Goal Line Technology - A Scenario

OK, I'm going to put this scenario to the group, followed by some thoughts on the matter. Please let me know what you think:

Imagine we are now at the final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup (it doesn't have to be the final, it could be any match, but let's make the situation important, shall we..?) and Blue are defending an attack by white.

The White striker shoots and the ball hits the underside of the bar, crashes down and bounces with the ball grounded over the goal line. It then comes back into play and is cleared by Blue. White appeal for a goal but no goal is given and the game goes on. No goal was awarded because goal line technology is now in place and when the incident occurred, the referee concentrated on his ear piece to listen for a beep which, had the ball fully crossed the line, would have indicated a goal. As he heard no beep, he waved play on and the Red players accepted this because they have absolute confidence in the system.

Blue go on to win the game 1 - 0 and afterwards, when the images of the incident are analysed, a readout is taken from the goal line viewer and it transpires that the technology computed that only 1mm of ball did not cross the plane of the goal line.

That is the scenario, ladies and gentlemen. This issues raised here are:

In this situation, the referee referred to the technology, which did its job faultlessly and quite properly called play on, but come on..... a goal disallowed for the sake of 1mm of ball not crossing the line..? With a world cup final at stake..?

1mm is far too small for the human eye to detect in an instant and it's likely that, without the technology in place, the goal may well have been given. Had the "goal" been given, the TV replays would have been scrutinised, but would anybody looking with the naked eye have spotted the 1mm of ball not over the line..? Probably not. How unfair that would have been to Blue..!!

The relevant law of the game is quite clear. For a goal to be scored, 100% of the ball must cross 100% of the goal line. The ball simply grounding over the line does not constitute a goal. Any part of the ball, including that which is not grounded must be entirely over the plane of the goal line.

For a start, the efficiency of the system would immediately be called into question, prompting what could probably be a lengthy investigation into the technology itself. If the slightest fault or defect were found... or even if any doubt could be raised about whether the software was 100% failure-proof, then the whole issue of using goal line technology at all would be brought into question. A debate would then arise as to whether the use of this technology should be continued or scrapped.

Alternatively, in the case of the scenario above, how long would it be before White's sense of injustice created a controversy about such a law being stupid and should be changed "for the sake of common sense"..? White may (not unreasonably) argue that it's ridiculous to disallow a goal for the sake of 1mm of ball not being over the line.

So OK, FIFA looks at changing this particular law, which has been in effect, unchanged, since 1863. What would happen if the law was changed to, say, more than half the ball being over the line for a goal to be scored. What happens when the computer read out says that only 49.99% of the ball was over the line in any given incident..? Change the law again..? To what.?

What we are dealing with here, folks, is a matter of fine margins. Very fine margins.

We must accept that a variable such as the calculation of a quickly moving spherical object crossing a static three dimensional plane has very fine margins of accuracy and if we develop technology that is capable of calculating fine margins, then we solve one old problem.... and create a whole lot of new ones.

What technology cannot deal with is human emotion and sense of what is fair and reasonable. It is easy to say that the issue of the ball crossing the line is a black and white matter, and that would be quite acceptable if people were robots, but we aren't. What we want is a fair decision and when the human element is factored into the equation, grey areas emerge which can never be legislated on to make everybody happy.

Football is probably the most emotionally charged game on the planet and the more important the match, the more emotional fans become. As it is the most important matches that will have the technology scrutinised, it is inevitable that controversies will arise. A sense of injustice can easily be fanned, even when a decision made is proven outright to be correct.

Those who see goal line technology as some sort of panacea for the issue of contentious goals can reasonably argue that it will clear up the "did-it-didn't-it-cross-the-line" argument, but in doing so, I think that sooner or later it will cause other issues to be raised. The introduction of goal line technology could close one can of worms, only to open up another.

I'd be interested to read the group's thoughts and comments on this issue.

Technology will not be 100% accurate and will maybe not be reliable when it comes to boderline decisions - if there is any doubt a goal shouldn't be given. However technology will not be brought in with the sole purpose of clearing up 50/50s. It's the absolute howlers that go unseen (or ignored if you speak to consipracy theorists) by referees like the Pedro Mendes incident which cost Spurs a place in Europe (I think) or Lampard's at the last World Cup.

