Goalline Tech Snubbed

leninbenjamin

Seems to be just breaking. The IFAB (crowd who makes the rules) meeting has just ended and they've ruled out the use of any new technology in football. Puts and end to the discussion for another few years at least.

The International Football Association Board has announced that goalline technology will not be pursued in the near future.

"It is an end to the potential use of technology within football," Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke told reporters after a meeting of the IFAB.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/8553463.stm

I cannot for the life of me understand why goal line tech of all the possibilities is a bad thing. Have FIFA or Blatter ever given a plausible reason why it should not be explored?

_blank_

Did you see tha Brun non-goal in the match that's ongoing at the moment.

It probably happened at about the time you were thinking of writing that post.

Tusky

I dont understand this. Players, managers, fans and journalists are pretty much ALL in favor of this. Football is the biggest sport in the world, yet its lagging terribly behind in this regard. I really dont understand the resistance.

Birmingham scored against Portsmouth a few minutes ago and the reply showed that the ball was clearly across the line, but it wasnt given. This kind of thing happens every week.

Just checked the calender to see it wasn't April 1st.

everdead.ie

In the proffessional game this shouldn't be up for debate

Columbia

Inexplicable. Love how Birmingham weren't given that goal about 10 minutes later, what an absolutely shocking decision by the governing bodies. Beyond a joke at this point.

leninbenjamin

The sceptic in me thinks it's the SFA and IFA blocking this, just so they can hold onto whatever shred of influence they have left in the game.

All this points to how retarded an institution the IFAB is imo more than anything. Why the **** Wales, NI, Scotland and England should have any say in this over all other associations is beyond me. Replace them with FIFPro and LMA representatives imo.

everdead.ie

leninbenjamin wrote: »

The sceptic in me thinks it's the SFA and IFA blocking this, just so they can hold onto whatever shred of influence they have left in the game.

All this points to how retarded an institution the IFAB is imo more than anything. Why the **** Wales, NI, Scotland and England should have any say in this over all other associations is beyond me. Replace them with FIFPro and LMA representatives imo.

There had to be a third association which was against it too it has to have 6 votes to pass a new law FIFA has 4 votes and the others 1 each

missingtime

Not one bit surprised to be honest. Keeps people talking about soccer imo.

They need the controversy of a handball leading to a goal or the "did it go over the line or not" senario. This keeps soccer at the forefront of media coverage.

If everything is covered by technology what would we bitch about?

NTMK

While i dont agree Goalline tech is the way to go (i believe a TMO should be brought in to help the ref) this is a ridiculous decision imo

dr.bollocko

The Football Association and Scottish Football Association had both voted in favour of further experiments.

FA chief executive Ian Watmore was outvoted after the Irish FA and Welsh FA voted in line with Fifa.

From that article.
WTF?

CHD

Thats it Blatter, concentrate on the important stuff like getting rid of the offside rule.

gimp.

flahavaj

You'd think the FAI would want to troll Blatter as much as possible.:pac:

JerryHandbag

Daft....and I dont really think the possibility of 2 extra goal-line officials will help matters, I mean to see if a ball has crossed the line or not wouldn't they have to practically be standing on the field of play, level with the goalposts?? Cant imagine standing behind the goals will give them any better viewpoint.

leninbenjamin

This is what pisses me off the most though:

Explaining his opposition to technology, Jonathan Ford, chief executive of the Football Association of Wales, said: "I was worried that you would end up with a stop-start situation where you review all decisions and I don't see that as part of the game."

Wtf does his personal opinion have to do with anything? Surely he should be obliged to return to the association and its members and gauge their opinion before casting a vote. That the entire rules of a game that is played by tens of thousands of professionals and millions of amateurs around the world are determined by the personal opinion of a few small minded ***** in power seems very very wrong to me.

dr.bollocko

Why in the hell would the FAI vote in line with FIFA and against goal line tech after what happened? How could they actually do that? The whole bloody country is raw after what happened and it's not going to go away until after the world cup is over and they just vote in line with FIFA. Bunch of old men scared of what they don't understand IMO.

