Goal line technology

Everyone could see that non-goal first time, let alone using the first replay. 5 seconds to load the replay, 5 seconds to play the replay. 10 seconds thats how long it would have take. With what some people are saying that with the hawke-eye technology, it would be even faster in 0.5 seconds with a beep sound to the referee's headset. However, such a goal from the crossbar does not happen that often enough to worry about slowing the game down.

Also in those replays on TV, you haven't really miss much real time because they would be getting the ball from the ball boy, placing the ball down etc, these things can still happen as they go through the replay. People are just not use to it.

Again, I like to stress that in my view that there is only so much things in a game that replays should be used. How I see it, replays are based on the limited 3 challenges per team and referee's discretion on certain goals/incidents . . . everything else like stimulations, corners, goal kicks and throw-ins shouldn't be replayed. That would be utter nonsense to the flow of the game and frankly time wasting.

Stimulations and incidents should be deal with by a retro card system. This is where, I think that within 24 hours of an international game, the match referee and the other four referees of the same match can go through the taped game together and then retro card players by using yellows and reds to the bad players and the reverse some cards for the innocent players. I don't think having a court and filing cases like NSL on degree type punishment system will cut it in football. It's too slow. Of course, red card incidents will have whatever administration in charge to award how long and what fine it would be and listen to appeals as per normal.

As it is, they have to do a referees' match report and a document can be created for the retro card system to change any cards done during the game and then the administration will pass the retro card to the team by a specific time.

Yes except you're proposing more than just "did the ball cross the line" decisions. In which case itd take longer than 10 seconds most of the time. You said so yourself a few pages back. You also ignore the fact that the game continues on a lot of the time,Lampards goal for example. Tegal2010-07-02 03:42:05

Depends on how obvious the goal is. My point is that not all goals are contentious. Challenges are only useful if there is something contentious and needs a look at now, in the moment. It would take the teams sometime to get use it, but if a team don't use it at the right moment, then we have something to talk about then.

If you are 3 goals down and time is running out then a contentious goal happens, then maybe it is worth challenging it because it may still affect the group table placings by goal difference. Or it may still run a bit of time down because the other team is overrunning you in the game and conceding another goal means you are definitely out according to the current score of the other final game in the group playing at the same time.

However with the low scores at the tournament, it may not be a terrible idea for some teams. But a challenge is useful if you have a good player being carded unjustly and you need to keep him on the field. A stimulation could be found out and the card being awarded the other way. This would stamp out stimulations very quickly because it can backfire if a challenge is used.

Id rather save my challenges in case a contentious goal happened. Also,now you're proposing they can use video replay for things as small as a yellow card awarded. So ref blows a foul,team A goes to take a quick freekick,but no the captain runs over to the ref and talks to him...then says he wants a challenge...then ref talks to vid ref...who then loads up the replay...watches it...talks back to the ref...who then rescinds the yellow card...and awards...a drop ball? Tegal2010-07-02 04:05:16

Read my previous post. Challenges open up a number of other things like simulations being caught out and having it backfired on the player doing simulations. If a goal is not contentious and there is nothing seen by players, it is their decision to make in regards to challenges but by having a limited of three, they would have to consider what they want to challenge. It just may not be for goals only. It could be for fouls unseen or simulations. Offsides or handballs or simulation (especially in the box) would be when the typical challenge used. If nothing is suggested in a goal accordingly to these, then you are selling yourself short by wasting one of the three challenges.

If you waste it on a obvious goal, you may regret it, if you lose your best player on a red card rather than a yellow card and have no challenges left. I think that the captain should the one to decide on the challenges as he can talk to the players on whether it is worth asking for it. Players and people would have to be brutally honest when using the challenges and work as a team.

The fans in football would not be waiting as much as the fans in Rugby League because it is quicker and more clear cut. There are no bodies lying on top of the ball as in the oval ball game. I have discussed this already.

Also, as I have said before, 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 estimated 30 seconds would come from.

Go time the replays after an incident, this is what you will get. [don't do it after an allowed goal been scored because the cameras will follow the players in celebrating the goal for like almost 30 seconds, a non-allowed goal would work out fine in the timing]AllWhitebelievr2010-07-02 19:27:11

There are a number of things that can be wrong with a goal. you would go upstairs for a goal everytime if you had 3 challenges,I guarantee it. A simple tap on the back would have to be given by a video referee,as technically it is a foul,and thatd be the new standard you would expect when using a video system. So of course you would go up just in case. Goals are the most important thing in the game,so you would take the chance of something stupid being wrong with it. And yes,you would also use a challenge for a red card.