That's why technology has been brought in in cricket, rugby, tennis, etc. To lessen the chance of ridiculous decisions costing teams big money. At the end of the day the system's efficiency maybe called into question but not to the extent that referees' ability is nowadays. There is no perfect solution, but technology will very likley improve the game as it has others.

I don't understand your point.

The goal line technology did work, a goal wasn't scored. It doesn't matter that it might have been given if it was down to the human eye, it might not have as well. At least we know conclusively that it didn't cross the line. I'm not a fan of too much video replays and trying to get every decision perfect, but I think the fundamentals of the ball crossing the line should be conclusive.

The White team can have no complaint, the 1mm of the ball needed to cross the line for it to be a goal, they knew that rule before the game, it's a pretty clear rule and there isn't anything wrong with it. There is no injustice at all, the goal wasn't given because a goal wasn't scored, how the White team could ever complain about that is ridiculous.

So basically they didn't get a goal that was never a goal anyway.

Cue controversy

Exactly.

If its such a big deal just do what they do in cricket and have any very close call stay with the umpire's decision.

Crimey wrote:I don't understand your point.

The goal line technology did work, a goal wasn't scored. It doesn't matter that it might have been given if it was down to the human eye, it might not have as well. At least we know conclusively that it didn't cross the line. I'm not a fan of too much video replays and trying to get every decision perfect, but I think the fundamentals of the ball crossing the line should be conclusive.

The White team can have no complaint, the 1mm of the ball needed to cross the line for it to be a goal, they knew that rule before the game, it's a pretty clear rule and there isn't anything wrong with it. There is no injustice at all, the goal wasn't given because a goal wasn't scored, how the White team could ever complain about that is ridiculous.

I agree your statement in principle, Crimey. You are quite right in a legal sense. However, my point is that we are talking about human nature here.

White would not necessarily be complaining about the technology (although they may call its efficiency into question), they would be arguing that it is ridiculous that such a miniscule amount of ball not over the line could have such far reaching consequences on a match of that importance.

My point is about the human element having its perspective altered from, as is the case at present, complaining about fifth officials not seeing the ball over the line from five yards away to the future scenario where a technically accurate assessment is made, but goes against what the disadvantaged team is likely to claim is "common sense" or "sporting fairness".

I am in full agreement with you about the laws being the same for both teams, but you can't get away from this factor that, it is human nature to complain about anything that doesn't go our way. For instance, we know the laws say a match will last 90 minutes. That is the law.... but managers also know the referee has discretion to add a nebulous amount of time on for stoppages. How often has "Fergie Time" been a factor in Manchester United salvaging points from otherwise lost matches when time was added on, seemingly until United got a goal..? How did this kind of situation come about..? It came about because Sir Alex Ferguson moaned long and loud, and paraded up and down the touchline, ostentatiously brandishing a stopwatch with the intention of intimidating referees into extending a game that United were not winning. We now have a situation in most premiership matches where, after the minimum amount of additional time is played, referees will allow the team losing the match one last attack, and will end the match when a goal is scored, or that attack is repelled, or a goal kick is taken, or some such instance where the ball is in an area where no controversy can be attached to the blowing of time.

This is where human elements come into play. Officials CAN be pressured or intimidated by protests and arguments, spurious or otherwise, and these will be latched onto by a rapacious media that feeds off controversy. When this happens, a head of steam can be built up until officials can no longer resist the calls for change. You may have noticed that, after South Africa 2010, Sepp Blatter was against the introduction of goal line technology. Yesterday he said it was a must. What brought about his change of attitude...? Pressure. Pressure from players, managers, fans and not least the sporting media.

I hope you can see the point after that lengthy explanation. If you can't, then I don't know what more I can say.


.

In any the Italians are still moaning about Euro 2004, and nobody else cares.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:If its such a big deal just do what they do in cricket and have any very close call stay with the umpire's decision.

Cricket is different, Swanny. In cricket there are natural break points between every delivery when a ball has gone dead. Football is meant to be continuous. At what point does the referee make his decision, when he has a half dozen players in his face, with their arms in the air, screaming for a "goal" when the ball has bounced back into play and is still "live"..?

