Goal line technology

Why would you put a ref out there who has made a mistake?? he's more likely to be less confident and feel the pressure than one who has had no negative attention or scrutiny from FIFA and the media. It's also a risk by FIFA, if he makes another mistake the sh*t hits the fan worse than the first time.

Some good news - Mike Hester's trio have made the cut. So we could have a NZ ref doing a WC QF or better!

thats great. where is that news?

Without being rude to Mike, I have no idea how he could get a gig ahead of Peter O'Leary.

Interesting the doc release date is tomorrow - but it's already up on the  FIFA website

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/26/39/33/refereesandassistantrefereesforfifa.com1july.pdf

Another reason for technology is to protect the officials from the fallout. They are the ones who are clearly been downtrodden the most. We know of stories of those who retired early because of such "Human errors"

Unfortunately Peter didn't get to ref - did a 4th official stint, Mike did the Greece v Korea game and 4th'd the England v Algeria game.

Suppose it's about game time really.

This video shows that David Villa was offside: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1D6uOV0xzM

I didn't watch the game but did they not show the replay with the shading thing to look for an offside?

Did they show the replay and pause it at all to look for offside?

Did they show any replay from an angle that the viewer could make an educated guess for themselves if it was offside?

Thanks.

WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT ! . . . . nah only joking

Dunno, maybe he is fitter to keep up with the play?? Or he is getting something under the table. . . .

Oh the fun was short lived, you couldn't wait to tell us, eh?

thats just what i was wondering when watching the game. they never showed a replay that would confirm and the commentator never mentioned the possibility, but one angle showed that villa must have been very advanced when the final flick was made

Check back a few pages. . . . for after comments about this.

Actually the cover-up was a bit better than the Germany's first goal against England which was also offside. Klose was offside when the German keeper kicked the ball. In that case the shaded area was used but then the replay was cut short as was the commentator halfway talking.

Ireland, England, Mexico and Portugal . . . what other countries will be cursed?AllWhitebelievr2010-06-30 20:25:33

That clip reminds me of hawke-eye in cricket. It shows he is offside by a very tight margin only when it's paused and turned into a virtual view. In cricket they do that with LBWs. The umpire gives a decision not out when hawke-eye shows the ball is going to barely clip the stump but it is classed as a "good decision" by the umpire. In the new review system they are using for this, it's all very technical and still needs ironing out. Or just abolishing IMO.

just actually watched the video. Brilliant!

Personally I'm all for aiding the referee but I don't think video technology during a game is the way to go.  There is no question that it slows down the game.  Some calls could be made quick, sure, others (Reid's, for example) certainly couldn't.  Teams could be given permission to question, via video replays, two (as an example) calls to try and stop replays taking over everything but this in itself leads to problems.  Take the England game for me and assume that Lampard's shot landed on the line but never actually went in.  The England players would call for a replay, fair enough, but would the ref ask Neuer to hold the ball for him while the replay was conducted?  This was disadvantage Germany when the ref saw that the ball didn't go in as they could not counter-attack as the whole England squad could get back into position while the replays occurred.  OR, would the ref wait until the next certain stoppage in play (foul, goal, pitch invasion, or ball going out of play) and then review the footage?  This seems feasible enough but what if Germany had scored on the counter-attack which they came very near to doing?  Would the ref rule out Germany's goal and award England's after Germany had worked hard to get the ball up the other end as quick as they could?  As you can see both options open up their own can of worms.

As for reviewing post-match to look for dives, I'm very iffy on this one as well.  If a player leaps over an opponents tackle yet falls to the ground upon landing and gets a free-kick is this a dive?  What if his body can't keep up with his momentum and he falls (don't think I explained that right, you know what I mean)?  Or if he trips over himself?  Things like Rivaldo clutching his face when Emre Asik(?) kicked the ball at his knee are clear-cut, but most are not.

I'm for the introduction of two extra assistant referee's, one at each end of the field - but they should not enter the field of play while play is in progress.  I'd also like to see FIFA resume their tests on putting a chip in footballs which tell the referee when the ball has crossed the goal-line between the posts.

AWB, Klose was not offside.  You cannot be offside from a corner, goalkick, or throw-in.  But thanks for your answers.

Page 33 of the 2010/11 FIFA Laws of the Game.  Assumedly you download it from FIFA.com but I was sent it from a friend so don't know where exactly to direct you.
loyalgunner2010-06-30 20:52:55

Espn Sportscentre are doing a story on technology in sports right now.

Too right

For me, I would not want video replays of anything. It is football not cricket NRL etc. Sure there are errors, but it is part of the game.

I haven't had a look. I know about the corner and throw-in but wasn't sure about the goal kick. It doesn't happen enough times in most games to personally worry about it.