Tegal2010-07-02 04:40:17

I didn't say for a yellow card or for any small foul (you only have THREE CHALLENGES!!!) but if a player gets a second yellow/red or if a player is stimulating a dive in the box and you want to reverse a bad decision, then it would be a good time to use it.

You will just find that if the other team knows that you have used up the challenges foolishly and easily, then they will force your hand and then they could mess you up later in the game when you have no challenges left when you may need them. Challenges will keep the other team honest and fair during the whole game.

You assume too much. You assume also that a free quick free kick may result in a goal. Maybe a defending team will slow it by having a challenge used. Might a bit dumb, may not be dumb. But if your player gets send off and you are down my one man, you would look silly for not using the challenge. If the player is honest about his bad actions, it may save a challenge for the team sake.

-->Of course if it stops a quick freekick that may result in a goal to reverse a decision as well as yellow carding the other player for stimulation, then it was a well used challenge.

All we are talk about right now, is tactics over how to use the challenges. Not all teams would do what you are suggesting after every goal. 3 challenges will go quickly if you are not careful, especially if a serious incident happens and you have none left. Then you are relying on the officials discretion. So you just have to know your opponent and the referee team on how you tactically use the challenge.

We are going around in circles and frankly I wonder if you are reading my post carefully and thought it through because I have already answered quite a number of the things.AllWhitebelievr2010-07-02 04:57:35

Teams may, at the beginning of the use of videos replays, use up the three challenges after goals, but they fast be more aware when to use it at crucial times. Limited challenges will be tactically used. Unlimited challenges are nonsense waste of time and I am not suggesting that.

A "simple contact" is not enough to change a decision, but a "significant" contact would be to change a decision. You are being just silly over silly things. You have to trust the video ref and an amendments to the definitions. A referee is still a referee, he wouldn't be silly about the context of the game. But any amendments in how it is further defined, should be in the laws of the game appendix as a guide for the video replay decisions. There should be a difference between "significant" and "insignificant" contacts in regards to video replays. They aren't that stupid.

If you can't wait for 30 seconds for natural justice to occur, then you don't know what it at stake for the players and teams.

Anyway, I need to get some sleep. This is going around and around. . . .AllWhitebelievr2010-07-02 05:15:37

Yes, get some sleep you guys 

AWB, you are going over the top here. Any technology coming in will only be introduced for the least contentious and most simple application initially. There is no way they will introduce anything with as many complications as you are suggesting. Cheers though

You posted the exact same thing a few days ago in the England-Germany thread, were corrected there also, and then went on to post the same thing here again.

That was my gripe.

Natural Justice? Hah. Good one.

The problem is you continue to ignore the evidence from the experiences of other sports on the use of video referees and challenges.

1. It's a fact that video replays will take longer than you suggest - this has nothing to do with 'extra bodies' in rugby/league, but simply the video refs imperative not to get anything wrong given the technology at his disposal. This is the experience from NFL, rugby/league, and cricket. Furthermore, most decisions to make will be complicated - offsides that are possibly level or marginal offsides (think Reid/Villa type situations).

2. The evidence from NFL, which uses the challenge system, is that team WILL use challenges in HOPE that something that went on in a big play against them was illegall if there's even the remotest basis for a challenge. I've followed NFL for a long time, and this happens regularly. If you give teams 3 challengs, they'll get used for any goal scored against them in HOPE that something illegal had happened. Realistically, no team ever has 3 incredibly contentious decisions given against them in any game, so really you'd be stupid to be saving the challenges for something that may never happened if goals - which are the winning and losing of the games - are scored against you. It's called playing the percentages.

May I just add at the end that there is no way, and I mean absolutely no way, that FIFA will ever go down the path you've suggested.el grapadura2010-07-02 10:19:31

I mentioned this earlier and it's a huge issue to me.  If Germany had scored after the Lampard incident and then the ref pulled it back would Germany have their goal taken from them to accomodate the English goal?  The ref could just pause the game then and there but then if it wasn't a goal any opportunity for a German counter-attack would be undone completely as during the replay the English players would re-position themselves.

Also I appreciate FIFA's stance that they want grassroots football to be as much like professional football as possible.

AWB, stimulation and simulation are two very different things.

I have serious concerns for the beautiful game over this whole video referee nonsense.  A very unwise direction in which to go.

I also resent being called a flat-earthed theorist by people who disagree with my view on this.  Not talking to anybody on here, but others I've spoken too about this.  I do find it ironic, though, as most supporters of video technology haven't nearly thought it through and can't see all the negatives associated with it.

