Goalline Tech Snubbed

leninbenjamin

sneakyST wrote: »

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.

Well, it doesn't have to be implemented in such a way that the burden is on individual clubs. The way I see it it's implemented on a competition by competition basis. I.e. the league as an entity decides whether the investment is worth it and if so purchases out of the TV/Prize money pot. Then lease them out to the member clubs for a nominal fee or something like that. Perhaps idealistic to think it might happen that way, but it certainly possible to implement such technology in a fairly egalitarian manner. For example, it seems almost all 20 Premier League clubs are in favour of goal-line tech so it could be easily implemented at the competition level and not the club level.

sneakyST wrote: »

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?

Hawkeye is computer vision, still very much an experimental area in computer science. Different ball game to what's been discussed for football. It triangulates the position of the objects from a range of different cameras and attempts to construct a 3D digital representation to assist in decision making. The problems are inevitable depending on the sophistication of the algorithms to make sense of the images, error in numerical estimations and of course the loss of data in the analogue domain (i.e. motion blur). Other than initial enquiries, nobody has ever seriously tried to champion Hawkeye for Soccer to my knowledge because it is a system that would not scale particularly well (yet, anyway). I don't think it has even been fully trialled?

Goal line technology is potentially a much simpler system really. Based more on magnetic fields, electrical signals or RFID chips. It would be much easier to implement at least and cheaper to manufacture. I don't think it's half as experimental or subject to controversy as systems like Hawkeye (athough it's actually hard to get concrete info on what has been proposed, FIFA seemed to have nuked this prematurely and that's my main griper here).

orourkeda

I was watching sky sport when this was announced, almost immediately they cut to a report on the game between Portmouth and Birmingham City where Birmingham had a perfectly good goal disallowed.

Fratton Fred

keane2097 wrote: »

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.

It is something i learned whilst attending the school of life. it is called the "Swings and Roundabouts" theory.:rolleyes:

28064212 wrote: »

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

I didn't say the rules should never be changed, we aren't talking about a rule change, we are talking about a change in the way the game is referreed, that is different.

Yes, the game stops every five minutes as it is, but that is for natural breaks. if you start adding in unnatural breaks, the game will be stopping every two minutes.

When Man united lose the CL Final because they had a goal disallowed thanks to a wrong off side decision but Chelsea's goal was allowed because hawkeye judges it to have crossed the line, then all the focus will be on improving the linesman ability to judge an offside. I don't have a problem with goal line technology, but it is the thin end of the wedge and I don't think it is as simple a decision as people seem to think.

GSPfan

Change is not good.

Actually it is. :cool:

Third_Echelon

Goal line technology, video replays... whatever. It is definitely needed in the modern game. I don't buy the swings and roundabouts theory. Get it right first time, every time if we have the means to do it.

Lots of things about football have changed over the years. The amount of points for a win, substitutes being allowed, offside rule being changed, back-pass rule. These are all aspects of the game that were changed to improve the game. I put TV/goal-line technology in that bracket.

With regards to the same rules or ethos being at all levels of the game is a silly point. In international youth tournaments lots of rule changes have been tested in those matches over the years. The extra officials behind the goal in the Europa League this season... That wasn't available at all levels/competitions...

For the top division games/international qualifying and actual tournaments, TV assistance should be brought in. FIFA don't care about Portsmouth vs Birmingham. Its going to take a major incident in a world cup final or the like for them to sit up and take notice when 2 of their big boys such as Germany, France, Brazil etc lose a world cup over something like this when the world is watching in the hundreds of millions...

How much time is spent on players chasing after refs or linesmen if a goal line decisions doesn't go their way? You'll find that a quick TV replay from a TV Match Official will take a minute at most. Granted, there will have the be rules hammered out when it can be used. The unnatural stoppages argument also doesn't apply. There are lots of stoppages in football. Look at any statistics of the amount of time the ball is in play in a game... its usually half of the actual length of the game (22 mins out of 45 for example)...

We need to try something. Sticking the head in the sand and hoping it will go away is just ridiculous... The sooner Blatter goes the better..

28064212

sneakyST wrote: »

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.

Ask a League 2 or Conference chairman whether they'd prefer to leave a terraced stand as is or spend a million upgrading to end up with a lower capacity. Equally, the various safety requirements that are required as you progress through the leagues are expensive, but necessary. The requirements for the quality of the pitch is an even more apt analogy, since it isn't required for a game of football and isn't safety related, but it makes viewing it more enjoyable and increases the standard of the game.

And as leninbenjamin pointed out, the FA and the leagues would most likely provide at least some financial assistance.

sneakyST wrote: »

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.

That's a joke right? Tennis sure, but rugby had similar levels of controversy to soccer over tries before the TMO was introduced

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I didn't say the rules should never be changed, we aren't talking about a rule change, we are talking about a change in the way the game is referreed, that is different.