Oh well . . . Meh is all i can say.

Its from a restart of play. Including goalkick and corner. Not many people actually know this,they think it is just from a throw in.

Restart in play is somewhat misleading.  You can be offside from a free-kick.  Though unsure about drop-ball.

Only a throw-in, goal kick and corner can an attacking player not be offside

Like I keep saying you CANNOT be offside from a goal-kick. Please read the laws of the game before going on crusades like this.

Watched some of the analysis on this on Croatian TV - they reckoned Villa was 27cm offside. Basically, very tight call at the best of times, and especially considering that the AR had 3 players in between him and Iniesta who played the back-heel to Villa, it was almost impossible to call correctly.

I personally have no problems with goals like that standing (just like Smeltzy's). Hard to call for officials on the field, and if you start going for video replays in situation like this where we're talking centimetres, that would then get absolutely ridiculous.el grapadura2010-07-01 10:43:03

I completely agree with that. The game would be ruined if it came to stopping the game to measure whether a player was offside by mere centimeters.

Agreed, for the same reason, I didn't have to much problem with the Slovakia goal against us as it was incredibly marginal. In saying that, I would still have a go at the AR in that case as he was about 5m behind play, and therefore not in the best position to make the decision.

I remember the Slovakia goal a bit differently - from memory, their player was never in an on-side position in that whole attacking move. But nevermind.

The point is if we start looking if a player was 6.2cm offside, football will become a farce.

So are we all agreed that in the Yellow Fever submission to Fifa we will request that video technology cannot be used to review offsides?

But AWB, if tv replays WERE introduced then Italy would have challenged it wouldn't they? Teams would challenge every time a goal is scored just in case there was something wrong with it. After all most games only have a few goals scored in them so they'd want to challenge whenever a goal was scored. And this was a critical goal for them. Wibblebutt2010-07-01 11:57:40

I think your right - he was standing just on Reid's shoulder the whole move.

Also in the England non-goal,video technology WOULD slow the game down as the goalkeeper had the ball. Instead of a quick restart from the keeper,we would have to wait for the replay,which you pointed out taking into account everything would take about a minute (you said this a few pages back AWB). You also said that we quickly watch replays on TV anyway,but most of these have actually annoyed the hell out of me as it has resulted in missing real time play,as the game of football is so fast that there is barely time for replays.

Interested to see the comments here. I put my post up because I had a look at the rules for offside and found them confusing, and still do.

I can see more in the case for the video replay than against, and think it is only a matter of time before technology comes in to the game and gives more certainty about decisions.

However that time looks like it isnt here yet.

It will probably start with the goal line decisions, and go on from there, and I have no doubt that there will be technology that is invented that will give quicker and more accurate results. The shaded line wasnt available last year, (I dont recall seeing it but could be corrected), but it makes it easier to judge the offside.

Football has had the least changes to its rules of any of the big games I can think of, it is beautiful for its simplicity. I applaud FIFA for doing what it can to resist complications but think there is an inevitability about change coming

In the meantime, long live all the drama , it sure makes life interesting

A drop-ball puts the ball back in play as soon as it touches the ground, surely you'd be offside if the first touch played it forward to an offside player.

Of course.  How's that for a classic case of me not thinking.  I'm good at that.
loyalgunner2010-07-01 18:31:53

I already said sorry for the mistake, get up to date by reading the later posts. . . .Sheeeh!AllWhitebelievr2010-07-02 02:28:45

Not all goals will be challenged and I have said before that there is only a limited time of challenges per team. It would be likely to be used and it would leave two challenges left. A challenge could be defined as giving another 30 seconds more to look at the replays from a few other angles. Even if there is a challenge, it would be that long for this one to make a decision.

Whereas in Reid's case, it was too close to call and the goal is likely to stand, even after the challenge. In any such case, the goal goes to the attacking team, if it was as 50/50. So no real problems and end of regular match time debate. So that it can be left for debate afterwards over a cuppa.

It would also be silly to use one of the three challenges to an obvious goal. And a team that would use it for an early goal like that, then it is up to them to chance their arm. Who knows if they would have caught the right angle to catch Reid touching the ball in the given time then? They have the technology and would have develop a skill to look at certain replays of interest. Whatever the outcome as least they have a fair chance.

As for the time added, it would not be a serious issue because of the restriction/criteria of the replays. As it is, players have used up time by protesting/celebrating/stimulation and so a criteria for replays would dispel such time wasting as well as empowering the on-field officials. There is only so many goals to worry about and so really minimal disruption to the time. I think that the protesting attitudes of players would actually be reduced. as the decision is made and they all just get on with the game. No acting needed!

Reasons for goal-line technology: