Goal Line Technology

[The Fish 10965]

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).

Maybe I wasn't clear?

 

Walters parks offside. Wins a corner. Corner leads to goal. Goal wasn't scored from a passage of play that involved an offside decision.

 

or, how about, Stoke score in the 1st half against(say) City. They then park the bus and loft the ignored-by-defenders Walters who makes attempt to score what so ever. He's not offside, there are no goals, and all joy is ripped out of orphan childrens' hearts

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

But you've chabged the nature of the game completely, so the defender has to make a decision. He casnnot play to the whistle as he should. If he tries to catch the attacker and brings him down it's a penalty, no matter about the offside or not. If he wins a last ditch tackle he's likely to concede a corner. If he lets it go then he'll probably concede a goal. the only way he can come out of it with a good outcome, is if he does nothing and it was offside.

 

Defenders will be letting attackers make runs off them all day long because it's the only winning scenario for him. What little skill remains in winning an offside, defending as a unit, which used to be an art, will be lost completely.

[Toonpack 9945]

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.

 

Distilling your argument down, you're talking about an illegal goal being "wrong" and if it happened once a month it's once a month too much. Geez it happens more than that NOW, there's more than one illegal goal given, or a legal goal chalked off, because of a bad decision, that is a much bigger problem than anything else IMO.

 

For every marginal one, there are many many more "clear as day" one way or the other.

 

The "easy" way to help, outside of my radical notion to fix it, reduce the error levels anyway, is have someone who has the perspective make the offside/onsode call and that ain't the linesman at pitch level.

[Toonpack 9945]

But you've chabged the nature of the game completely, so the defender has to make a decision. He casnnot play to the whistle as he should. If he tries to catch the attacker and brings him down it's a penalty, no matter about the offside or not. If he wins a last ditch tackle he's likely to concede a corner. If he lets it go then he'll probably concede a goal. the only way he can come out of it with a good outcome, is if he does nothing and it was offside.

 

Defenders will be letting attackers make runs off them all day long because it's the only winning scenario for him. What little skill remains in winning an offside, defending as a unit, which used to be an art, will be lost completely.

 

So goals counting/or not legally/illegaly doesn't matter.

 

If the game doesn't care about that "the nature of the game" needs changing completely IMO.

[Happy Face 29]

So goals counting/or not legally/illegaly doesn't matter.

 

If the game doesn't care about that "the nature of the game" needs changing completely IMO.

 

I don't follow what you mean.

 

Offside is not black and white. Legal or illegal is entirely down to the referee. And would remain so if replays were used.

 

Replays will not stop dodgy offside decisions.

 

It was as close as it could be to black and white before they came up with "Intefering" and "phase of play".

 

What you're suggesting is like saying "throw ins sometimes get given the wrong way and lead to goals, let's build walls down the line and play it like 5 a side to remove the question."

[The Fish 10965]

Distilling your argument down, you're talking about an illegal goal being "wrong" and if it happened once a month it's once a month too much. Geez it happens more than that NOW, there's more than one illegal goal given, or a legal goal chalked off, because of a bad decision, that is a much bigger problem than anything else IMO.

 

For every marginal one, there are many many more "clear as day" one way or the other.

 

The "easy" way to help, outside of my radical notion to fix it, reduce the error levels anyway, is have someone who has the perspective make the offside/onsode call and that ain't the linesman at pitch level.

No, I disagree again, Your approach is to overcomplicate the issue once again. It would be "easier" to return to the original Offside rule.

[donaldstott 0]

No, I disagree again, Your approach is to overcomplicate the issue once again. It would be "easier" to return to the original Offside rule.

 

It would be easier, but not sure that the average fan would want to go back to seeing perfectly good goals chalked off because players are standing in a completely inactive offside position.

 

Watching the flag go up for Cisse preventing a Ben Arfa 25 yard screamer of the season from counting for the 5th time in a season would be a frustration.

[Andrew 4857]

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.

 

thats a totally false view of hawkeye from tennis and cricket.

 

the football system is entirely different in delivery, decision is made in less than a second as to whether its gone over the line and the ref is notified by a device on his person.

[The Fish 10965]

It would be easier, but not sure that the average fan would want to go back to seeing perfectly good goals chalked off because players are standing in a completely inactive offside position.

 

Watching the flag go up for Cisse preventing a Ben Arfa 25 yard screamer of the season from counting for the 5th time in a season would be a frustration.

 

Oh absolutely, but I was refuting TP's assertion that it would be easier if there was another official bringing with him/her another level of possible confusion.

 

Say Inzaghi's offside (for a change), the linesman gave him the benefit of the doubt, the ref didn't have a decent view of it, the 5th official says he's not sure either. The time in which the 5th official would have to make a decision is just as brief as the ref or the linesman, so I don't see the benefit of another set of eyes.

 

Goal-line technology is more important as it's not a nuanced argument. Either the entire ball has crossed the line, or it hasn't. There aren't many other laws of the game as black and white as that.

[Toonpack 9945]

Oh absolutely, but I was refuting TP's assertion that it would be easier if there was another official bringing with him/her another level of possible confusion.

 

Say Inzaghi's offside (for a change), the linesman gave him the benefit of the doubt, the ref didn't have a decent view of it, the 5th official says he's not sure either. The time in which the 5th official would have to make a decision is just as brief as the ref or the linesman, so I don't see the benefit of another set of eyes.

 

Goal-line technology is more important as it's not a nuanced argument. Either the entire ball has crossed the line, or it hasn't. There aren't many other laws of the game as black and white as that.

