Goal line technology

Two extra ARs, not referees.

Looks very likely that this will eventually be the path adopted.

Then, strictly speaking, they aren't begging to differ that FIFA weren't happy with the results.

Just pay two kids with eyes on the street to stand there looking at the goal line? I kind of counted 2 ARs as being referees anyway.

Er. . . not really, I understand they trial those officials to look for infringements in the box as well and they could be walking out to the edge of the penalty box, getting in the way of play and not looking for that goal shot because they are facing away from the goal initially.

No, it's not the job of these additional ARs to just look at the goal-line, but to also monitor penalty box incidents and off the ball incidents.

Edit:Double postAllWhitebelievr2010-06-29 15:36:24

Close,but nowhere near as bad as you suggest

The ARs in question would NOT be noodling around the penalty area and getting in the way. Complete nonsense. Their job would be outside of the field of play, looking in

Of course they are to be used for penalty box incidents, they're not gonna use them only for something that happens once every blue moon!

Their default position is to stand about 2-3 yards away from the goal on the by-line on the opposite side of the pitch from where the sideline AR is. Ergo, if the ball crashes off the bar and near the goal-line, they are literally 2-3 yards away and can see perfectly well what had transpired, unless they're a blind idiot.

The EL trial did allow them to move inside the penalty box if the circumstances required it, but in all the games I've seen, I've never seen anyone move inside more than 2-3 yards onto the field, and even then just for a quick look. Personally, don't think they should be allowed to move into the field of play, but that's one of those teething problems I mentioned earlier.

The truth is that there not much time difference between the extra AR walking over and talking to the referee as it would be if the video referee to look at the replay once or twice and talking to the on-field referee. The video referee would see more compare to the AR.AllWhitebelievr2010-06-29 15:40:52

Two problems Buffy.

1, I reckon that is landing.
2, it's and RNZAF aircraft, it's probably broken.

So having someone literally on the spot making a decision in real time is the same as someone sitting in a video booth looking at endless replays and different angles while everyone else is twiddling their thumbs?

Riiiight.

I would prefer one Video Ref for top and the affordable leagues/internationals that are equipped with video technology and have the extra two AR for lesser leagues.

One thing I know, the hard bounced crossbar goals are usually a screamer and if you are watching for infringements there is a good chance you will miss it. Even if you are well positioned.

It would take less than 10 seconds in most cases if you got a good video referee. Commentators get 90% corrected after 5 seconds with one slow replay and they are hardly any good themselves.

Football does not have big huge bodies in the way of the camera as it is in the NRL. They totally different game, so to compare is nonsense. A couple of camera angles is more than enough unlike NRL.

There's one video ref issue you're underestimating in this (and it's true accross all the sports which use video technology). Once you go that way, the tolerance for getting things wrong drops off significantly. Which in turn puts pressure on video officials not to make any mistakes. Which means they want to see every angle available, multiple times, to ensure they didn't miss something. Which means it takes invaiably more than 10 seconds. And they still get things wrong A LOT of the time.

So how is that preferable to having an official right on the spot making the decision in real time?

Err, that is redundant becaue the microchip thing got ruled out by Blatter in 2008 when it was trialled at age grade level with that Adidas ball and Sepp said the results were only 90-95% accurate or something to that effect.
FIFA's stance (under Blatter) has been to keep officiating in football as human as possible. That plus the fact that FIFA say football must be refereed the same everywhere and this technology is far too expensive for most leagues in the world I have heard.
Adding the two extra ref's is the best option and it doesn't kill the emotion that defines football

francsernal2010-06-29 16:00:41

You realise I am talking about probably two or three incidents per average game and also having only video replays for certain crucial situations which would otherwise be having a group of players protesting around the referee?

I don't follow?

Well as I first mention, teams have a limited challenge/appeal (maybe 3 per game). This would amount to probably two or three (card related) incidents in a game that they feel entitled to look at with their challenge. The referee would use the video replay when a goal is scored for any incidents leading to the goal. Usually it would be for offsides and offsides are easy with video.