Minstrel27

I am sure that it was the Norths Football Association that voted with FIFA

dr.bollocko

Oh I see.
OK I'll put my pitchfork down for now.

leninbenjamin

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Why in the hell would the FAI vote in line with FIFA and against goal line tech after what happened? How could they actually do that? The whole bloody country is raw after what happened and it's not going to go away until after the world cup is over and they just vote in line with FIFA. Bunch of old men scared of what they don't understand IMO.

Yeah, it's the IFA. The FAI are the breakaway association afterall, we weren't invited to the party. Too 'independent' :pac:

_blank_

flahavaj wrote: »

You'd think the FAI would want to troll Blatter as much as possible.:pac:

The FAI aren't in IFAB

It's England, Wales, Scotland and NI

God help us if Delaney actually was on the IFAB

GLaDOS

JerryHandbag wrote: »

Daft....and I dont really think the possibility of 2 extra goal-line officials will help matters, I mean to see if a ball has crossed the line or not wouldn't they have to practically be standing on the field of play, level with the goalposts?? Cant imagine standing behind the goals will give them any better viewpoint.

They don't just stand behind the goal, they move around and can even go on the pitch

Le King

Not surprised. FIFA get nothing done.

Brien

The FAI would probably vote against it too, not enough money to put a few cent worth of microchip into all the balls :P


seriously, its a good idea to use whatever means to make a RIGHT decision. who cares if it takes a whole 4 seconds to review something.

CSF

Chuffed with this, and I think most regular matchgoers will be too. All well and good for those watching tv who have the benefit of commentators analysis, and numerous replays to keep them occupied, but would ruin football as a spectacle for its biggest supporters.

JerryHandbag

ScienceNerd wrote: »

They don't just stand behind the goal, they move around and can even go on the pitch

Ah I see....they'll just get in the way and get clobbered by someone!!

sneakyST

leninbenjamin wrote: »

This is what pisses me off the most though:



Wtf does his personal opinion have to do with anything? Surely he should be obliged to return to the association and its members and gauge their opinion before casting a vote. That the entire rules of a game that is played by tens of thousands of professionals and millions of amateurs around the world are determined by the personal opinion of a few small minded ***** in power seems very very wrong to me.

Well thats the thing Lenin, if they did introduce goal line technology, it would only be for the elite, all those amatuer games wouldnt benefit. How would it? I was at a seminar this week and it was stated the Premier League looked at the costs of introducing goal line tech and the costs of the goalposts alone was £100,000. Sure Premiership teams could pay for that, Coca Cola, maybe, League 1, no etc. So then you would have the issue of the game not being consistent at all levels, and thats what football stands for I believe, that you go can to a field with 21 of your mates and play the same game as those millionaires in the Premier league.......
Technology will come and it is used in football (better comms between officials for example), video refs may be an option, but you are still going to rely on the referee stopping the game for a second opinion, and you dont see a referee consult the assistants too often at the moment, once the decision is made, its made.
A referral system has been mentioned like in the NFL, how much would that interupt the game, and then would the TV companies introduce ad breaks while a decision was being reviewed.
There is a bigger picture there other then just blindly saying yes to a major change in the LOTG.

leninbenjamin

sneakyST wrote: »

Well thats the thing Lenin, if they did introduce goal line technology, it would only be for the elite, all those amatuer games wouldnt benefit. How would it? I was at a seminar this week and it was stated the Premier League looked at the costs of introducing goal line tech and the costs of the goalposts alone was £100,000. Sure Premiership teams could pay for that, Coca Cola, maybe, League 1, no etc. So then you would have the issue of the game not being consistent at all levels, and thats what football stands for I believe, that you go can to a field with 21 of your mates and play the same game as those millionaires in the Premier league.......
Technology will come and it is used in football (better comms between officials for example), video refs may be an option, but you are still going to rely on the referee stopping the game for a second opinion, and you dont see a referee consult the assistants too often at the moment, once the decision is made, its made.
A referral system has been mentioned like in the NFL, how much would that interupt the game, and then would the TV companies introduce ad breaks while a decision was being reviewed.
There is a bigger picture there other then just blindly saying yes to a major change in the LOTG.

