Goal line technology

Goal line technology

Should it finally be introduced at the top level of the game?

I liked the idea brought about by one journalist today (can't remember who) that there should be a chip on the line or in the goal which detects when the ball has crossed it and sends a signal to either the linesman and/or ref so he can adequately make the correct decision.

I've never really liked the idea of video technology in football, but i think small steps need to be made and this would be a good start.

+ something to stop the diving please.

The idea has been floated for a while. I see no problem with it. The ref would still have the final say.

And as much as I hate the NRL judiciary, diving is getting pretty boring. But not just the act of falling over, rolling around on the ground over emphasising hits (aka Italian defenders) needs to be stopped.Michael2010-06-28 21:08:43

Have the NRL judiciary done any of the kickers that collapse to the ground when a charging player goes within 4 feet of them ?

@ SB - I think stamping out diving is a far harder task which is why i said small steps first. Not impossible, but i think FIFA will find it difficult to implement a system which doesn't slow the game down whilst being able to accurately analyse whether the player dived or was fouled.

@ Michael - Of course the ref would have the final say, but with the system i suggested in the OP he would have better information at his side to help aid him in making that final decision.

Goal line yes. Unobtrusive.

But in-play TMO checking offsides etc. for every goal (and believe me, that is what it would lead to). Please no. Would ruin the magic of the goal. I like it orgasmic! Football is a game with fair chunks of rub-of-the-green tossed in. You'll never get rid of it all. TMOs cock up too.

Maybe, just maybe, captains have the right to use something like 1 video appeal for a decision reversal a match. That would be the limit. That might be worth a trial. (Edit: I wouldn't want the video replay to be a public show, 15 replays from different angles on the big screen thing - just a referral to the 4th official to use video technology to communicate what he sees to the referee)

Post match reviews of simulation / poor sportsmanship (whatever the current focus is). Yes. Make the cheats pay. And does not interfere with the flow of the game.
Turfmoore2010-06-28 21:33:58

Don't really see any need for goal-line technology - these kind of stuff ups actually happen pretty rarely, and can't see why all the technological hassle to deal with it is really necessary.

One officiating change which I would be happy with (and FIFA is leaning this way too) is the permanent introduction of 2 extra assistants behind (or rather, next to) each goal which has already been trialled in the Europa League and some youth tournaments. These guys can easily deal with goal-line situation and other penalty box incidents which otherwise may have gone unnoticed. Would give the refs a two extra pairs of eyes to help him, while not really entailing a fundamental change in the game. There probably would be some teething problems initially, but generally think that's the way forward.

goal line technology would interrupt the flow of the game too much for me, it would be abused and would detract from the emotion of a goal being scored

I was a deliberately vague in my response "Goal line, yes".

I wouldn't jump straight to a technological solution unless it is of the chip in a ball nature as per the OP. Not sure about its feasibility, mind you.

All for giving the additional officials stationed on the line (I assume) the go ahead.

I think we're singing the same tune here.

I agree with El Grap that goal line technology would only a solve a problem that occurs once in a hundred games, if that. It won't deal with offsides, hand balls and diving.

Offsides can be dealt with dead quick using replays. There would be no need for half a dozen angles and ten minutes of reviews. But I wouldn't want every call going to review as it negates the point of having linesmen.

I like the idea of a review, and I think it works well for the most part in cricket. Just the one review for each captain, which perhaps they can get back if their appeal is successful. Perhaps reviews can only be for incidents within the box.

The referees in this tournament have been woeful, but they need to be helped from Fifa. They cannot see everything. Rather than undermine them, technology helps ensure they are not vilified.

Controversy may be part of the emotion and excitement of football, but no one wants to get knocked out by a shocker - so why not avoid those shockers being made?

Err, a chip either in the ball or on the line would not interrupt the flow of the game as all it would do is send a signal to the ref when the ball has crossed the line, a la Ice Hockey.

@ EG - I thought FIFA came out and said they weren't keen on the 5 officials system? Also wondering if you have an opinion on how we can get rid of diving in the game with the aid of technology.

The only way I can think of getting rid of diving is post-match reviews. Have a panel of say five former players and referees and have them determine whether the player dived without doubt. If it is believed the player dived hand them a three match ban. A nice hefty ban for effectively cheating by attempting to deceive the ref. You wouldn't be able to punish every time a player dives, but if some are caught and punished harshly, the deterant is certainly there.

Calling dives during games is difficult for refs, and would take forever if they were to refer to video. However sometimes refs could come down harder - an example was just now in the Brazil v Chile match. Maicon did the most ridiculous dive and Webb called play on. Maicon continued protesting, determined to get something for his efforts. Webb should have booked the bastard to make an example.

Haha did you bug my living room or something? I pretty much mentioned the exact same thing talking to a mate last night. Except i also mentioned fines to go with the bans. Also an increase on fines + bans for repeat offenders. Surely if Ronaldo got caught for a 3rd time and faced say a 5 week ban and was fined 5 weeks wages he would never dive again.

