Goal line technology

I actually think id be put off watching football if video replays are introduced to the level you are suggesting.

Maybe one day we will agree.

However I like to point out that you are already watching the replays clips during a live match for a long time anyway. So why are you watching this World Cup now, then??

Sigh. Not what i said.

I wasnt serious with the second one, it was just thrown in from something I was reading

Made it easy for you to not respond to the first though it seems. 

Yeah but you just made my day.

Well i thought that second post was not serious because you made it clear that it was an article which is not any of your suggestions.

Tegal twisted it the wrong way round.AllWhitebelievr2010-06-29 23:28:59

You pretty much just summarised what AWB had said. Though you did add that at top level you want decisions to be right. I think the difference here is the tolerance for human error. I actually quite like that element,most people don't mind it until something bad happens to their team. Win some,lose some.

Yeah yeah i know im good at twisting words  well played.

Interesting that Blatter apologised to England and Mexico today and said they will revisit the goal line issue after the tournament

I noticed that at the Spain V Portugal game that the instant replay after when the goal was rewarded didn't used the shaded offside areas. The instant replays also after the first look, refused to repeat it and then changed the angle so it would not look suspected. To me, it did look a bit offside after that back heel touch. Might a new FIFA directive to not conflict with the officials decisions, since it was used the shaded offsides tech before for a linesman's call earlier on.

Certainty something to look for in the next coming games . . . .

Yet I don't recall them being furious when they scored an offside goal against France which essentially put them through to the knock-out stages.

Yeah, I noticed it too. Looked offside-ish to me live, and replays they showed did nothing to change my initial thoughts.el grapadura2010-06-30 09:03:25

It was contentious, as was the Mexico-France one. The Argentina-Mexico one was blatant, that's the difference. If we start pulling those up for offside we won't see any goals being scored.

If the goal this morning from Spain against Portugal looked offside, he needs to apologise again . . .

This tournament has been a nightmare for suspect goals especially for the knockout matches when one goal can make or break it all.

Mexican goal against France was a clear offside, Hernandez was well off and should have been an easy decision (like the Tevez one, although Tevez was even more blatantly offside).

In defence of officials today, it may well have been difficult (if not impossible) for the AR to see the back heel to Villa, and if he couldn't see it, then he couldn't really give it (I still assume it was actually offside, but happy to change the tune if I see a replay which shows otherwise).

Anyway, like I said

Well i can remember it as being not so clear, but fair enough.

Anyway, like I said too, start pulling up for the slightest thing in relation to a goal being scored and we'll have none left.

Well I felt, one slow motion at the first camera angle would have done the trick. I busy appreciating the build up to the goal on the medium speed instant replay (and talking with someone) and still notice that it was suspected by a body width, so I can only imagine how easy a decision it would have been at slow motion with a bit of attention.

Of course not. You are only furious when it is against you, not for you   



The point is that in the highest competition you want the best results, so that teams win fairly and squarely. These incidents that will be seen in replay and are clearly wrong need to be avoided, and they can be with the use of the technology we have now.

I don't get the assumption that some have made here that using video refs for offside would only take a few seconds.

However in Smeltz's case, the way I see it. There is only two cases for it to be checked, either by the team challenge which no-one had made an appeal or by the ref's discretion of which it doesn't seem it was going to hapen. The other scenario would be that if there was a quick look at the replay, it would be just that. a quick replay look in which the video ref would after 3 different replays would have to ref back to the on-field ref that nothing seem "significant" and the likely result the on-field ref would decide it was a goal. Probably take about just over 30 seconds to look and refer back.

As I estimate, after a goal is scored, it takes 5 seconds before we actually see a replay. 5 seconds for the first replay been shown and over 80% clear for a decision. another 5 seconds for a second replay at another angle making it 95% conclusive and if is needs to, another 5 seconds at a third angle on a 50/50 iffy and then maybe it gets referred back to the on-field ref. So that is where my 30 seconds would come from.

btw, on smeltz' goal/offside, I have a question for all you technical experts ...

Basically, Cannavaro simply deflected the ball without gaining possession of the ball; since there was technically no change in possession during the incident, Smeltz is still offside as far as the laws of the game are concerned.

It is an entirely different matter when the defence has possession of the ball.

i suppose you can attempt to block a shot intentionally without that being possession. still, it seems grey to me. cant easily distinguish between what cannavarro did and an instance in which a long ball is whacked through and a defender jumps up and flicks it backwards only to be intercepted by striker.

That too is offside if the striker was in an offside position when the ball was first played to him.

even if the header backwards is intentional?

That I guess would require a judgement call from the officials (as to whether there was an effective change of possession).

And going to the laws of the game, of course you can't be offside if the opposition inadvertantly concede posession to you while in an offside position.

ok, further research ...

Because you can't be offside when the opposition are in possession of the ball.
You can only be offside from a ball played by a team-mate.

A ball played by your team-mate to you in an offside position, it taking a deflection off a defending player does not make you on-side.

If the defender's header backwards was an interception of your team-mates cross to you, and you were in an offside position, and you intercepted the backwards header, then you would still be offside as gaining an advantage from being in an offside position.

If it was a pass from one defender to another who plays the backwards header which you intercept, then it is not an offside because the ball has not been played by your team.
ginger_eejit2010-06-30 16:40:55

I'm not enlightened  (easy now)

Cannavaro played at the ball, and touched it, changed its course. Change of possession is in the deliberate touch, not controlling it for a length of time, surely. Of course Smeltz can profit from that.

Quote from the laws

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if:
� he is nearer to his opponents� goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
� interfering with play or
� interfering with an opponent or
� gaining an advantage by being in that position

�gaining an advantage by being in that position� means playing a ball
that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an
offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent
having been in an offside position"

I didnt see that as a rebound from Cannavaro

Still to be convinced he was offside

Literally put the boot on the other foot - if a striker put a shot in, and a defender put his boot out to block it and it deflects of his boot in the keepers arms, would you expect the referee to blow for deliberately playing the ball back to the keeper?!?!

It's the same level of "deliberate" that is expected for both the passback, and the change of possession to put an attacking player onside.

Wait a moment. . . .

Am I on the same page concerning the sequence?

When Reid touched the ball --> Smeltz was onside by being in-line with Cannavro

Cannavro plays/rebound the ball -->Smeltz was between Cannavro and GK.

So according to the rules; Smeltz was not in a offside position when Reid (his teammate) last touch/played the ball. So he was onside. Therefore has not "gaining an advantage by being in that position"

When the ball was played/rebounded by Cannavro, it did not matter because "It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position" but also cannot be penalised because at the moment of Cannavro's touch, Cannavro was not Smeltz's teammate and therefore cannot be called offside according to the rules.

Is this what you are meaning Hepatitis?

Therefore the only moment we should be concerned as to whether Smeltz was onside or offside was when Reid (if he did, which I think he did) touched the ball and anything else is not important from then on.

The idea of possession/deliberate is only a guideline it seems, but the rules states balls touch or played by your teammate is when you are either onside or offside and then active in play by three different situations. (quite a different concept altogether)

Therefore;

So if your own teammate provides a deflection from another teammate's shot (but not deflected from the opponent) then at the moment of the deflection and you are on an offside position and then you become active, then you are offside according to the rules. However, if you were onside while your teammate shoots and the opponent provides a deflection when you are in an offside position, then you are onside according to the rules since the last touch by your teammate was prior to the defection. Correct?

So if Smeltz was onside while Reid touched the ball, then he was onside not offside and it did not matter what Cannavro did.AllWhitebelievr2010-06-30 18:19:04

Wrong. Smeltz was between Cannavaro and the GK if/when Reid touched the ball.

Pretty obvious, don't know where you got that idea from.

Well I was going by Hep's thinking when I wrote that. Therefore Smeltz was offside because he was between Cannavaro and the GK when Reid touched the ball. So here lies the mistake.

It has nothing to do with possession or being delibrate but based on the moment of the last touch of the teammate, whether you are on- or offside. Hence making the argument of the previous posts invalided.

Can someone just contact Winston Reid and ask him if he touched the ball so we can put this to rest.

Anyhow, I think the purpose of this thread is to discuss video/goal line technology in the game. I think as soon as they introduce video refs, the game could be overrun by it, possibly creating more controversy than we're already faced with. Though I am all for reviewing of video replays to find and punish divers, other than than it's better the way it is IMO.

Yeah of course Smeltz was onside if the last teammate to touch the ball was Elliottts free kick into the area . . .

I did see one angle where Winston had a definite touch, but it was way past the moment of truth when they dug that up. Although it was commented prior to that find. It wasn't as conclusive at the time so I would have let the goal to be as it stands after a few initial replays or as I have been saying, refer it back to the ref and he would likely give it since there would be a lack of evidence to say otherwise at the time.

Controversy, you may say, not more than what it is now, but everyone would quite accepting that that is how the cookie crumbs and that the officials did their best with the best tools that can be given. Right now we can't say that we are accepting at the moment because the best tools is not given. Hence the GREAT BIG STINK of it all !!

It's all about giving and getting RESPECT to players, coaches and fans by the FIFA/IFAB administration if anything, not whether we should discuss about the contentious issues of the game. There is plenty to talk about the game without those issues and probably a far better appreciation of the beautiful game, I would think and more satisfaction about it. I rather talk about what happen in the game itself than on ifs, whats and maybes. Some people from other sports must laugh at all this because they think is all a joke. How are we expect to attract the right type of attention from outside the sport. We all love playing the game but we all cringe at the incorrect results and knowing that it could have been sort easily annoys us to the hardcore. Considering the result of teams hard work going up in smoke. It is unfair to them. At least, if the right call that can be made without any suggestions otherwise, then the losing team would felt they done their best at their own hands with respect to the result. Whereas now, they see things being taken out of their own hands (due to an incorrectly made decision that everyone else could as being wrong) and all their efforts was pointless and to chance and no respect to the result.

Oh well - looks like they're hanging the referee's in question out to dry.

http://www.smh.com.au/world-cup-2010/world-cup-news/blundering-referees-sent-home-20100630-zjx0.html

Typical FIFA, the executives will stand by their beliefs and opinions in the face of overwhelming criticism, but will quite happily chuck their refs onto the bonfire of popular rage.

They're not really throwing people onto "bonfires" - they're just bringing the refs who haven't made mistakes forward.Michael2010-06-30 19:41:01