In my initial scenario, at what point would the referee stop the game after the ball bounced back into play..? And if no goal was given, how would the game be restarted..? A drop ball on the goal line..? Yeah, right. What if, while White were appealing for a goal, Blue had played on (as they should), broke downfield and scored at the other end..? All hell would break loose on the pitch. The coaches of both teams would have an apoplectic fit. The media would go into a feeding frenzy on such an incident.

This is half the problem, mate. The technology may be fine as a technical exercise, but its application in relation to the game in progress could be a can of worms waiting to be opened. There are far more consequences to this situation than initially meet the eye.


.

Ultimately the ref is either going to get beep saying its a goal, or not. A different tone to say its too close for technology to be reliable would inform him to call it as he sees it.

Besides if this scenario actually happens, as I say if it came out it was right anyway, nobody would care besides a few bitter fans.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Crimey wrote:I don't understand your point.

The goal line technology did work, a goal wasn't scored. It doesn't matter that it might have been given if it was down to the human eye, it might not have as well. At least we know conclusively that it didn't cross the line. I'm not a fan of too much video replays and trying to get every decision perfect, but I think the fundamentals of the ball crossing the line should be conclusive.

The White team can have no complaint, the 1mm of the ball needed to cross the line for it to be a goal, they knew that rule before the game, it's a pretty clear rule and there isn't anything wrong with it. There is no injustice at all, the goal wasn't given because a goal wasn't scored, how the White team could ever complain about that is ridiculous.

I agree your statement in principle, Crimey. You are quite right in a legal sense. However, my point is that we are talking about human nature here.

White would not necessarily be complaining about the technology (although they may call its efficiency into question), they would be arguing that it is ridiculous that such a miniscule amount of ball not over the line could have such far reaching consequences on a match of that importance.

My point is about the human element having its perspective altered from, as is the case at present, complaining about fifth officials not seeing the ball over the line from five yards away to the future scenario where a technically accurate assessment is made, but goes against what the disadvantaged team is likely to claim is "common sense" or "sporting fairness".

I am in full agreement with you about the laws being the same for both teams, but you can't get away from this factor that, it is human nature to complain about anything that doesn't go our way. For instance, we know the laws say a match will last 90 minutes. That is the law.... but managers also know the referee has discretion to add a nebulous amount of time on for stoppages. How often has "Fergie Time" been a factor in Manchester United salvaging points from otherwise lost matches when time was added on, seemingly until United got a goal..? How did this kind of situation come about..? It came about because Sir Alex Ferguson moaned long and loud, and paraded up and down the touchline, ostentatiously brandishing a stopwatch with the intention of intimidating referees into extending a game that United were not winning. We now have a situation in most premiership matches where, after the minimum amount of additional time is played, referees will allow the team losing the match one last attack, and will end the match when a goal is scored, or that attack is repelled, or a goal kick is taken, or some such instance where the ball is in an area where no controversy can be attached to the blowing of time.

This is where human elements come into play. Officials CAN be pressured or intimidated by protests and arguments, spurious or otherwise, and these will be latched onto by a rapacious media that feeds off controversy. When this happens, a head of steam can be built up until officials can no longer resist the calls for change. You may have noticed that, after South Africa 2010, Sepp Blatter was against the introduction of goal line technology. Yesterday he said it was a must. What brought about his change of attitude...? Pressure. Pressure from players, managers, fans and not least the sporting media.

I hope you can see the point after that lengthy explanation. If you can't, then I don't know what more I can say.


.

Let them complain, as they have no justification for their complaint. Their complaint could only ever be that if a human was making the decision, then it might have gone their way, which is a ridiculous complaint and shouldn't affect anything.

If technology is brought in then human error is a redundant, it's whether or not the ball actually crosses the line that is important.

The referee blowing the final whistle while something important isn't happening has always been the case, it would be ridiculous to blow the whistle if a team could possibly score within the next few seconds. The referee sets a minimum amount of added time and it is up to him to decide how long. Even as a Liverpool supporter I don't think Fergie time actually exists, there have been reports on it which have completely dismissed the idea.

Again, it's a myth. Sepp Blatter has been in favour of goal line technology since 2010, the only difference is after the disallowed goal for Ukraine he said it was a necessity rather than an option. It is UEFA who are more strongly opposed to goal line technology.

Why the need for technology?

9 times out of 10, any decision like this is obvious by the actual TV pictures. The camera on the line is more than enough to see whether the ball is in or not, and wouldn't need to rely on some Hawk-Eye like feature that may or may not be 100% correct.

Just have the 4th Official look at the replay.

Crimey wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Crimey wrote:I don't understand your point.

The goal line technology did work, a goal wasn't scored. It doesn't matter that it might have been given if it was down to the human eye, it might not have as well. At least we know conclusively that it didn't cross the line. I'm not a fan of too much video replays and trying to get every decision perfect, but I think the fundamentals of the ball crossing the line should be conclusive.

The White team can have no complaint, the 1mm of the ball needed to cross the line for it to be a goal, they knew that rule before the game, it's a pretty clear rule and there isn't anything wrong with it. There is no injustice at all, the goal wasn't given because a goal wasn't scored, how the White team could ever complain about that is ridiculous.

I agree your statement in principle, Crimey. You are quite right in a legal sense. However, my point is that we are talking about human nature here.

White would not necessarily be complaining about the technology (although they may call its efficiency into question), they would be arguing that it is ridiculous that such a miniscule amount of ball not over the line could have such far reaching consequences on a match of that importance.

My point is about the human element having its perspective altered from, as is the case at present, complaining about fifth officials not seeing the ball over the line from five yards away to the future scenario where a technically accurate assessment is made, but goes against what the disadvantaged team is likely to claim is "common sense" or "sporting fairness".

I am in full agreement with you about the laws being the same for both teams, but you can't get away from this factor that, it is human nature to complain about anything that doesn't go our way. For instance, we know the laws say a match will last 90 minutes. That is the law.... but managers also know the referee has discretion to add a nebulous amount of time on for stoppages. How often has "Fergie Time" been a factor in Manchester United salvaging points from otherwise lost matches when time was added on, seemingly until United got a goal..? How did this kind of situation come about..? It came about because Sir Alex Ferguson moaned long and loud, and paraded up and down the touchline, ostentatiously brandishing a stopwatch with the intention of intimidating referees into extending a game that United were not winning. We now have a situation in most premiership matches where, after the minimum amount of additional time is played, referees will allow the team losing the match one last attack, and will end the match when a goal is scored, or that attack is repelled, or a goal kick is taken, or some such instance where the ball is in an area where no controversy can be attached to the blowing of time.

This is where human elements come into play. Officials CAN be pressured or intimidated by protests and arguments, spurious or otherwise, and these will be latched onto by a rapacious media that feeds off controversy. When this happens, a head of steam can be built up until officials can no longer resist the calls for change. You may have noticed that, after South Africa 2010, Sepp Blatter was against the introduction of goal line technology. Yesterday he said it was a must. What brought about his change of attitude...? Pressure. Pressure from players, managers, fans and not least the sporting media.

I hope you can see the point after that lengthy explanation. If you can't, then I don't know what more I can say.


.

Let them complain, as they have no justification for their complaint. Their complaint could only ever be that if a human was making the decision, then it might have gone their way, which is a ridiculous complaint and shouldn't affect anything.

If technology is brought in then human error is a redundant, it's whether or not the ball actually crosses the line that is important.

The referee blowing the final whistle while something important isn't happening has always been the case, it would be ridiculous to blow the whistle if a team could possibly score within the next few seconds. The referee sets a minimum amount of added time and it is up to him to decide how long. Even as a Liverpool supporter I don't think Fergie time actually exists, there have been reports on it which have completely dismissed the idea.

Again, it's a myth. Sepp Blatter has been in favour of goal line technology since 2010, the only difference is after the disallowed goal for Ukraine he said it was a necessity rather than an option. It is UEFA who are more strongly opposed to goal line technology.

I think we are both pretty much in agreement with the factuality of the goal crossing the line and other things that are a matter of fact, but I reckon you're being deliberately obtuse in not recognising that there is a human factor involved, which is one of the things I'm trying to get across to you and you are simply refusing to acknowledge.

