How much technology is too much?

Mint Sauce

Defo for goal line. I have failed to see the use of the goal line officials in the european games, were even with them, decisions have been missed.

Hawk eye or a chip in the ball is the only way to go.

Xavi6 wrote: »

I like the idea of refs being miked up to the point where the audio is actually able to be heard through tv for the whole game.

I watch AFL week in, week out and it's one of the best things about it as you hear the umpires explaining their decision to the players after every free kick is given, if they call play one etc.

Having said that, the amount of dissent is far less in that sport and the swearing from Prem players wouldn't cut it with the broadcasters unfortunately.

+1. Works very well in rugby as well. Although the players and officials would also have to adapt a rugby approach as well, were only the captain approaches the official and other players at the officials request.

PRAF

Doocey wrote: »

I reckon it'll be a sad day when goalline technology comes in.

What would be ideal however, is giving the ref the ability to watch a replay of the tackle on the big screen and then deliver his decision, rather than pressurized on the spot decisions.

Disagree, the decision should be independent. The current appeals system is a farce because the refs are asked to review their own decisions. It is a clear conflict of interest. Often, they'll hide behind some obscure interpretation of a rule rather than admit they were wrong.

NIMAN

GLT technology is touted by everyone as being the main one that needs implemented but in reality if its compared to diving, cheating and general feigning of injury its a very minor problem.

Admittedly if there is a dispute over a goal-line incident in a massive game it can seem like the end of the world, but in reality these incidents do not happen all that often.

Gbear

Tech:

GLT - a little bell should go off in the ref's ear telling him when there's a goal.

Offside - it should be possible to use software and several camera angles to automatically tell when someone is offside. If we can land a remote controlled, nuclear powered rover on Mars, this shouldn't be complicated.
If the system is broken or a league can't afford the tech there are still redundant linesman available to do the job, even if they're not perfect, it's still the same as we have now.
Giving the option to higher standard leagues to improve the quality of officiating in no way affects leagues too poor to afford them. They'll carry on as they always have.

Challenge system based on 4th official (or a TMO) watching video:
-Any straight red card decision
-Any offside decision (if tech isn't implemented to render incorrect offside calls a thing of the past)
-Any penalty decisions
-Any goals scored
-Any goals not given

If the ball is still in play you have a period of time (15 seconds, for the sake of argument) after the incident where a manager can challenge the call.
If it's after 15 seconds then the challenge is wasted.
If the challenge is unsuccessful then it's a drop ball in the nearest semi-circle (middle of the pitch, at the edge of each box).

A manager gets 3(for the sake of argument) challenges a game.
If he's correct and a decision is overturned he gets the challenge back.
If the decision is not overturned, the incident happened more than 15 seconds beforehand or if it isn't for an offence that is covered above, the challenge is lost.



Diving is difficult to sort out. The vast majority of "dives" are when a player is touched by an opponent and flops to the floor out of all proportion to the contact. Literally every player does this. They are after all being fouled.
The line where the contact goes from being a foul to not being relevant is very difficult to call because only the player being fouled and the person fouling him knows how much force they are applying.
I think the ref should only be booking players if there is no contact.
Even then, obviously they shouldn't be penalised if the reason there was no contact was because they had to vault over a potential leg-breaker.


It might make sense to take it out of the refs hands altogether.
To balance that advantage that diving gives you in game the retroactive punishment should be very harsh.
Remember, potential leg-breakers usually get 3 game bans. If you're going to give lengthy bans for cheating then it has to be proportional to far more serious offences like causing someone serious physical damage.
Or else they need to start allowing legal proceedings to be brought.

For example, Ben Thatcher's elbow to Pedro Mendes' head should've been a jail term.

CSF

There is no need for any extra technology in football. Football has been a fantastic sport for many years and will continue to be.

Any comparisons to rugby make me worried about how people would like football to be.

**** modern football.

Mr.Nice Guy

CSF wrote: »

There is no need for any extra technology in football. Football has been a fantastic sport for many years and will continue to be.

Any comparisons to rugby make me worried about how people would like football to be.

**** modern football.

I disagree.

Every sport needs there to be fairness at the very heart of it. When teams are being denied clear goals, when 'phantom goals' are being unjustly awarded, when incidents of cheating are not recognised and corrected, this can result in sporting contests being decided by human error rather than sporting prowess.

Football is a fantastic sport but it is a flawed sport.

CSF

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I disagree.

Every sport needs there to be fairness at the very heart of it. When teams are being denied clear goals, when 'phantom goals' are being unjustly awarded, when incidents of cheating are not recognised and corrected, this can result in sporting contests being decided by human error rather than sporting prowess.

Football is a fantastic sport but it is a flawed sport.

The flaws are fine. Before all this in-depth over-analysis to suit the TV viewer, referees and their decisions were never under so much scrutiny. Football is fine with a referee doing his job to the best of his ability, and 2 assistant referees, the 4th official and the 2 lads behind the goals can go away. Referees should be given the best training possible to ensure the best possible quality of refereeing but they aren't going to get everything right and that is ok.

Half of the technology would only be affordable in the most elite of leagues anyway, which makes the whole thing pointless and only there to appeal to the newest generation of barstooler who would probably prefer Sky made Sky Plus even more interactive by giving the fan at home the opportunity to vote on the correct refereeing decision.

AdamD

CSF wrote: »

The flaws are fine. Before all this in-depth over-analysis to suit the TV viewer, referees and their decisions were never under so much scrutiny. Football is fine with a referee doing his job to the best of his ability, and 2 assistant referees, the 4th official and the 2 lads behind the goals can go away. Referees should be given the best training possible to ensure the best possible quality of refereeing but they aren't going to get everything right and that is ok.

Half of the technology would only be affordable in the most elite of leagues anyway, which makes the whole thing pointless and only there to appeal to the newest generation of barstooler who would probably prefer Sky made Sky Plus even more interactive by giving the fan at home the opportunity to vote on the correct refereeing decision.

This argument actually makes me want to cry. Literally the most backward, logic defying argument going.

CSF

AdamD wrote: »

This argument actually makes me want to cry. Literally the most backward, logic defying argument going.

Do go on.

Mr.Nice Guy

CSF wrote: »

The flaws are fine. Before all this in-depth over-analysis to suit the TV viewer, referees and their decisions were never under so much scrutiny. Football is fine with a referee doing his job to the best of his ability, and 2 assistant referees, the 4th official and the 2 lads behind the goals can go away. Referees should be given the best training possible to ensure the best possible quality of refereeing but they aren't going to get everything right and that is ok.

Half of the technology would only be affordable in the most elite of leagues anyway, which makes the whole thing pointless and only there to appeal to the newest generation of barstooler who would probably prefer Sky made Sky Plus even more interactive by giving the fan at home the opportunity to vote on the correct refereeing decision.

What about the decisions of the 1966 World Cup final? What about the calls against Leeds in the European Cup final of 75?

The principle of sport should be 'may the best man or woman win'. Human errors are inevitable but when we live in an age where we can correct them then we ought to do so.

I don't buy the argument that because only elite leagues would benefit that no one should have it. You and I don't have the ability to call on Hawkeye down at a local tennis court but that's not a credible reason to deny it to Federer and Nadal, is it?

CSF

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What about the decisions of the 1966 World Cup final? What about the calls against Leeds in the European Cup final of 75?

The principle of sport should be 'may the best man or woman win'. Human errors are inevitable but when we live in an age where we can correct them then we ought to do so.

I don't buy the argument that because only elite leagues would benefit that no one should have it. You and I don't have the ability to call on Hawkeye down at a local tennis court but that's not a credible reason to deny it to Federer and Nadal, is it?

We're not referring to down your local park here, we're referring to professional football. Why should football be played in a different way in the Premiership than in League 2 or the Bulgarian League? Because more people watch it on TV and go on Internet forums and act like the Illuminati are at work every time a decision gos against their team.

Amirani

AdamD wrote: »

This argument actually makes me want to cry. Literally the most backward, logic defying argument going.

That's literally the worst use of the word literally I've ever seen.

Mr.Nice Guy

CSF wrote: »

We're not referring to down your local park here, we're referring to professional football. Why should football be played in a different way in the Premiership than in League 2 or the Bulgarian League? Because more people watch it on TV and go on Internet forums and act like the Illuminati are at work every time a decision gos against their team.

I think you're confusing the issue here.

It's about utilising technology to minimize errors as much as possible. Why turn your back on helpful technology just because not everyone may avail of it? Do you think an Irish professional snooker player would get upset that referees at the Crucible can use technology to properly position the cue ball but referees in most Irish halls cannot? I doubt it.

I suspect also if a team in League two gets promoted or if a Bulgarian team gets to the Champions League, they would be glad to have access to the technology.

The limitations as regards technology's availability should not be regarded as a limitation of technology's potential for football. They are two different issues.

Why not put the whole thing to a vote to all leagues. Let FIFA and UEFA and all associations have their say. I believe even the poorest of leagues would want to see this technology adopted because it would help out the sport. A fairer game, devoid of cheating and unjust winners will benefit everybody.

Richard Hillman

Goal line tech for sure is needed. I also thing there should be a review on goals. Something like a review of 10-15 seconds before a goal on high level football by an off field official.

onemorechance

Xavi6 wrote: »

I like the idea of refs being miked up to the point where the audio is actually able to be heard through tv for the whole game.

I watch AFL week in, week out and it's one of the best things about it as you hear the umpires explaining their decision to the players after every free kick is given, if they call play one etc.

Having said that, the amount of dissent is far less in that sport and the swearing from Prem players wouldn't cut it with the broadcasters unfortunately.

Been done with hilarious consequences!

:pac: "IT WAS OVER THE LINE!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX6aKRt4V3Y

Blatter gave a good reason for keeping technology out of soccer; he wanted the organization of game to be the same at all levels, which is a nice idea.

I think he suggested though this summer that they would have to consider the goal line technology after another disallowed goal.

PRAF

Have the Mods looked at merging this with the 'English refereeing's darkest day' thread. Very similar content

It's a great discussion. On the one hand, the use of technology could certainly help to minimise blatant injustices in the game. On the other, use of technology would be a break from tradition and would further distance the professional game from the amateur. On balance, I'm all for greater use of technology for sending off decisions, penalty decisions, and other game changing decisions.

Somehow I doubt that FIFA or UEFA would wilingly move to such a system. Blatter & Platini are dinosaurs who are dead set against it. This kind of change needs to be demanded by the powerful clubs, leagues, tv stations, national associations, etc before they will even consider it. Even then, I think you'd need fans across the world to boycott matches to send a message to the top brass that things need to change.

The reality is that kind of action would be unlikely so we'll have to put up with our teams being royally shafted from time to time.

CSF

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think you're confusing the issue here.

It's about utilising technology to minimize errors as much as possible. Why turn your back on helpful technology just because not everyone may avail of it? Do you think an Irish professional snooker player would get upset that referees at the Crucible can use technology to properly position the cue ball but referees in most Irish halls cannot? I doubt it.

I suspect also if a team in League two gets promoted or if a Bulgarian team gets to the Champions League, they would be glad to have access to the technology.

The limitations as regards technology's availability should not be regarded as a limitation of technology's potential for football. They are two different issues.

Why not put the whole thing to a vote to all leagues. Let FIFA and UEFA and all associations have their say. I believe even the poorest of leagues would want to see this technology adopted because it would help out the sport. A fairer game, devoid of cheating and unjust winners will benefit everybody.

I'm not confusing the issue. I understand exactly what such technology would be trying to achieve.

Again the Irish poolhalls analogy isn't comparing like for like, I'm referring to how professional football is played throughout the world. League football in Ireland or Lithuania should be like for like in the rules with that of the Premiership or La Liga.

osarusan

I haven't read all the posts, so I may be repeating what others have said, but here are a few things I'd like to see happen.

GLT of some kind - as long as there are reliable and instantaneous systems.

Retrospective action for certain kinds of offences - even if dealt with at the time. Dives and 'dangerous/reckless contact' (or similar words, with definitions made public). And none of this sh!t about how 'there was contact so it can't be a dive.'

Mics on players and officials - all recorded and with it possible to make the recordings public.

I'm not in favour of a challenge system unless the instances in which it can be used by managers are severely limited - also, there shouldn't be (in my opinion) somebody watching the game on TV who can let the manager know to make a challenge. I'd rather a system whereby the referee themself shouts something like 'review' and the time is noted. After the action comes to a stop, they review the incident on a pitchside monitor and make their decision (which might bring the play back to the moment of the review, or might be no decision at all).

There could also be a system whereby the referee reviews the 30 seconds of action (or 20/45 seconds, etc) leading up to any goal. It could be reviewed while the team is celebrating.

I'm sure there are other things I've forgotten too.

what a day

I agree with technology, we need to have some sort of goal line technology and have the useless 4th officals behind the goals referee from the dug out watching live TV and their view should over rule the ref on the pitch for major infractions of the rules.

There should be three refs in the dug out that the majority view over rules. This would account for red cards, penalties, danger area free kicks.

Of course the ref on the pitch will play as normal untill he requests assistance from the replay refs on their view of the replay or the replay refs instantly voice their opinion on the majority of the refs input.