Goal line technology is not the same as video replays. A buzzer sounds if the ball is triangulated over the goal line or not. It's pretty basic stuff tbh, I don't buy the 100,000 line. Any engineering dept. could probably do it for half nothing, it's essentially triangulating a radio frequency. Could probably do it with three Pringles' cans if you wanted.

Secondly, when I play 11 a side with my mates we're lucky to have a ref. I've only played a handful of matches with proper assistant referee's and they've all been in major finals. No one gripes though because that's the level that we are at. If I'm denied a goal it makes sweet **** all difference to my daily life because I'm just playing for fun, my livelihood doesn't depend on it.

Think about it, what about Frisk or Orvebo? Is it acceptable to risk them receiving death threats because "the spirit of the game" must be preserved? Professional football clubs at the highest level employ hundreds of people, the tea lady, the kit man, the secretary's Christmas bonus may depend on them doing well in a competition. Certain individuals' jobs may even depend on it, like the auxiliary coaching and medical staff. What if it comes down to a single decision? Would you be happy if you're paycheck was substantially lower because of easily preventable human error?

You're arguments have merit, but there's an even bigger picture here than the one you paint.

murpho999

CSF wrote: »

Chuffed with this, and I think most regular matchgoers will be too. All well and good for those watching tv who have the benefit of commentators analysis, and numerous replays to keep them occupied, but would ruin football as a spectacle for its biggest supporters.

Oh, yes, because you when you look at Rubgy and see how the use of the TMO taking one minute to judge if a try was legit or not has really ruined the sport as a spectacle and has not added to the crowd's excitement at all!

A Primal Nut

leninbenjamin wrote: »

This is what pisses me off the most though:



Wtf does his personal opinion have to do with anything? Surely he should be obliged to return to the association and its members and gauge their opinion before casting a vote. That the entire rules of a game that is played by tens of thousands of professionals and millions of amateurs around the world are determined by the personal opinion of a few small minded ***** in power seems very very wrong to me.

Thats an incredible quote alright. And shows that one of the guys voting doesn't understand what he's voting on. The whole point of this goalline technology is tha the game doesn't stop unless the ball crosses the line, in which case it beeps in the referees ear.

sneakyST

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Goal line technology is not the same as video replays. A buzzer sounds if the ball is triangulated over the goal line or not. It's pretty basic stuff tbh, I don't buy the 100,000 line. Any engineering dept. could probably do it for half nothing, it's essentially triangulating a radio frequency. Could probably do it with three Pringles' cans if you wanted

I know the difference between the two thank you......

See this article.....http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2274405.ece

Secondly, when I play 11 a side with my mates we're lucky to have a ref. I've only played a handful of matches with proper assistant referee's and they've all been in major finals. No one gripes though because that's the level that we are at. If I'm denied a goal it makes sweet **** all difference to my daily life because I'm just playing for fun, my livelihood doesn't depend on it.

Ha! I'm, there would be a lot more referees if that were true......

Think about it, what about Frisk or Orvebo? Is it acceptable to risk them receiving death threats because "the spirit of the game" must be preserved? Professional football clubs at the highest level employ hundreds of people, the tea lady, the kit man, the secretary's Christmas bonus may depend on them doing well in a competition. Certain individuals' jobs may even depend on it, like the auxiliary coaching and medical staff. What if it comes down to a single decision? Would you be happy if you're paycheck was substantially lower because of easily preventable human error?

You're arguments have merit, but there's an even bigger picture here than the one you paint.

I'm all too aware of the consequences of incorrect decisions, and I never said technology was a bad thing, but all this jumping up and down by everyone in the media is just ridiculous. I dont think anybodys lively hood has been affected too badly by a non-goal or reverse being given.