 

It's not about their eyes it's about using the technology, and it really is quite simple, draw the line thingy across the pitch, as they do, on a telly. TV Official looks at it, offside yes/no, goal yes/no, simple (and in a natural break in play) Marginal one's benefit to the attacker, the clear dropped bollock's one's would be cleared up correctly.

 

All goals could easily be reviewed.

 

You're not allowed to punch the ball into the net or to control the ball with your hand on the way to lashing it into the net, that's pretty black and white, that happens more than dodgy goal-line stuff tbh.

[The Fish 10965]

It's not about their eyes it's about using the technology, and it really is quite simple, draw the line thingy across the pitch, as they do, on a telly.

 

TV Official looks at it,

 

... Not much to say really

[Toonpack 9945]

... Not much to say really

 

You know what I meant, not real time view from somewhere up a height.

 

While I'm on, I'd have trainers on the pitch for "injuries" without stopping the game (unless a stretcher is needed) give penalties/free kicks for pushing and shoving at corners and stop the watch for throw-ins (which nearest player to the ball would have to take) and free kicks and I'd have any player swearing at the ref booked/sent off.

[The Fish 10965]

You know what I meant, not real time view from somewhere up a height.

 

The problem with your Eye in the Sky, is that the issues that aren't resolved by Soccer Saturday, Football First, Match of the Day, Monday Night Football, the internet, and blokes down the pub despite being poured over from all kinds of angles, using all manner of devices (from CGI models to salt and pepper pots), they're not going to be resolved by one bloke with a line. It's still down to interpretation and as such it's still going to controversial.

 

While I'm on, I'd have trainers on the pitch for "injuries" without stopping the game (unless a stretcher is needed) Wouldn't work because the game moves too quickly, and it's unpredictable. The only time injuries really slow down the game are when there are stretchers required.

give penalties/free kicks for pushing and shoving at corners and Definitely, it's a foul and the ref's are just cowards, shirt pulling too (we'd have to get rid of Williamson immediately though)

stop the watch for throw-ins (which nearest player to the ball would have to take don't see the benefit in this at all) and free kicks and The ref does an approximate version of this anyway. Again I see no added value.

I'd have any player swearing at the ref booked/sent off. Aggressively at the ref, yes, swearing in general, no

[PaddockLad 17654]

thats a totally false view of hawkeye from tennis and cricket.

 

the football system is entirely different in delivery, decision is made in less than a second as to whether its gone over the line and the ref is notified by a device on his person.

Who mentioned tennis and cricket?..." At least 25 per cent of the ball must be visible for the system to work. That means that if the ball went over the line in a melee of bodies after a goalmouth scramble, the system would probably not be able to make a call." http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/goal-line-technology-does-164718522.html

[Andrew 4857]

You mentioned sky liking the image buildup, guess you've seen it somewhere other than tennis and cricket then?

[PaddockLad 17654]

You mentioned sky liking the image buildup, guess you've seen it somewhere other than tennis and cricket then?

Rugby?...not sure what your getting at, theres loads of reasons for not wanting it...the technology is seen by some as unlikely to work. We'll see, as Sky will choose Hawkeye.Why aren't we doing this for offside?...its as much an opinion as goal/no goal is, its just how the officials see it at that split second. We'll have offside decisions being referred to Hawkeye within a decade, in a game that may be imperfect but has become the most popular team participation game on the planet with the technology of a pig's bladder,some wood and a couple of fishing nets. Theres not much wrong with it as it is.

[The Fish 10965]

As I've said, I can see the added value in goal-line tech for goal/no goal decisions, but not for the nuanced issues.

[PaddockLad 17654]

I understand what folk mean by that, but technology has basically proved that's not the case....on a replay you can see if an arm is offside, let alone a whole player. In fact It works a lot better for offside, which as mentioned is a lot more common than whether a goal is a goal.

[Toonpack 9945]

The problem with your Eye in the Sky, is that the issues that aren't resolved by Soccer Saturday, Football First, Match of the Day, Monday Night Football, the internet, and blokes down the pub despite being poured over from all kinds of angles, using all manner of devices (from CGI models to salt and pepper pots), they're not going to be resolved by one bloke with a line. It's still down to interpretation and as such it's still going to controversial. The marginal stuff is rare, the howlers aren't

 

While I'm on, I'd have trainers on the pitch for "injuries" without stopping the game (unless a stretcher is needed) Wouldn't work because the game moves too quickly, and it's unpredictable. The only time injuries really slow down the game are when there are stretchers required.apart from when these injuries every five ten minutes (that aren't real) stop the game.

give penalties/free kicks for pushing and shoving at corners and Definitely, it's a foul and the ref's are just cowards, shirt pulling too (we'd have to get rid of Williamson immediately though) We agree

stop the watch for throw-ins (which nearest player to the ball would have to take don't see the benefit in this at all) and free kicks and The ref does an approximate version of this anyway. Not even close Again I see no added value. The ball's only in play for about 40 minutes out of the 90. The flow of the game is a myth.

I'd have any player swearing at the ref booked/sent off. Aggressively at the ref, yes, swearing in general, no All of it for me.

[PaddockLad 17654]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/goal-line-technology-fifa-choose-goal-line-1798345 http://goalcontrol.de/press.html

[essembeeofsunderland 811]

Will we receive proof that the ref has received the `bleep' because i wouldn't trust Howard `Red' Web to blow for a goal if it was against Man Utd. `I never received the `bleep' so i didn't blow.

What if a linesman flags for a goal but the `bleep' doesn't come. Say a malfunction and the ball is clearly over the line.Does there have to be a bleep before a goal can be given.

Edited April 4, 2013 by essembeeofsunderland