Goal line technology next season

RasTa

About time.

Hawk-Eye's system works by using six cameras, focusing on each goal, to track the ball on the pitch.

The system's software then uses "triangulation" to pinpoint the exact location of the ball.

If it crosses the goal-line an encrypted radio signal is sent to the referee's wristwatch to indicate a goal has been scored.

GoalRef uses sensors on the posts and crossbar which detect changes in the magnetic field when the ball crosses the line.

In line with Fifa's requirements, the whole process takes less than a second to complete.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21624953

dreamers75

i want a noise like ERRHHHHHHH that signals a goal going in and then a song is played and crowd start chanting.

Gonna be awesome!!!!!

The_B_Man

I wish they'd give more technical details of how its gonna work. I'm sure there's some smart people working on it, but that article makes me curious.
Everyone has seen hawkeye with the tennis, but is it still as effective when there's a crowded box (ie when it will need to be used) with legs altering its course away from cameras? After all, its basically just tracking what it can see. I'd be curious to see if a stray leg or two would confuse it.
Then with the other one, whats it goin on about with magnetic field? Will the ball be chipped or is there some physics going on here that I don't know about? And again, if its detecting movement or whatever, how can it differentiate between the ball and a leg?

Lukker-

The_B_Man wrote: »

I wish they'd give more technical details of how its gonna work. I'm sure there's some smart people working on it, but that article makes me curious.
Everyone has seen hawkeye with the tennis, but is it still as effective when there's a crowded box (ie when it will need to be used) with legs altering its course away from cameras? After all, its basically just tracking what it can see. I'd be curious to see if a stray leg or two would confuse it.
Then with the other one, whats it goin on about with magnetic field? Will the ball be chipped or is there some physics going on here that I don't know about? And again, if its detecting movement or whatever, how can it differentiate between the ball and a leg?

GoalRef uses a magnetic chip in the ball so only the ball would set it off.

Kirby

Am I the only one waiting for the chip jamming device to be used by fans? :P Or hidden chips in the boots of players to confused the officials

Giant banner behind the goal. "F*cking Magents...how do they work?!?"

roanoke

How are England ever going to win another World Cup now!

Cantona's Collars

FIFA have picked GOALCONTROL as the preferred method of goal line technology.SSN.

AdamD

Its actually hilarious how much time, effort and money has gone into choosing a goal line technology. Other sports which require more precision at higher speeds have seemingly had no issues with finding similar technology, yet in football it requires years of testing and millions of pounds.


FA/UEFA/FIFA all proving themselves to be jokeshops.

Nunu

Whats wrong with just having a video ref for this? 99% of the time he'll be able to give the thumbs up if it's a goal and when it's an unbelievably tight decision, the other 1% of the time, no goal is given. Simple.

GavRedKing

Nunu wrote: »

Whats wrong with just having a video ref for this? 99% of the time he'll be able to give the thumbs up if it's a goal and when it's an unbelievably tight decision, the other 1% of the time, no goal is given. Simple.

Goal control seems pretty definitive though, 14 cameras installed in the stadium to monitor the ball, if its over the line, its going to be known.

Its better this way, its taken forever to get to this point but I'd rather know plain as day if it was or was not over the line, this system seems to rule out the dodgy middle ground that a video ref mightnt be able to call and a video ref would take longer then this system if the call is going to tight.

Nunu

Ye, that's fair enough.

I just always have this thing in the back of my mind about FIFA, I really don't trust them. I don't think we'll ever have a 'video ref' on their watch anyway.

It'll probably glitch and give goals while the ball is in the middle of the pitch more times than it'll actually be used.

Diabhal Beag

The "goal line technology debate" will be sorely missed.

Kirby

Nunu wrote: »

Whats wrong with just having a video ref for this? 99% of the time he'll be able to give the thumbs up if it's a goal and when it's an unbelievably tight decision, the other 1% of the time, no goal is given. Simple.