OhNoYouDidn't

What people are missing out on here is that the whole point of football is that from kids in the park to the world cup, the same rules of the game apply. Where do you stop putting this technology in, and more importantly, who is going to pay for it?

Refereeing error is part and parcel of the game. Deal with it. FIFA are trying to strenghen the role of the referee, not take away from it, so if anyone is surprised by this, they haven't a clue about the political dynamics of football.

OhNoYouDidn't

Brien wrote: »

The FAI would probably vote against it too, not enough money to put a few cent worth of microchip into all the balls :P
.

I know you are joking, but who exactly would pay for Monaghan United to set this technology up?

keane2097

I don't see the merit to this idea that the game needs to be the same across all levels.

Imagine only United, Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal had the money to implement the required technology to ensure that every decision in their grounds was correctly made.

This would mean that in 76 EPL games a year (19 at each ground) were perfectly refereed with every decision a correct one.

How is this impacted or made less desireable by the possibility of incorrect decisions at other grounds?

Are the fcuk ups made at Anfield somehow made worse by the fact that all the correct decisions were made at Stamford Bridge?

Makes no sense imo.

OhNoYouDidn't

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't see the merit to this idea that the game needs to be the same across all levels.

Imagine only United, Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal had the money to implement the required technology to ensure that every decision in their grounds was correctly made.

This would mean that in 76 EPL games a year (19 at each ground) were perfectly refereed with every decision a correct one.

How is this impacted or made less desireable by the possibility of incorrect decisions at other grounds?

Are the fcuk ups made at Anfield somehow made worse by the fact that all the correct decisions were made at Stamford Bridge?

Makes no sense imo.

Come on, don't be dense. You have to have the same rules across all games in any competition or league. Thats not even up for debate.

What FIFA are saying is that you have to have the same rules across all competitions and leagues and obviously its impractical to have this technology across the board, even in professional football. It was never a runner.

keane2097

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Come on, don't be dense. You have to have the same rules across all games in any competition or league. Thats not even up for debate.

What FIFA are saying is that you have to have the same rules across all competitions and leagues and obviously its impractical to have this technology across the board, even in professional football. It was never a runner.

This is patently incorrect for a number of reasons.

The obvious comparison is with rugby union, where at some levels of the game video technology is applied very effectively to ensure correct decisions are made as regularly as possible.

Junior cup games don't have video refs, but to suggest that this somehow makes getting correct decisions at 6 nations level a bad idea is fairly "dense" itself.

OhNoYouDidn't

keane2097 wrote: »

This is patently incorrect for a number of reasons.

The obvious comparison is with rugby union, where at some levels of the game video technology is applied very effectively to ensure correct decisions are made as regularly as possible.

Junior cup games don't have video refs, but to suggest that this somehow makes getting correct decisions at 6 nations level a bad idea is fairly "dense" itself.

Whats dense is to suggest that France, Italy and Ireland don't have to utilise this technology while Scotland, Wales and England do, which was what you suggested with the English Premier Division.

But there is a fundamental difference between rugby and football's cultures. Rugby the rules are not the same at all levels. Contact scrums are introduced at teenage level for example. And as you say, video replays in some competitions and not others. Football is different as the rules are the rules across the board, and its simplicity is why more people play it than any other sport on earth. FIFA will be loathe to introducing a rule just at certain leagues and competitions at the top. That and they are trying to strengthen the referees role.

keane2097

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Whats dense is to suggest that France, Italy and Ireland don't have to utilise this technology while Scotland, Wales and England do, which was what you suggested with the English Premier Division.

The point I'm making is that even if only certain levels of competition are seen as important enough to include this technology, the fact that decisions are being made incorrectly at lower leveles is a retarded argument against ensuring that correct decisions are made at the top level.

How does it benefit the game, the competition, the teams or anyone else to ensure that the same level of incompetance is kept at all levels?

