than over the line) as it was when the coffee was black.

 

Easy fix, never stop the game for offside but review every goal for legality (exc pens), reviews would only happen in an already quite natural break in play. Offside/onside is only important if someone scores and there'd be less stoppages overall in the full game.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Toonpack

[CleeToonFan 1]

How can you argue about this in the pub anyway? They already show all the goal line stuff etc on tv anyway, I've not once seen an argument on whether it went over the goal line in a pub, bet it'll be used like once a season. Full on meh.

[Happy Face 29]

I agree but the latter causing an issue is WAY more frequent (than over the line) as it was when the coffee was black.

 

Easy fix, never stop the game for offside but review every goal for legality (exc pens), reviews would only happen in an already quite natural break in play. Offside/onside is only important if someone scores and there'd be less stoppages overall in the full game.

 

Not sure about that. Offside player could be visciously fouled by a trailing defender. So the defender gets a red card but is "awarded" a free kick for the offside, rather than conceding a penalty.

 

The game would also have to be pulled back for every gioal kick/corner decision following an offside close call, which is much more frequent.

[Toonpack 9945]

Not sure about that. Offside player could be visciously fouled by a trailing defender. So the defender gets a red card but is "awarded" a free kick for the offside, rather than conceding a penalty.

 

The game would also have to be pulled back for every gioal kick/corner decision following an offside close call, which is much more frequent.

 

Nah, first case it's a penalty, second case goal kicks/corners not subject to review ONLY goals. Offside is never called, it'd just be applied if it effected a goal.

[Happy Face 29]

Nah, first case it's a penalty, second case goal kicks/corners not subject to review ONLY goals. Offside is never called, it'd just be applied if it effected a goal.

 

That sounds worse than it is now.

[The Fish 10965]

That sounds worse than it is now.

Yup.

 

Say for example; Cisse bursts through but times his run poorly and is offside, he's forced wide by the ball and is harried by a fullback, 1 minute goes by and the rest of play has caught up with the offside Cisse, who lays it off to Santon, he crosses and Sissoko nods home. As the play stops, the goal is struck off because of Cisse's original offside, a good 2 minutes after the event? What happens to those 2 minutes? are they replayed? What if there's a red card tackle that leaves Cisse injured? Games would go on for fucking ages and the offside rule would be even more convoluted than it already is.

 

Sorry TP, but that's a really stupid idea.

[Toonpack 9945]

That sounds worse than it is now.

 

If you think about it, the ONLY time offside/onside is truly important is if it leads to a goal/disallowed goal, there's around 8 offside decisions per game which have a canny habit of being incorrect, obviously there's no stat for the offside not being called. But then again it only matters if a goal results one way or the other, get rid of those 8 breaks in the game let the game flow and just review the goals for legality.

 

The problem with technology is always stated as "it'll break up the game" there's shitloads of things break up the game already (dubious offside, the sniper in the crowd, getting the wall set, throw-ins that take forever). IF you are going to use technology use it for what is truly important, and that's simply the goals IMO. Would be done during the natural break in play, no disruption, but right result for what's really the only important decision, was it a goal or not.

 

You'd still have plenty of contention to "discuss" from the general play, but you'd not have your team getting robbed so much (e.g. us against Metalist)

[The Fish 10965]

If you think about it, the ONLY time offside/onside is truly important is if it leads to a goal/disallowed goal,

 

I don't agree with that. Stoke and any Allardyce team ever, would simply park a man offside for no other reason than to have possession of the ball in the dangerous areas. Long Ball to Walters, who holds the ball until a defender closes him down, Walters wins a corner/freekick/throw in. His "offside" hasn't directly lead to a goal. So it's legit.

[Toonpack 9945]

Yup.

 

Say for example; Cisse bursts through but times his run poorly and is offside, he's forced wide by the ball and is harried by a fullback, 1 minute goes by and the rest of play has caught up with the offside Cisse, who lays it off to Santon, he crosses and Sissoko nods home. As the play stops, the goal is struck off because of Cisse's original offside, a good 2 minutes after the event? What happens to those 2 minutes? are they replayed? What if there's a red card tackle that leaves Cisse injured? Games would go on for fucking ages and the offside rule would be even more convoluted than it already is.

 

Sorry TP, but that's a really stupid idea.

 

It's not like, how many times would your naysayer scenario actually happen in comparison to the number of wrong offside/onside decisions that are made in every game (which falsely effect the flow and result of the game, every time there's a wrongly given/ruled off goal the result of the game is affected). Is what you portrayed actually any worse than a goal being wrongly given/dissallowed which happens all the time already or an attack wrongly halted even.

 

I would add Newcastle player crossing for a headed goal is a novel concept mind.

[Happy Face 29]

Daft argument that only goal decisions are important enough to warrant offside decisions. winning a corner is big, winning a penalty is huge.

[Happy Face 29]

It's not like, how many times would your naysayer scenario actually happen in comparison to the number of wrong offside/onside decisions that are made in every game (which falsely effect the flow and result of the game, every time there's a wrongly given/ruled off goal the result of the game is affected). Is what you portrayed actually any worse than a goal being wrongly given/dissallowed which happens all the time already or an attack wrongly halted even.

 

I would add Newcastle player crossing for a headed goal is a novel concept mind.

 

It would happen as often as it does now...which you're saying is too often.

 

Defenders would have to guess at whether or not it's worth the risk of tackling/intercepting/fouling an attacker they've caught up with or just letting them score....every time an offside is close.

 

Mike Williamson would sick up his breakfast with confusion every time a ball was played through.

[Toonpack 9945]

I don't agree with that. Stoke and any Allardyce team ever, would simply park a man offside for no other reason than to have possession of the ball in the dangerous areas. Long Ball to Walters, who holds the ball until a defender closes him down, Walters wins a corner/freekick/throw in. His "offside" hasn't directly lead to a goal. So it's legit.

 

They wouldn't man, nee point, if he did park offside and they scored it'd be ruled out, absolutely no point. IF the twat's parked way offside defenders would just ignore the fucker, why try to tackle him for said free kick/throw in/corner.

 

Even forgetting my "forget offside theory" all goals should be reviewed (but that only helps disallow illegal goals, doesn't really help reinstating incorrectly not given goals - player breaks through but is wrongly pulled back etc, unless you let the play progress).

[The Fish 10965]

It's not like, how many times would your naysayer scenario actually happen in comparison to the number of wrong offside/onside decisions that are made in every game (which falsely effect the flow and result of the game, every time there's a wrongly given/ruled off goal the result of the game is affected). Is what you portrayed actually any worse than a goal being wrongly given/dissallowed which happens all the time already or an attack wrongly halted even.

 

I would add Newcastle player crossing for a headed goal is a novel concept mind.

It doesn't matter how often it happened, if it happened once a month that's once a month too often. Offside is because the player hasn't timed his run properly. We shouldn't lower the bar for them, they should be better. Also Cisse's wondergoal against Southampton would have been chalked off, because "technically" he was offside and I'm not having that!

 

Anyway, who makes these decisions? the Fourth official? There are offsides that, even days after the event, with dozens of angles, 3d model reconstruction and hours of "expert" analysis, after all of that it still isn't clear if it's offside or not. There's the inconsistent "Benefit of the doubt" that goes to the attacker as well.

 

It's a daft idea TP, sorry like.

[Toonpack 9945]

It would happen as often as it does now...which you're saying is too often.

 

Defenders would have to guess at whether or not it's worth the risk of tackling/intercepting/fouling an attacker they've caught up with or just letting them score....every time an offside is close.

 

Mike Williamson would sick up his breakfast with confusion every time a ball was played through.

 

No more than they do now you simply play on, offside's a stupid rule (certainly the way it is now) all that matters is the goals.

 

Who gets wound up ever for more than a few seconds because they conceded a corner that wasn't, nee fucker, I've never had a "we were robbed" discussion over a corner before, plenty about goals given/not given though.