After all that, it would be very similar to the amount of time wasted on stimulations and players protesting but at the end of the day, everyone would feel better for being heard and getting a fair chance with the referee's decision with less bias and a more fair result accepted and respected by most people.

You may say that there would be numerous replays over and over again as in NRL, but I don't see that happening in football as it is in NRL simply because there are no bodies over the ball in football and no one (referee or players) have a strong enough view of who did what under the pile.

Whereas in football it usually between two players and the incident is more clearly caught by the camera and other players. And the the TV audience can see it instantly. This is the reason why you have a group of players surrounding the referee protesting because it is more obvious to the closest players and the camera view is much more clear and transparent.

The instant technology is there, it would be once in a blue moon if you have to go a third replay and there are not really much in the way of 50/50s in replays.

So I really think that most people are worried that the officials would go overboard when the officials themselves have to go under a certain criteria and scrutiny. Like I said, the good officials will be sorted out along with some bad ones as to how they will manage the matches. I feel that this will reduce any refereeing bias or corruption at the top level at least.

The clear view of the football game compare to the messy rugby game is one of the reasons why it called the beautiful game. It is more easy on the eye.

I just think that people are over thinking about technology dominating the game time, whereas I don't think that at all. It's removing negatives time wasting and replacing it with positive time wasting without a skip in tempo to the whole game. There is alway a certain amount of time-wasting in a game but you can balance it all out without offending too much people.

Referees would go upstairs every time there was a goal if the scope were as wide as you are suggesting,as happens in others sports.

I hope given that Sepp Blatter has said that the human fraility of referees is all part and parcel and part of the attraction of the game, giving incidents for people to debate; that Larrionda and team aare not hung out to dry.

I hope that FIFA, have the conviction to back up their opinion to give Larrionda and his team one of the semi finals.

And if he makes another big mistake there? Destroys the integrity of the game.

FIFA has stated essentially referee error is an integral part of the game ergo if he makes a blunder he hasn't destroyed the integrity of the game in FIFA's opinion
ginger_eejit2010-06-29 18:34:02

Come on ginge. I'm sure you've been around football for long enough to know that FIFA's opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

There would be only three if any things to look at for the goal.

Offside: easy done. (takes one replay -10 seconds)

Crossing the goal line: rarely needed. (takes one replay -10 seconds)

Push or foul: easy done after a significant incident at the refs discretion or team appeal. (Maybe two or three replays - takes less than 30 seconds)

How many goals per game has there been? 38 out of 41 games has two or less goals. Only 3 game have been 5 or more goals at this World Cup. a bit defensive maybe, but hardly much time wasting if you spend about less than 30 seconds on a decision. A fair bit amount of the players protesting goes on much longer. Some for 3-5 minutes, and yet after 30 seconds of replay, it would have been solved.

Not asking for foul throw or corner, they are left to the linesmen normally. Only used if team use one of their appeals and they wouldn't use it unless it was for a feeling of injustice during a scored goal. Give the officials some credit, they are not going to bananas and like I said, the instant replays are very clear and straightforward compare to the rugby.

There would always be human error and so a time-limit or a cap on the number of replays would do 95% correct. That is better than having like 70% correct. It wouldn't be out of control. You are getting phobic about it.
There would be plenty to yarn about afterwards.

And who said that instant replays are not adding to the crowd atmosphere? It most certainly do add to the suspense of waiting. It's only an alternation to the thinking but most certainly wouldn't take the football enjoyment out of it.

Almost all cases, the replay is shown a few times to the crowd while the on-field referee looks away from the screen or is talking the protesting players. Are you sure that nothing can be done?? In fact, I fail to see when the replay is shown on the big screen and the neutral crowd can't see the obvious and form an honest opinion by the time the referee deals with the players. A changed in decision can be done before a restart. How many times have we just seen an instant replay and the commentator has made the correct judgement on two replays before we then have the teams restart. The time difference is minimal but the process is significant enough to make the right impact on the game. With the number of balls around the ground, the on-field referee can get a ball in the right place quick enough after a decision. The set up is not much in it.