Gbear

CSF wrote: »

League football in Ireland or Lithuania should be like for like in the rules with that of the Premiership or La Liga.

Why? This has been asserted as if it's self evident several times. It isn't.

CSF

Gbear wrote: »

Why? This has been asserted as if it's self evident several times. It isn't.

The countries play the same sport and quite often each other against each other in cup competitions. All football teams operating under FIFA, UEFA etc. by the same rules. There is no logical reason for England to use different rules to Belarus. Both countries have clubs in the Champions League.

Also, from my experience this sentiment is held mostly by TV fans. I've yet to see much of a clamour from the lifeblood of football, the matchgoing fans for such changes. Football fans protest about many things but I've yet to see this be one of them.

Sirsok

How hard would it be to have the fourth or maybe a fifth official lookin at a monitor in the back? Most games are on camera and a decision could be made in seconds

Gbear

CSF wrote: »

The countries play the same sport and quite often each other against each other in cup competitions. All football teams operating under FIFA, UEFA etc. by the same rules. There is no logical reason for England to use different rules to Belarus. Both countries have clubs in the Champions League.

There is only one reason for England to use different rules - because they can.

Improving the standard of the refereeing in England has no negative impact on anyone else. They continue to plod along as they always have.
There's no more reason to block better officiating than there is to block better pitches, stadia or any of the other perks that come with being in a successful league.

The real point is that you haven't made any case for there not being differences between lower and top level leagues. It's just a tautological assertion that there shouldn't be different standards.

CSF

Gbear wrote: »

There is only one reason for England to use different rules - because they can.

Improving the standard of the refereeing in England has no negative impact on anyone else. They continue to plod along as they always have.
There's no more reason to block better officiating than there is to block better pitches, stadia or any of the other perks that come with being in a successful league.

The real point is that you haven't made any case for there not being differences between lower and top level leagues. It's just a tautological assertion that there shouldn't be different standards.

Any changes have an impact on the sport in general and to have every different nation operating football matches in different manners would be terrible. Any rule changes should come from FIFA down and be implemented with the contrasting levels of each league considered.

No country should be left behind in the movement of football as a result of it not being endowed with large wads of cash, and the big money leagues have been facilitated too much already.

Football should remain a working mans sport and comprise of a pitch with 2 goals, a football, 11 players per team, and the officials.

From what I can gather, these changes are mostly favoured by the TV fans and mostly opposed by the matchgoing fans, which stinks to me of a group showing up to someone else's party and demanding everything be changed to cater to their needs.

CSF

Sirsok wrote: »

How hard would it be to have the fourth or maybe a fifth official lookin at a monitor in the back? Most games are on camera and a decision could be made in seconds

Then why can we not judge these things accurately without slomo replays, and even then we all disagree? You ain't improving things in this manner significantly (if at all) without stopping the game.

PRAF

Lots of interesting points in here and differing levels of support for technology in the game. How do you setup a poll to take people's opinions on this!!

kincsem

I'm an oldie, 62 years old.

Will too much technology ruin the game? I want goal line technology, replays of offside, penalty, diving, and off the ball incidents. The game is a farce at the moment. I want the injustices to stop. No hiding place for bad referees, cheating players, and hatchet merchants.

Gbear

CSF wrote: »

Any changes have an impact on the sport in general and to have every different nation operating football matches in different manners would be terrible. Any rule changes should come from FIFA down and be implemented with the contrasting levels of each league considered.

No country should be left behind in the movement of football as a result of it not being endowed with large wads of cash, and the big money leagues have been facilitated too much already.

Football should remain a working mans sport and comprise of a pitch with 2 goals, a football, 11 players per team, and the officials.

From what I can gather, these changes are mostly favoured by the TV fans and mostly opposed by the matchgoing fans, which stinks to me of a group showing up to someone else's party and demanding everything be changed to cater to their needs.

You still aren't actually justifying why technology shouldn't be implemented. You're just saying it'd be "terrible" and general hand wringing follows on from that.
That isn't a justification. You need to establish that "no country should be left behind" as being relevant to the discussion, when it doesn't seem to factor into any other argument where the limiting factor is money - pitches, quality of officials, stadia.

I'm also pretty skeptical about your claim that "these changes are mostly favoured by the TV fans".
Do you have any evidence that that is actually the case?
Have you asked a representative number of match going fans and noticed a disparity with a similarly representative number of only TV-watching fans?

Is that relevant anyway? Should one group of fans' desires override everything else?