Page 2 of 2


Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:35 am
by Scottish
Goal-line technology is, IMO, a must and should have been brought in years ago. If it can be determined whether or not a tennis ball has or hasn't crossed a white line, or a cricket ball has finely edged a bat then surely it can be done for a much larger football travelling at a much lower speed than either of those sports?

Yes, the potential is there for abuse. That's why in sports like cricket and tennis the number of appeals is limited per match. For rugby what I was referring to is that referee's mikes means decisions are heard instantly by the players and are usually audible to the crowd too.

Managers is taking it too far. A decision on appeals should be made by the referee himself or the on-field captain. But the ridiculous sendings-off we have seen in recent weeks only serves to convince me further that when the whole world can see a blatant injustice, we shouldn't be turning a blind eye to it.

As they used to say in the 'Six Million Dollar Man' "we have the technology, we can rebuild." Not that six million dollars would get you much these days.


Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:56 pm
by HibeeJibee
I only watch Six Nations and a bit of international rugby league, but in my view they demonstrate why video replays would be bad for football. Referees use them almost every score, so the buck passes to someone else should a mistake be made, so the play gets held-up all the time.

You also witness ridiculous cases of minute, tenth-speed analysis of the exact bobbling of a ball as it was grounded - "is that knock on?" "was he in control for that millisecond?" - when viewed at full-speed it's a try and has been for 100yrs.

And at least cricket, tennis and rugby are all set-piece sports - video referrals only happen when play has stopped. In football you'd have to actively stop play.

And in cricket, tennis and (in almost every instance) rugby the decisions being adjudicated are ones of fact - was that in or out; did that touch the bat or not or would its trajectory have carried it through to the wicket or not; did he ground that ball or was that pass forward. In football the controversial decisions are almost always of what we could call a "subjective" nature - was he interfering with play or not, was that contact enough to be a foul or not, was that ball to hand or hand to ball, and so forth.

I have no objection to technology being used for the adjudication of fact in an instantaneous manner - we replaced tape with crossbars, added goalnets, gave watches to referees, and now (where leagues can afford it) have goal-line technology. I suppose you could probably rig-up some extensions of the latter for deciding if the ball went out of play for corner/throw-in/and so on.


Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:45 pm
by Scottish
Play stops in football for the most controversial decisions - sendings-off, over the line if the goal is given etc. Yes, if a ref says the ball hasn't crossed the line then play doesn't stop but nor does it when advantage is played but is often called back for a free kick if the advantage breaks down.

Something like a third of all playing time is lost anyway and is it any worse to lose a few seconds to get a decision right than it is to lose it to keepers fannying about clearing a ball late on in the game when their team's ahead or those ridiculously long substitutions we have to endure?