Needs something to be done imo because no matter how much of a purist you are or how much you see football through rose tinted glasses nobody enjoys seeing diving and everyone agrees it ruins the sport.

Great minds think alike! It looks like we've solved the problem, Buffy. I'll give old Sepp a call.

Having another assistant on the goal line to help the ref would be the best solution, and now we are down to only a couple games a day, there are plenty of officals without games to look after.

Match review panels should be able to fine/ban people for unsporting conduct (diving, dirty play etc) in games.

Hmm, I've heard exactly the opposite - FIFA trialled the microchip in the ball thing, and weren't really satisfied with the results.

I've also heard very strong rumours that the 5-official system will be used in Brazil 2014 - the system probably wasn't a raging success in the EL this past season, but like any modified system, it does take time for everyone to get accustomed to it and use it properly. Think the principle is basically right.

As for the diving issue, posted this in another thread:

Obvious dives where there is no contact or clear foul are actually fairly rare and pretty easy to spot. The problem is that in many cases, the 'dive' is pulled out after a genuine foul to ensure the player gets the call (or more cynically to perhaps win a penalty or get an opponent booked). And this is incredibly difficult to police both on and off the field (in terms of video replays).

I have seen guidelines to referees (can't remember whether from the FA or UEFA) on how to spot 'simulation' (including looking at the body shape and position purportedly falling after being fouled), and while they are useful, they don't resolve the fundamental problem you've mentioned.

If video replays were to be used for this, there would have to be a set of standards, and also perhaps a scale, with which to judge 'diving' offences. How you arrive at those, and apply them consistantly, I don't know.

The 5 official thing is probably the path of least interference, as far as FIFA are concerned. Not only should it give another set of eyes in cases where there is a "did it cross the line or not" situation, but it will also give the referee another perspective for penalty decisions. Good move in my opinion. Jag2010-06-29 12:20:35

Great minds think alike Jag.

Can't argue with that, i think we all understand and agree that it is very hard to get rid of the cynical or less obvious dives that you mention. And yes it would be hard to come up with a set of standards but i think FIFA have to give it a go and act sooner rather than later. Take the World Cup for example, the diving and theatrics of certain players/teams detracts greatly from the value or entertainment of the contest. It also makes it harder for fans to appreciate a quality team if they are constantly playing up to the refs.

It also presents a large (albeit hypocritical) stick for the haters to use.

Goal line tech is already being used in many fast-paced sports, and teams having some set number of 'appeal' rights is already an established method as well. This is called keeping up with the times and it supports the poor old refs, who are usually the only ones who don't get to see the numerous multi-angled replays - its not their fault.

As for Diving - even if its actually exaggerating what might be an actual foul etc - its still just cynical and unsavoury. And sometimes its clear on video that it is plain cheating. Whether its partially a real foul or not, 'Simulation' is what this is called and it should attract some sort of sanction as it is just plain wrong. How can we call football the beautiful game if this dirt is allowed to prosper. Its really a form of fraud. The victims don't just include the opposition team, but also the reputation of the offenders team, the ref, and the wider game. I like football but this turns me off it. I hope NZ and the Phoenix make sure they retain a decent fair-play culture and become known for it.

As has been said previously. FIFA did trial goal line technology systems but weren't happy with the results. It may well be something they come back to. Jag2010-06-29 12:49:21

Did anyone else read this ...

Theyre right though

but i was fascinated by the voting structure and the fact that for historical reasons the British home unions (inc Wales and Ntrn Ireland) have such an influence over rule changes.

The Hawke-eye people begs to differ. But each to their own agenda.

Such goal types are reasonably rare as it is. The answer is really whether having extra officials will help with the decision? The extra two officials are also watching for infringements inside the penalty box and are not necessary looking at the ball crossing the line whereas having enough camera technology available as well as numerous cameras that is constantly following the ball, you hardly ever not going to miss it. As I understand, the Hawke-eye technology is very fast and is only half a second to feedback to the on-field referee headset. The cost of paying two extra officials compared to having video replays looked at by fourth official must be considered.

As Buffon said, it would be a small step to make since most of the top leagues and competitions in the world already have the technology at their grounds.

As for stimulations, a retrospective card system and an amnesty to the innocent players could reduce future infringements. I would agree to that personally.

However there are a few things that would worry me a bit about it. First, the fine systems is a bit pointless in terms of consistency across the players as some players are well off than others and the scale to determining that would be complicated. For an example, does the money be docked out the FIFA payout to the country in the Tournament or does it go directly from the players pocket? I would think that it should affect the team payout rather than the players pocket because of the large range of players earnings. If that is the case then, is it fair for the player's teammates to cop a reduction of the payout as well? Maybe it would be suggested that the coaching staff should have sorted out their selection of players and how they manage them during the tournament? Of course in a club's case, a fine maybe on the clubs payout to players.