If we have an oppurtunity to increase the compentency of decision making at any level why should it not be done?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But there is a fundamental difference between rugby and football's cultures. Rugby the rules are not the same at all levels. Contact scrums are introduced at teenage level for example.

This is a joke of an attempt at dismissing the rugby example.

Sure in under age and even senior soccer at many levels there are no linesmen, no fourth officials, no technical areas and any number of tiny irrelevant differences.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And as you say, video replays in some competitions and not others. Football is different as the rules are the rules across the board, and its simplicity is why more people play it than any other sport on earth.

This is nonsense as well. The fact that the Champions League and the League Cup have the same rules is why people play soccer and video technology in the Champions League would mean less people playing the game :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

FIFA will be loathe to introducing a rule just at certain leagues and competitions at the top. That and they are trying to strengthen the referees role.

What better way of strengthening the refs role than giving him the ways and means to ensure he's making the biggest decisions correctly?

OhNoYouDidn't

keane2097 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that even if only certain levels of competition are seen as important enough to include this technology, the fact that decisions are being made incorrectly at lower leveles is a retarded argument against ensuring that correct decisions are made at the top level.

Retarded? What a charmer you are.

The point, as is very simple, is that FIFA are loath to introduce rules that are only implemented at some levels and not others. That is an antathema to the idea of football and its core simplicity. Is this too complicated for you?

keane2097 wrote: »

How does it benefit the game, the competition, the teams or anyone else to ensure that the same level of incompetance is kept at all levels?

Consistancy. One set of rules for every footballer, at every level, in every country.

keane2097 wrote: »

If we have an oppurtunity to increase the compentency of decision making at any level why should it not be done?

Consistancy. One set of rules for every footballer, at every level, in every country.

keane2097 wrote: »

This is a joke of an attempt at dismissing the rugby example.

Sure in under age and even senior soccer at many levels there are no linesmen, no fourth officials, no technical areas and any number of tiny irrelevant differences.

But that is not a rules issue, its one of resources. In this case you would be changing the core rules of the game and taking key decisions out of the referees hands - there is a difference.

keane2097 wrote: »

This is nonsense as well. The fact that the Champions League and the League Cup have the same rules is why people play soccer and video technology in the Champions League would mean less people playing the game :rolleyes:

No, it would mean two fundamental principals of football being thrown out the window. One, that the rules are the same across the board and two, that the referee is the ultimate arbitrator of the games.

keane2097 wrote: »

What better way of strengthening the refs role than giving him the ways and means to ensure he's making the biggest decisions correctly?

But he wouldn't be, thats the bloody point! It would be a fifth official with a veto

keane2097

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Retarded? What a charmer you are.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Come on, don't be dense.

:rolleyes:

Don't be so precious.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The point, as is very simple, is that FIFA are loath to introduce rules that are only implemented at some levels and not others. That is an antathema to the idea of football and its core simplicity. Is this too complicated for you?

It's not complicated in the slightest.

It's just stupid, short-sighted, anti-progress and without any benefit to anyone in and of itself.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Consistancy. One set of rules for every footballer, at every level, in every country.

This, again, is just stupid. It's also out of step with reality.

As previously mentioned you have extra officials at many levels, different interpretations of rules in different competitions ("you don't get away with those sorts of tackles in Europe") etc.

You also fail to point out why exactly this stance would have any merit even if it were based in reality, which it isn't.

At different levels of competition, with different resources, different playing standards, different stakes etc. you're philosophy isn't necessarily desireable just because you froth it out repetitively.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But that is not a rules issue, its one of resources. In this case you would be changing the core rules of the game and taking key decisions out of the referees hands - there is a difference.

This is nonsense.

Youare not changing the rules. You are simply affording the officials an oppurtunity to clarify whether or not they have applied the existing rules correctly.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, it would mean two fundamental principals of football being thrown out the window. One, that the rules are the same across the board and two, that the referee is the ultimate arbitrator of the games.

Where have you pulled these so-called "fundamental principals" (I assume you mean principles) out of?

The one about the rules is wishy-washy at best, with many rules applied differently in different leagues, different competitions etc and varying levels of officiation at lower league levels.

The second one is also a bit meh, since video evidence is regularly used in the aftermath of games to punish players for incidents not dealt with during the game (Rio Ferdinand recently for example).

I assume wherever you're from they have cameras at Sunday League grounds so if I elbow you into the mouth and the ref misses it the FA can check the video and ban me after in accordance with the unimpeachable First Principal (sic) of Football.

So basically, your arguments just don't stack up in any real sense imo.

28064212

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But he wouldn't be, thats the bloody point! It would be a fifth official with a veto

So you don't realise that this thread is about goal-line technology? It's an opportunity for FIFA to completely remove error from whether the ball went over the goal-line or not. There's no shades of grey here, it becomes absolutely black-and-white

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, it would mean two fundamental principals of football being thrown out the window. One, that the rules are the same across the board and two, that the referee is the ultimate arbitrator of the games.

The rules are the same across the board regardless, all that changes is how accurate the ref can be. Rule: "If the ball crosses the goal-line, it's a goal". The rule isn't "if the referee sees the ball cross the line, it's a goal". Having the technology means that the referee can apply the rules more accurately

And the argument of "one set of rules for every footballer" is complete horse-****, even if you're just talking about competitive football. I play in an amateur FAI-affiliated league, and we don't have linesmen. Should we dump them from the World Cup so? How can you say it's "not a rules issue, its one of resources", since the exact same would be true if the technology was brought in?

Mitch Connor

In tennis you only get certain courts where hawkeye is available. If you are on one of those courts then great, if not the umpire's decision stands.

Really, I don't think there is a good argument for no goal line tech at the highest level. the money is there to do it.

Fratton Fred

I see it like this. Over a season, most dodgy decisions cancel themselves out, but what this does is take out one of the variables.

If a team has a goal incorrectly ruled out for offside, the defending side then take free kick and score, but the ball may or may not have crossed the line, but the ref isn't going to give it until the posts light up, surely the team that just had the goal ruled out are going to feel highly miffed?

Pressure then gets applied to have sensors on the line looking for offside, or a handball or a shove in the penalty area next thing you know, therer are 50 cameras at each ground and the game is stopping every 5 minutes.

Pro. F

Totally agree with the argument for goal-line technology (also for video refs but that's another thread). It's not changing the consistency of the rules and moreover is no different from the current situation with varying numbers of officials at different levels of the game.

Also, lol at the make up of the IFAB. From what I can tell the IFA has the same amount of influence over these rulings as the whole of South America... yeah really democratic game this football :rolleyes:

keane2097

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I see it like this. Over a season, most dodgy decisions cancel themselves out, but what this does is take out one of the variables.

What's your source for this?

This is just another platitude that's reapeatedly rolled out with absolutely no evidence as a barrier to progress imo.

Mitch Connor

Pro. F wrote: »

Totally agree with the argument for goal-line technology (also for video refs but that's another thread). It's not changing the consistency of the rules and moreover is no different from the current situation with varying numbers of officials at different levels of the game.

Also, lol at the make up of the IFAB. From what I can tell the IFA has the same amount of influence over these rulings as the whole of South America... yeah really democratic game this football :rolleyes:

south america has no influence on it, does it? unless you mean as part of Fifa?

sneakyST

Well I still think nobody as put forward an argument to counter act the cost factor.

What would happen when teams in the Premier League with goal line technology get relegated, or a team gets promoted who couldnt afford the technology? You then have an unbalanced competition, and potentially a can of worms if an incident occured at a ground where there was none. You are immediately putting less financially well off clubs at a disadvantage.

You couldnt impose the technology on Cocal Cola champs league sides as then the problem filters down the leagues.

28064212

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I see it like this. Over a season, most dodgy decisions cancel themselves out, but what this does is take out one of the variables.