EDIT:  Another thing that pisses me off is the argument 'why should the refs not be able to see what millions at home on their couches around the world can see'.  <-- That's not an argument.  That's rubbish.
loyalgunner2010-07-02 11:46:06

Firstly, if you do use it for the first three goal scored, you surely have very little discretion and ignorant of other things in the game Not every goal is appealed as it is. If teams do, then you will find that they get caught out and will have to be circumspect about when to do it. Can you really say that all goals will be challenged? There are plenty of goals where it would be obvious that nothing has happen. If you are hang on to HOPE then you are certainly wasting your challenges and when you need then for contentious decisions by the referee later in the match, you will come up short when you really NEED it. Challenges will keep the match honest.

Of course, I have never said that goals should have never be looked at, but not all goals are contentious. Quite a number of them are straight forward and clear cut. The decision goes back to the team, but they are all not going to use up their challenges for every single goal needlessly. you having a laugh then.

Again, when you watch the next world cup match, timed how long it take for a replay is shown and whether they can form a conclusion immediately, you be surprised how quick the commentators get is right after a quick look. And commentators are not referees. However in a NRL game, the replay is hardly ever conclusive in the first time or second time because it is not clear cut. The closest equilvalent of a replay time in Rugby/NRL would be the foot on the touchline just before a try and not the actual touchdown of the try and not the body hitting the corner post during a try. Otherwise you are comparing Apples with Bananas, they are both fruits but look much different.

Also, three contentious decision against a team in a single match is not realistic? Are you so sure?? Maybe one is used for a goal decision and another used for a foul decision that otherwise would sent your player off for a second yellow. Then having that last challenge will still be useful and keep the other team honest. I can see a team using the first two challenges in easy fashion. When you play this weekend for your team, count how many times you felt that your team have been hard done by from the referees decision. You will find it more than three on a number of occasions.AllWhitebelievr2010-07-02 20:00:47

Check the time of that post with the same post here. They came about the same time and so when you correct it, I doubt that you were correcting it before I posted the second one.

You can carry on griping if you must but I am over it already.

3 day difference...

Interesting. When I say that teams will use challenges in hope rather than in genuine grievance, you say it's bollocks. And now you say the teams would use challenges quite easily. Make up your mind already.

NO that is not what I am saying. I am saying that not all goals are genuine greivance and so it is pointless to use them if there is nothing there. And then there are plenty of other genuine greivance besides goal decisions that the challenges would be use for. Therefore three challenges would be utilised according to the team's point of view and not always for the first three goal decisions since not all goal decisions are contentious.

There is plenty of contentious things besides non-contentious goals that a team would use it for. Keeping the other team honest and allowing fairness is the whole point of having challenges. If something happens after the challenges are used up, you would only having to question aspects about that game whether it is about the other team, your team or the referee team. There was plenty of chances during the challenges to settle down the game and run it fair and proper. A team by using the challenges can make the game worthwhile.

Well, I didn't read it over there so it was an honest mistake. If I have read it and understood it, you think I would carry on when it is quite stated in the laws of the game?

OK I haven't read that sucker for a real long time and a bit fuzzy on it. Again . . . meh.

ok awb. you get 3 challenges right? if you concede 3 goals you are doing something wrong. most of the time you will concede a max of 2,which you WILL contest and still have a challenge left for whatever else. goals are the only form of score in the game,the most effective way to use a challenge therefore is to use it on every goal. even if it is clearcut,video refs have been known to have shockers too,you are making out as if theyre perfect,but evidence from any other sports suggests otherwise. as for speed,you are disregarding league as being a different game etc,but even straight forward decisions there take a long time,its not as simple as you suggest as the ref wants to be 100% sure. you also ignore a much simpler game,cricket. the decisions in cricket are always easily viewable,especially with the great technology they have available. yet vid umpires have slowed the game down so much that its painful. so you cannot say easily viewable = fast as this clearly isnt true either. theres a lot of evidence you keep ignoring..

Whatever. Of course the most important use of the challenge is when a goal is used because that is the statistics that matters at the end of the day. In a close game where one goal is in it, of course it would be silly not to use the challenge. I am not denying that teams won't use it for goal decisions. What I am saying is that it depends on how the goal is made and how the game itself is going and that is not necessary means the team would be using it for goals. Some goals are very clear cut. Even you can't deny that. Besides, three challenges are not going to be as long as you are making it out to be. There are enough contentious things, but only a few of these will be 50/50 calls which may take a bit longer but a refer back system to stop after three replays or after 30 seconds will stop the potential time loss.

I didn't want to touch on cricket until now, because there was so much things to cover before then anyway. So I am not ignoring it, it is just too much to talk about before getting there.

As for cricket, you say it is straight forward, yes it most cases it is. LBWs are not straight forward, but most run outs, nick behinds and close catches off the turf are very simple and clear. This is were you can compare with football in these cases. However football is even more straight forward than that, a sizable ball and limbs moving from more camera angles in a football match is easily seen than the usual camera line that you see the cricket bat and small ball. It is more multidimensional in football because of it's nature. Cricket is more line and length stuff but football is more round and about stuff. The high quality of the TV coverage at the World Cup Football far out weights the Cricket coverage nowadays that it has come very possible to see and get a decision quickly.