The other worrying thing, is that teams as a whole would still accept sacrificing players to produce the end results to a match, redeeming it to be an acceptable loss in pursuit of the greater glory while at the same time maybe hanging the player out to dry by claiming "we don't condone such tactics" to throw the everyone a yarn.

The criteria is going to be tricky, so a standard guideline to determine stimulation from replays will definitely on the agenda. Non-contact stimulations would be deal with harshly, contact stimulations will have to be determine whether there would be significant impedance that hinders players progress as well as whether there was a goal scoring opportunity being halted.

My thoughts on contact stimulation is that whether there was an equal competition for the ball or whether there was an unequal competition for the ball in the context of the contact. For me (if it was missed by the ref) Tommy Smiths hand tug on the shirt was not significant enough as for an unequal competition as well as being a non-scoring chance. However for the diver, it would warrant a retro red card for a contact-stimulation because it was in the penalty box. Any dive outside of the box would be yellow because it would be classified as "unsporting behaviour." Professional foul contact to prevent a potential goal attack phase should be yellow carded. Stimulation in dangerous areas outside of box to make it look like a professional foul is again yellow carded.

I can see positives of retro card system. Players can be cited for two yellow cards already in one match and so to prevent further citing, they would have to clean their act up or lose more that their starting line up spot. They could be labelled as a liability at the club level and have a reduced transfer value. This would eventually increase more playability in the game simply because the skill factor of the players are forced to increase as well as an increase in the natural flow of the game. Which is a great benefit to the game itself. It would harden up the players and focus on the moment of the game.

Also think that for goals being scored, [there is only so much goals that are done in a match] a confirmation check of offsides is only a few seconds with the video replay. Video replays for possible offsides should only be done when there has been a goal scored and left to the on-field referees discretion based on whether it is a significant phase of play. Besides that, the word of the linesman is more than adequate [unless the linesman honestly missed it.] This would still maintain the flow of the game.

Considering that the game is stopping and starting with the stimulations already, having a retro card system should change the players outlook and also allow the time for team challenges/appeals by the on-field captain [not coach] to question certain decisions. About 3 challenges per team should be enough. I am backing that in most cases, it would be quite quick in sorting them out and would not take much longer than for the stimulations and constant player harassment on officials that are already in the game. This is to allow fair game to be played at the actual moment of the game and it dissolves the situation quickly.

My thoughts are that there are more correct decisions being made. the time spent on video decision is not as long as you would think it will be because it would be used for certain aspects of the game and not for everything. There would be refining it as it would in any other rules over the first few years. Players attitudes will change better and be more competitive. There would be still debating over some decisions in regards to game flow or outcome and referees or team discretionary powers over the use of the video replay.

At the end of the day, players are less likely to attempt feign, more attacking phases to the game, feel being justify treated well about goals decisions in the game and given a fair chance to appeal. The officials will feel be less harassed by players or by administration, well equipped for a correct decision, manage the flow of the game better and be given a chance to restore creditability to the game. Some officials careers have been ripped apart by contentious decisions which could easily be settled by the video replay. It means very good officials leave the game unfairly. I rather have a official that is equipped well and be merited for managing a game well.

It also means that bad officials are found out quickly and cannot hide behind being ignorant when there are enough tool to make decisions. Therefore the on-field refereeing quality increases and the corruption bias is reduced. The video referee is under scrutiny from the public not the on-field referee. And the on-field referee management remains under scrutiny of the match referee. I also think that having referee teams with the tools really will empowers them to manage a good game that would be enjoyed more.

So replays for goal line and any significant incidents leading goals scored and for limited team challenges/appeals backed up by retro card system and player citing.

Anything that is iffy, people can live with it because it is usually unsolvable anyway as long as there is a fair go at getting it corrected. Any 50/50 videos are placed back to the on-field referee so everyone knows that it is too close to call, then people respect the final decision. Therefore there should be no time-limits by referring back on 50/50s to maintain game flow. However anything over 30 seconds would be unacceptable. Therefore the video referee has to be very good and not slack at his role. Again, his role is under scrutiny anyway.

Of course, I don't believe in "What comes around, goes around" mantra either. That is just superstitious voodoo/karma excuse.

I gave up after "The Hawke-eye people.." Jag2010-06-29 15:19:03

Yeah, and they're not self-interested one little bit, are they?

You're kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to read all of that.

What exactly do they beg to differ with?

Er, yes, because these officials are literally one-two yards away from the goal-line...

Look at any other sport that has it. Rugby league,cricket. It has gotten out of hand,and they barely get it right with video replays as it is. It creates more inconsistency,and more angst amongst people.

The Hawke-eye people are saying that there are no problems with the technology and that FIFA is making it all up concerning time wasted and the technology not working well enough.

Yes. But they would say that wouldn't they.