As for time expired I find it interesting that you are rigid in your attitude towards goal / no goal and are happy to be 100% factual with no regard to any other element, and yet, are flexible on the matter of time added on. You're inconsistent, my friend. Allowing the game to go on - in your words - if a team could possibly score within the next few seconds smacks to me of bias and that is Fergie Time all over.

Incidentally.... there has been one very famous situation where a referee did blow for time, seconds before a goal was scored. It occurred in the 1978 world cup, in a group match between Sweden and Brazil. Brazil won a corner and took it. With the ball in the air from the kick, Welsh referee Clive Thomas blew for full time. Less than a second later, Zico headed the ball into the Sweden goal. Thomas disallowed the goal, causing a huge rumpus. The match finished 1 - 1, and eventually, the dropped point (only 2 points for a win in those days) meant that Austria topped the group and Brazil finished second, putting them into a second stage pool with Argentina, who eventually won the tournament. Brazil later claimed Thomas cost them a place in the world cup final.

This is the human element I'm trying to get across here. Thomas was absolutely right, in law, to end the game at the 90 minute point, but tell that to Zico. Tell that to the Brazilian team. Tell that to the Brazilian fans. Ask them what they think of the letter of the law.

Thomas was exonerated by FIFA for the incident and continued to referee for many years afterwards.


Personally, where time is concerned, I would prefer to see a rugby system where there is a "game clock" which the referee can stop when substitutions, injuries or other stoppages occur. When 90 minutes of game time has been played, the match would continue until the next occasion of the ball going out of play over the touchline or goal line. Everybody in the stadium would be able to see the clock on the big screen and know exactly where the match time stands and Fergie time would be a thing of the past.

And finally, Sepp Blatter did oppose goal line technology for a considerable time, until events in the 2010 world cup made his position on that argument untenable. I think it's important to make that distinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Blatter

Snipped from article, under the heading "Dismisses Technological Assistance"

The criticism attracted by Blatter's refusal to allow goal-line technology or video replays intensified following the controversial Lampard disallowed goal in the match between England and Germany on 27 June 2010. Two days later, Blatter stated that he deplored the "evident referee mistakes"

.

I got too confused by the white, blue & red teams. Three teams on the pitch, wouldn't we need three goals?

Anyway what's in 1mm? it's gotta be better than we have now.

Added time and the ball crossing the line are completely different though. No matter what, added time is completely subjective to the referee, the ball crossing the line is objective.

I know about that situation, and I am in support of Brazil, it was a ridiculous decision to stop the game moments before a goal was scored. It is pretty common practice for the referee to only end the game when the ball is out of play or nothing important is happening, that's the common practice, it's out of the ordinary to suddenly say that the minimum added time will be strictly adhered to. You're right that it would make sense for there to be an official clock that is stopped when there is a delay, but there isn't, so the current system of the referee only stopping play when there is nothing important happening should be adhered to.

That situation is totally different to the ball crossing the line. As I said, one is objective, one is subjective, no comparison can be drawn. You keep saying there is a "human factor" to be brought in, the reason I have ignored it, is because it's absolute nonsense. If the ball crosses the line, the ball crosses the line, there is no need for human error involved. That's different to a foul being given or added time not being agreed to, because that is subjective to the referee's opinion, there is no right answer.

I know that Sepp Blatter opposed goal-line technology for a number of years, I was correcting you because you took the view of the tabloids that Sepp Blatter suddenly changed his opinion when the decision went for England when he in fact changed his opinion when the decision went against England in 2010.

One of the problems is that the players and refs don't actually know (or at least correctly apply) the rule as written - all of the ball over all of the line is the rule, but if you watch most games, refs and linesmen give the ball as out of play when the point of contact of the ball (i.e. its mid-point) is no longer in contact with the touchline.

As for just using goal-line cameras, that may be sufficient to rule on the obvious ones like the England-Germany one in 2010 or the Mendes one (both of which were well over the line), but would it be sufficiently accurate to decide on the England v Ukraine one (which was probably in by less than 1cm as Terry hooked it out)? Single cameras are not adequate in gauging the position in three dimensional space - you' need at least 4 cameras mounted in each corner of the goal, and possibly one in the middle of the cross bar to get an accurate positioning (with the added complexity of situations where the view of the ball is obstructed by players bodies).

I don't see that having an instant replay system would be that detrimental to the game - such tight decisions are rare, and stopping the play in the same way as when a player goes down injured wouldn't be particularly disruptive. However, it needs to be made clear that the use of replays is to be limited to objective goal-line decisions only, and we won't get 'creep' into deciding whether a foul was committed in the lead-up to a goal being scored.

Crimey wrote:Added time and the ball crossing the line are completely different though. No matter what, added time is completely subjective to the referee, the ball crossing the line is objective.

I know about that situation, and I am in support of Brazil, it was a ridiculous decision to stop the game moments before a goal was scored. It is pretty common practice for the referee to only end the game when the ball is out of play or nothing important is happening, that's the common practice, it's out of the ordinary to suddenly say that the minimum added time will be strictly adhered to. You're right that it would make sense for there to be an official clock that is stopped when there is a delay, but there isn't, so the current system of the referee only stopping play when there is nothing important happening should be adhered to.

That situation is totally different to the ball crossing the line. As I said, one is objective, one is subjective, no comparison can be drawn. You keep saying there is a "human factor" to be brought in, the reason I have ignored it, is because it's absolute nonsense. If the ball crosses the line, the ball crosses the line, there is no need for human error involved. That's different to a foul being given or added time not being agreed to, because that is subjective to the referee's opinion, there is no right answer.

I know that Sepp Blatter opposed goal-line technology for a number of years, I was correcting you because you took the view of the tabloids that Sepp Blatter suddenly changed his opinion when the decision went for England when he in fact changed his opinion when the decision went against England in 2010.

So, if I am to read you right, you suggest that should the scenario I suggested above occur, nobody will question the situation..? You suggest that the manager and players of the team disadvantaged by the decision would not complain..? You suggest that the press and television media will not discuss whether the decision to disallow a goal that would probably have been given in other circumstances should prompt a review of the laws of the game..?

If I read you correctly, you suggest everybody will accept every decision on every occasion with no qualms or arguments whatsoever, regardless of the effect it has on the eventual outcome of their game..?

Over to Sir Alex Ferguson "Well, of course, I have absolute faith in the technology. It's just bad luck that Manchester United lost the Champions League final due to the tiniest of fractions of the ball not over the goal line. That's the rule and I abide by the decision of the fourth official in the TMO Suite without question.."

All I can say is that you have greater faith in human nature than I.

.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Crimey wrote:Added time and the ball crossing the line are completely different though. No matter what, added time is completely subjective to the referee, the ball crossing the line is objective.

I know about that situation, and I am in support of Brazil, it was a ridiculous decision to stop the game moments before a goal was scored. It is pretty common practice for the referee to only end the game when the ball is out of play or nothing important is happening, that's the common practice, it's out of the ordinary to suddenly say that the minimum added time will be strictly adhered to. You're right that it would make sense for there to be an official clock that is stopped when there is a delay, but there isn't, so the current system of the referee only stopping play when there is nothing important happening should be adhered to.

That situation is totally different to the ball crossing the line. As I said, one is objective, one is subjective, no comparison can be drawn. You keep saying there is a "human factor" to be brought in, the reason I have ignored it, is because it's absolute nonsense. If the ball crosses the line, the ball crosses the line, there is no need for human error involved. That's different to a foul being given or added time not being agreed to, because that is subjective to the referee's opinion, there is no right answer.

I know that Sepp Blatter opposed goal-line technology for a number of years, I was correcting you because you took the view of the tabloids that Sepp Blatter suddenly changed his opinion when the decision went for England when he in fact changed his opinion when the decision went against England in 2010.

So, if I am to read you right, you suggest that should the scenario I suggested above occur, nobody will question the situation..? You suggest that the manager and players of the team disadvantaged by the decision would not complain..? You suggest that the press and television media will not discuss whether the decision to disallow a goal that would probably have been given in other circumstances should prompt a review of the laws of the game..?

If I read you correctly, you suggest everybody will accept every decision on every occasion with no qualms or arguments whatsoever, regardless of the effect it has on the eventual outcome of their game..?

Over to Sir Alex Ferguson "Well, of course, I have absolute faith in the technology. It's just bad luck that Manchester United lost the Champions League final due to the tiniest of fractions of the ball not over the goal line. That's the rule and I abide by the decision of the fourth official in the TMO Suite without question.."

All I can say is that you have greater faith in human nature than I.

.

I don't understand how they could complain...the rules are simple. Tennis players don't complain about Hawkeye because in the past that ball would have been called in, but was actually out. There is no justification for the complaint. It's also consistent. If the decision was to go for or against their side they can have no complaints...it's a fact that ball crossed the line, whether that wouldn't have been given in the past is irrelevant.

If Sir Alex Ferguson did complain he should be the subject of ridicule for complaining about a fact. It would be absolutely ridiculous to argue that in the past the wrong decision should be given so it's not fair on us.

If I read you correctly, you suggest everybody will accept every decision on every occasion with no qualms or arguments whatsoever, regardless of the effect it has on the eventual outcome of their game..?

No. Clearly you can't read correctly. What I am saying is that it is totally ridiculous for managers or the media to argue against FACTS. If the ball crossed the line, the ball crossed the line and it is utterly irrelevant whether or not in the past human error could have gotten it wrong.

liverbnz wrote:Technology will not be 100% accurate and will maybe not be reliable when it comes to boderline decisions - if there is any doubt a goal shouldn't be given. However technology will not be brought in with the sole purpose of clearing up 50/50s. It's the absolute howlers that go unseen (or ignored if you speak to consipracy theorists) by referees like the Pedro Mendes incident which cost Spurs a place in Europe (I think) or Lampard's at the last World Cup.

That's why technology has been brought in in cricket, rugby, tennis, etc. To lessen the chance of ridiculous decisions costing teams big money. At the end of the day the system's efficiency maybe called into question but not to the extent that referees' ability is nowadays. There is no perfect solution, but technology will very likley improve the game as it has others.

The Pedro Mendes incident had more impact on Utd and the title race than Spurs and even if Lampards goal had beeb given they still got hammered by a far superior team the one it would have been handy for is the Watford Reading game when the lino saw a goal when the ball was 3 yards wide of the goal

Even in rugby there are issues it happened a month or 2 ago in Super Rugby, it depends on the question the ref asks the TMO but in this case it was 2 almost identical incidents in different games. The TMO in the first went beyond his remit to disallow a try and was applauded for it the 2nd one the TMO stuck to the question he was asked and allowed the try even though there was a reason not to give it

marty

It's not really relevant what would or should have happend had the right decisions been made - although I'm not really sure how the Pedro Mendes 'goal' affected United's title challenge when they ended up 8 points behind Chelsea who were in the runaway lead for most of the season. (Spurs actually ended up in 5th 2points behind Arsenal but with a inferior GD so it was no odds in the end). In the England-Germany game, the momentum was swinging England's way at the time of the Lampard goal. Germany were the superior team as you say, but there's no way anyone can say with certainty that they still would have won regardless of the Lampard 'goal'.

Regardless, the most important thing is to get more of the big decisons correct and in rugby, cricket and tennis technology has achieved this. It will not be perfect, but it's unlikely anything ever will be because some decisions are so marginal.

liverbnz wrote:marty

It's not really relevant what would or should have happend had the right decisions been made - although I'm not really sure how the Pedro Mendes 'goal' affected United's title challenge when they ended up 8 points behind Chelsea who were in the runaway lead for most of the season. (Spurs actually ended up in 5th 2points behind Arsenal but with a inferior GD so it was no odds in the end). In the England-Germany game, the momentum was swinging England's way at the time of the Lampard goal. Germany were the superior team as you say, but there's no way anyone can say with certainty that they still would have won regardless of the Lampard 'goal'.

Regardless, the most important thing is to get more of the big decisons correct and in rugby, cricket and tennis technology has achieved this. It will not be perfect, but it's unlikely anything ever will be because some decisions are so marginal.