Some of us are just too long in the tooth and aren't willing to change, thats the feedback that I am getting. With money and pride at stake, is it too much to ask?

You like human error, but I think that NZ could have been in the knockout stage and that is a lot of dole missing.

i think the only technology that should be used is a tracker in the ball that lets of a noise in refs ear when the ball crosses the line.
this will not hold up the game
and cut out the most serious

also replays on anytime an italian goes to ground could be good for the game
sadly unlikely tho

All Whites may not have even been in the world cup if we did have technology. Thats not even a valid argument to what i was saying.

I think AWB makes some good points.

There arent the bodies over the ball as in rugby or league, there is a higher degree of clarity to help in making the decisions. I believe those decisions would be made more quickly than in other sports. It is a very simple thing to see in the replays now whether someone is offside.

You can draw the line for the most serious offences. eg offside, ball crossing the line, fouls in the penalty area.

At the top level of sport you want to get the decisions right. There is so much at stake. Mexico are furious for the offside the other night. And having a goal wrongly concede changes attitudes and the way you play.

Refs dont go upstairs for every decision in other sports, and I doubt they would in football, a lot of goals are clear cut

Some interesting suggestions to turn football into goal fests (not that I agree with all/any of them but food for thought)  Edit: note not my suggestions, saw them in a paper

Video referee - the technology is available. Use it but do not allow captains or coaches to call for the judge - the fourth official. Let the ref decide whether he needs to watch an incident via the fourth official before giving a decision.

Don't reward scoreless draws - The purists might argue that a 0-0 may well be entertaining - usually they're not! No goals should be rewarded with zero points for both sides - equal to a loss.

Four points for a win - Reward the winners with an extra point. Teams will have no choice but for goals and victory.

One point for a score draw - at least were seeing goals in this scenario.

Short corners taken on the edge of the penalty box rather than the standard corner flag - give attacking teams the option of taking a short corner on the edge of the box or a regular corner if the ball does go out within the confines of the penalty box

Kick-option - allow teams to either throw or kick the ball in when the ball goes out of play. Imagine what a switch of play would do by kicking the ball from the touchline - attacking play. No offsides with this scenario.

Sin bin - yellow card offenders must take five minutes off - to the sidelines, keepers included.

More substitutions - currently three players, turn this into five for attacking enterprise.

New time keeper - fourth official keeps the time. Let the ref worry about the game only and not his stop watch.

15 yards distance from free kicks - players to stand 15 yards ( 13.7m) away from the ball for free kicks rather than 10 yards (9m). 

Greater powers for the fourth official - if the ref misses an incident.

Abolish the triple punishment scenario - why send a player off if he commits a foul inside the box if the foul is not violent, yellow card, penalty, goal.

Abolish the half way line - divide the pitch into thirds to make offside calls start from there. This would stretch defences and allow playmakers more room to create and hopeful score more often.

 

hepatitis2010-06-29 21:18:04

Will rate these out of 10. 1 being 'Lets bring Heskey on with 20 to go chasing the game', 10 being Ricki signing Paul Ifill.

I like how hepatitis' 2nd post makes the one he made backing AWB up look silly. Which in turn makes AWB look silly.

Tegal . . .

The foul throw, or who takes the throws and the corners are hardly much of a serious problem unless a team feels strong to make challenge/appeal because it lead to a questionable goal. Again, there is only so much challenges that a team can make in a game. So it is best to use it wisely.

Again, it shouldn't be that much of a deal unless it is an actual serious match breaking incident for an appeal.

Ball goes out for corner. Germany swing the ball in,and score.

That should be under the team challenge system or otherwise later for a retro card system. In which case, the play acting will stop after awhile because there are serious consequences for their action. Very simply really.