If a team has a goal incorrectly ruled out for offside, the defending side then take free kick and score, but the ball may or may not have crossed the line, but the ref isn't going to give it until the posts light up, surely the team that just had the goal ruled out are going to feel highly miffed?

Pressure then gets applied to have sensors on the line looking for offside, or a handball or a shove in the penalty area next thing you know, therer are 50 cameras at each ground and the game is stopping every 5 minutes.

By that criteria, the rules should never be changed, ever, since it would upset this delicate balance of bad decisions cancelling each other out. Your secondary argument is that it inevitably leads to every decision going to a video ref? I hope you can see how absurd that is. And the game stops every 5 minutes as it is. How long does it take the players to stop arguing after a contentious decision?

Besides, since dodgy decisions cancel themselves out, the team that had a correct decision 'go against them' (and what a ridiculous concept that is) just has to wait until an equal decision goes the other way in another game

keane2097

sneakyST wrote: »

What would happen when teams in the Premier League with goal line technology get relegated, or a team gets promoted who couldnt afford the technology? You then have an unbalanced competition, and potentially a can of worms if an incident occured at a ground where there was none. You are immediately putting less financially well off clubs at a disadvantage.

Explain this further please?

28064212

sneakyST wrote: »

Well I still think nobody as put forward an argument to counter act the cost factor.

What would happen when teams in the Premier League with goal line technology get relegated, or a team gets promoted who couldnt afford the technology? You then have an unbalanced competition, and potentially a can of worms if an incident occured at a ground where there was none. You are immediately putting less financially well off clubs at a disadvantage.

You couldnt impose the technology on Cocal Cola champs league sides as then the problem filters down the leagues.

What happens if a club is promoted that doesn't meet the Ground requirements set by the leagues (e.g. Premier League stadiums must be all-seater)? Same that happens now, they either upgrade or they don't get in.

Equally, the rules are the same within a league, and they're set by the league. Just because Manchester United has the technology installed, it doesn't mean they get to use it without the league's say so. If you're relegated to the Championship, you don't get to play by the Premier League's rules

GSPfan

Scenario time

Without goal line technology
Scenario A. The ball crosses the line and the referee gives a goal.
Scenario B. The ball crosses the line and the referee doesn't give a goal.
(Time taken for both scenario's - Instant decision)

With goal line technology
Scenario A. The ball crosses the line and the referee gives a goal regardless of whether he or she believes it did.
(Time taken for this scenario - Instant decision)

With touchline assistants
Scenario A. The ball crosses the line and the referee and assistant agree and give a goal.
Scenario B. The ball crosses the line and either the referee or assistant believe it hasn't.
(Time taken for scenario A - Instant decision)
(Time taken for scenario B - **** knows?????)


Now how does goal line technology hinder the game in any way?

sneakyST

28064212 wrote: »

What happens if a club is promoted that doesn't meet the Ground requirements set by the leagues (e.g. Premier League stadiums must be all-seater)? Same that happens now, they either upgrade or they don't get in.

Equally, the rules are the same within a league, and they're set by the league. Just because Manchester United has the technology installed, it doesn't mean they get to use it without the league's say so. If you're relegated to the Championship, you don't get to play by the Premier League's rules

Yes but upgrading your stadia can have financial returns. Go talk to a club chariman and see if he wants to spend quater of a million on a technology that may be useless to him next season as they have been relegated. You'd need rocks in your head to have that kind of proposal in front of a football club.

keane2097 wrote: »

Explain this further please?

As above keane, you are putting extra financial burden on lower clubs when the money could be used in transfers or stadium upgrades. That in itself creates an unbalanced competition compared to the clubs who can have both. By forcing a club to buy into this resticts them in other ways even more.

I think people are missing the fact that its not only a sporting decision but a far more reaching one that it appears to be.

Also, you have to ask yourself - why is this technology needed in tennis and rugby - because there are more ball in/out , try/no try incidents in these games than there is in football. Plus didnt Hawkeye get itself in a muddle a few times last Wimbledon?