Is like comparing apples with oranges, they are both fruit and are also round, but one is bigger and orange and the other is not orange and smaller. It is of course, much better than comparing apples with bananas.

I would say you are right that video referees may have a hard job on some replays, but then like I have said, after a few replays of 50/50s, then it would be referred back to the on-field ref to decide. That way it would not be a fault to be human and everyone can see that. 50/50s replays does not happen that often as it did a few World Cups ago, everyone got better with the TV coverage with the new angles. Not a big issue as you make out it to be.

And refs do know that they can't be 100% right even with video replays. But they would use the tools available to make an informed decision that would be seen as a fairer process that you could be made being on the spot. Hopefully, it would allow us to be more sympathetic to the officials/referees and so it would not be heavy on their shoulders. I hating seeing the blame falling on the referees because they are the one which are caught in the crossfire. And we all know they are human but we still play the blame game unfairly.

Anyway, this is getting a tiresome.

Probably many times. But none of it would be worth challenging as they wouldnt even be close to being game changing. Only goals are game changing (for obvious reason). And yes,perhaps the rare occasion a player is sent off unfairly.

Hey, goals are worth making challenges for, but like I said, sometimes it is not always the case. When you play tomorrow have a think over some of the goals being scored, there will clear cut goals. I don't understand why people keep insisting that all goals are contentious. That silly. I can learn to appreciate that the opposition have score a great goal and that there is nothing that can be done, it would be a waste of a challenge if you get your head in the right space.

To be honest, I would probably be the worse person if it comes with challenges. As a captain, I have time wasted the referee decision and argue a number of decisions during a game to make my team look better, but even I know when a battle is lost before it started. I learnt to pick my battles well so that I could win more. And I find that it works that way much better because the referee ends up knowing that I am an honest player and captain and so I get my way in number of occasions. So trust me, you have to work with the system not under it.AllWhitebelievr2010-07-03 01:15:16

Id pick my battles with contesting all goals against my side (there would be a maximum of 2 you would hope),just in case something was wrong with it,or if the video referee finds something stupid wrong with it. Anything else would be a waste.

I'd expect AWB to be to feel let down about referees not calling offsides at Goal Kicks ;)

http://www.3news.co.nz/Goal-line-technology-on-October-agenda---FIFA/tabid/415/articleID/166584/Default.aspx

The use of goal-line video technology remains on FIFA's agenda for October after soccer's governing body confirmed that its rule-making panel will not discuss the issue at its meeting this week.

The International Football Association Board meets in Cardiff, Wales, on Wednesday but FIFA says "the only point on the agenda" is the continuing experiment with extra assistant referees behind the goals.

The video system was tested in last season's Europa League.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said last month that IFAB would look at goal-line technology this week following his apology to England and Mexico for the officiating errors that helped eliminate them from the World Cup.

He then said on July 8 that the matter would be on the agenda in October.

The article quoting the statement "The video system was tested in last season's Europa League." is not true. I understand that last season's Europa League used additional assistant referees behind the goal line and have not used any video system.

yeah i think that was an error,based on what the sentence before it says. "the only item on the agenda is the continuation of the extra assistants experiments. this system was trialled in last seasons europa league"

The 5 official system will be used in this season's Champions League.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=809632&sec=uefachampionsleague&cc=3436

Is the CL really the place to test? Will be very interesting to see the any change in player mentality.

It was tested already in the Europe League last season, and obviosuly the results were satsifying enough to proceed with the system in the Champions League.

I've also heard rumours that if the system doesn't badly backfire over the next 2-3 seasons, it will also be used at the 2014 World Cup.

[QUOTE=el grapadura]The 5 official system will be used in this season's Champions League.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=809632&sec=uefachampionsleague&cc=3436[/QUOTE] wolfman2010-07-23 13:24:53

How do you use the camera ?

The German keeper takes the ball and plays on, what happens if Germany go to the other end and score then the video ref says hang on, that was a goal at the other end. 

Do you  roll it all the way back ?  The ref never looked like stopping play in that instance to review it.

wolfman2010-07-22 18:58:00

The goal-line ARs are there to provide two extra sets of eyes to help the referee officiate the game. So their role is to police the situation in the penalty box (especially on set-pieces) for any infringements that may be difficult for the ref to see, and in goal-line situations.

Like I said, this was trialled in the Europa League last season, and there's obviously confidence that the system is robust enough to proceed with in the Champions League.el grapadura2010-07-22 21:29:34

Fair enough then.