The Mendes goal happened in the 04/05 season when Spurs finished 9th and while Utd finished nearly 20 points behind Chelsea it was a crucial point at the time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/4130167.stm

Yes you're right, I'm a season out. Still not sure why it was 'crucial' though but it's irrelevant anyway.

Crimey wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Crimey wrote:Added time and the ball crossing the line are completely different though. No matter what, added time is completely subjective to the referee, the ball crossing the line is objective.

I know about that situation, and I am in support of Brazil, it was a ridiculous decision to stop the game moments before a goal was scored. It is pretty common practice for the referee to only end the game when the ball is out of play or nothing important is happening, that's the common practice, it's out of the ordinary to suddenly say that the minimum added time will be strictly adhered to. You're right that it would make sense for there to be an official clock that is stopped when there is a delay, but there isn't, so the current system of the referee only stopping play when there is nothing important happening should be adhered to.

That situation is totally different to the ball crossing the line. As I said, one is objective, one is subjective, no comparison can be drawn. You keep saying there is a "human factor" to be brought in, the reason I have ignored it, is because it's absolute nonsense. If the ball crosses the line, the ball crosses the line, there is no need for human error involved. That's different to a foul being given or added time not being agreed to, because that is subjective to the referee's opinion, there is no right answer.

I know that Sepp Blatter opposed goal-line technology for a number of years, I was correcting you because you took the view of the tabloids that Sepp Blatter suddenly changed his opinion when the decision went for England when he in fact changed his opinion when the decision went against England in 2010.

So, if I am to read you right, you suggest that should the scenario I suggested above occur, nobody will question the situation..? You suggest that the manager and players of the team disadvantaged by the decision would not complain..? You suggest that the press and television media will not discuss whether the decision to disallow a goal that would probably have been given in other circumstances should prompt a review of the laws of the game..?

If I read you correctly, you suggest everybody will accept every decision on every occasion with no qualms or arguments whatsoever, regardless of the effect it has on the eventual outcome of their game..?

Over to Sir Alex Ferguson "Well, of course, I have absolute faith in the technology. It's just bad luck that Manchester United lost the Champions League final due to the tiniest of fractions of the ball not over the goal line. That's the rule and I abide by the decision of the fourth official in the TMO Suite without question.."

All I can say is that you have greater faith in human nature than I.

.

I don't understand how they could complain...the rules are simple. Tennis players don't complain about Hawkeye because in the past that ball would have been called in, but was actually out. There is no justification for the complaint. It's also consistent. If the decision was to go for or against their side they can have no complaints...it's a fact that ball crossed the line, whether that wouldn't have been given in the past is irrelevant.

If Sir Alex Ferguson did complain he should be the subject of ridicule for complaining about a fact. It would be absolutely ridiculous to argue that in the past the wrong decision should be given so it's not fair on us.

If I read you correctly, you suggest everybody will accept every decision on every occasion with no qualms or arguments whatsoever, regardless of the effect it has on the eventual outcome of their game..?

No. Clearly you can't read correctly. What I am saying is that it is totally ridiculous for managers or the media to argue against FACTS. If the ball crossed the line, the ball crossed the line and it is utterly irrelevant whether or not in the past human error could have gotten it wrong.

It's quite clear that we're poles apart on this. OK, that's fair enough.

What I think we will have to do is let time do the telling. The technology will be introduced and it will clear up the majority of difficult decisions, but sooner or later, somebody isn't going to like it regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Sooner or later, I think, somebody is going to get on a soap box.

What happens in rugby or tennis or cricket is irrelevant. Those sports are mostly played and watched by people with a somewhat higher level of intelligence, fairmindedness and a much lesser propensity for knuckle-dragging tribalism.

In the footballing world of "My Tribe Good. Your Tribe Bad" there is an element that doesn't give a damn if something is right or wrong, they just want everything all their own way, all the time. My concern is that, whilst many in the game may be able to bite their lip for a while when correct decisions go against them, sooner or later, somebody will start to challenge the new status quo and then, all those who have kept their peace up until then will jump on the bandwagon and then the benefits of goal line technology will be called into question rather than the correctness of the decisions. We'll have simply swapped one set of controversies for another.

OK.... I think this discussion has run it's course for me. I'll just sit back now and let it ride.

Time will tell.

.