When the offside interpretation was changed to allow for inactive players to be considered not committing an offence, did that not ruin the balance of bad decisions similarly?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, the game stops every five minutes as it is, but that is for natural breaks. if you start adding in unnatural breaks, the game will be stopping every two minutes.

Again, this thread is about introducing goal-line technology. It's instantaneous, there's no going to a TMO. And even if this was about video-refereeing, the 'unnatural' breaks would be happening at the same time as the natural breaks. It's as likely to decrease dead-ball time as increase it, since you no longer have players arguing the toss with the ref

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When Man united lose the CL Final because they had a goal disallowed thanks to a wrong off side decision but Chelsea's goal was allowed because hawkeye judges it to have crossed the line, then all the focus will be on improving the linesman ability to judge an offside. I don't have a problem with goal line technology, but it is the thin end of the wedge and I don't think it is as simple a decision as people seem to think.

So your argument is "Some decisions are going to be wrong, therefore we shouldn't try to get others right, since they won't balance out the ones that are still wrong"? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

Your point about it being the thin end of the wedge may have some validity, but it's far from the fait accompli you seem to be presenting it as, and I think, certainly for goal-line technology which has zero negative impact on the game, it should be an obvious decision, rather than resisting change for traditions sake

Fratton Fred

28064212 wrote: »

And as leninbenjamin pointed out, the FA and the leagues would most likely provide at least some financial assistance.That's a joke right? Tennis sure, but rugby had similar levels of controversy to soccer over tries before the TMO was introducedWhen the offside interpretation was changed to allow for inactive players to be considered not committing an offence, did that not ruin the balance of bad decisions similarly?Again, this thread is about introducing goal-line technology. It's instantaneous, there's no going to a TMO. And even if this was about video-refereeing, the 'unnatural' breaks would be happening at the same time as the natural breaks. It's as likely to decrease dead-ball time as increase it, since you no longer have players arguing the toss with the refSo your argument is "Some decisions are going to be wrong, therefore we shouldn't try to get others right, since they won't balance out the ones that are still wrong"? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

Your point about it being the thin end of the wedge may have some validity, but it's far from the fait accompli you seem to be presenting it as, and I think, certainly for goal-line technology which has zero negative impact on the game, it should be an obvious decision, rather than resisting change for traditions sake

its not rediculous at all. you either bring in technology or you don't, you don't just do half measures, it has naff all to do with technology.

and stop telling me i sound rediculous, that sounds patronising.

28064212

Fratton Fred wrote: »

its not rediculous at all. you either bring in technology or you don't, you don't just do half measures, it has naff all to do with technology.

That makes no sense at all. So we either have to have robotic referees that can never get a decision wrong, or we make do with the system we have, we can't implement that parts that are clearly beneficial? There's no grey area with goal-line technology, it's not like offside, where different parts of the body might or might not be offside, or tackles, where it's not always possible to tell whether contact was made. With goal-line technology, it either is a goal, or it's not. It's a chance to completely remove the possibility of a wrong decision in this area, and to disagree with it on the basis that there's a chance it may lead to further implementation of completely unrelated technology is patently absurd

keane2097

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is something i learned whilst attending the school of life. it is called the "Swings and Roundabouts" theory.:rolleyes:

I'll tell you something I learned from the school of life.

Any time you have someone roll their eyes and fob you off when you've asked them to explain why their point of view is valid is usually talking straight out of their hole.

sneakyST

28064212 wrote: »

Ask a League 2 or Conference chairman whether they'd prefer to leave a terraced stand as is or spend a million upgrading to end up with a lower capacity. Equally, the various safety requirements that are required as you progress through the leagues are expensive, but necessary. The requirements for the quality of the pitch is an even more apt analogy, since it isn't required for a game of football and isn't safety related, but it makes viewing it more enjoyable and increases the standard of the game.

Fair point about the stadium but some return is better than no return. However, to say the condition of the pitch is not related to safety is naive at worst.

That's a joke right? Tennis sure, but rugby had similar levels of controversy to soccer over tries before the TMO was introduced

No, show me the stats that shows that Rugby had the same amount of incidents per game as football. Controversy and incident counts are two very different things.

keane2097

sneakyST wrote: »

Fair point about the stadium but some return is better than no return.

This is fairly flimsy tbh.

100 grand is an absolutely outlandish estimate for adding goal-line technology to a stadium, changing a ground from terrace to stands would cost a club hundreds of times as much in terms of one off costs, and continue to cost the club money in terms of reduced stadium capacity every week after for all time.

So the situation is not "some return is better than no return" at all. It's more like "a huge initial cost plus ongoing reduced ticket revenue is better than a small one-time outlay that would make sure we don't get relegated because we have a goal incorrectly disallowed on the last day of the season" which is obviously not correct.

sneakyST wrote: »

No, show me the stats that shows that Rugby had the same amount of incidents per game as football. Controversy and incident counts are two very different things.

With a tone like this I assume you have some stats that prove your point of view is correct?

Show me stats that show soccer has differing amounts of incidents per game to rugby tbh.