Video refs are so dodgy. I've seen some ridiculous decisions given in Rugby matches. I just don't trust it. Technology is the way to go. Nobody argues against Hawkeye in the tennis. If on the off chance that it's calibrated wrongly, atleast it's calibrated wrong for both players. Using video ref's opens the bias debate. Technology just closes it.

I've seen hawkeye wrong before, was pretty funny seeing the umpire have to go with the decision even when the replay was shown.

LuckyLloyd

Yay!!

Another decade and we'll have instant replay refereeing. Finally the first step has been taken. Took far too long.

WoollyRedHat

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yay!!

Another decade and we'll have instant replay refereeing. Finally the first step has been taken. Took far too long.

When I used to play my friend in Fifa, he used to always use instant replay.. not to see if it was a goal.. oh no, but to watch his goal over and over again!

mike65

Today is the day. The Mail says Hawkeye will be adopted.

Iang87

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

When I used to play my friend in Fifa, he used to always use instant replay.. not to see if it was a goal.. oh no, but to watch his goal over and over again!

I hope you punched him over and over.

As for goal line technology, its about time

GavRedKing

mike65 wrote: »

Today is the day. The Mail says Hawkeye will be adopted.

Did FIFA not decide to use Goalcontrol and not hHawkeye?

melekalikimaka

Kirby wrote: »

Video refs are so dodgy. I've seen some ridiculous decisions given in Rugby matches. I just don't trust it. Technology is the way to go. Nobody argues against Hawkeye in the tennis. If on the off chance that it's calibrated wrongly, atleast it's calibrated wrong for both players. Using video ref's opens the bias debate. Technology just closes it.

thats not the case at all, I'm hard pressed to recall a TMO decision I didnt agree with, the rules of a try are more ambiguous that a goal in football, so it the decisions have a degree of opinion.

ArmaniJeanss

GavRedKing wrote: »

Did FIFA not decide to use Goalcontrol and not hHawkeye?

They approved both though afaik. It just happens FIFA will use Goalcontrol for their own competitions but other competitions can still use anything on the approved list.

Amirani

melekalikimaka wrote: »

thats not the case at all, I'm hard pressed to recall a TMO decision I didnt agree with, the rules of a try are more ambiguous that a goal in football, so it the decisions have a degree of opinion.

I don't see what advantage a video ref would have over an automatic detection system in football? In football there's really just 1 criteria about whether a goal has been scored - has the ball crossed the line?

Important to note that we could still have occurances of the Thierry Henry handball.

dfx-

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen hawkeye wrong before, was pretty funny seeing the umpire have to go with the decision even when the replay was shown.

New Zealand v South Africa test series:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-south-africa-2012/content/story/556811.html

http://www.eatsleepsport.com/cricket/hawk-eye-to-continue-in-nz-despite-row-1395697.html#.UWaf00p5eD8

Happened because it didn't have all the data to hand at the time so it was wildly guessing. I was watching it, some very weird predictive paths.

melekalikimaka

NiallSparky wrote: »

I don't see what advantage a video ref would have over an automatic detection system in football? In football there's really just 1 criteria about whether a goal has been scored - has the ball crossed the line?

Important to note that we could still have occurances of the Thierry Henry handball.

i wasnt questioning auto detect, for football, its perfect, wouldnt work for rugby, I was merely pointing out imo TMO in rugby its almost always spot on

dfx-

dfx- wrote: »

New Zealand v South Africa test series:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-south-africa-2012/content/story/556811.html

http://www.eatsleepsport.com/cricket/hawk-eye-to-continue-in-nz-despite-row-1395697.html#.UWaf00p5eD8

Happened because it didn't have all the data to hand at the time so it was wildly guessing. I was watching it, some very weird predictive paths.

I was actually thinking of a tennis match a while back.

GavRedKing

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

They approved both though afaik. It just happens FIFA will use Goalcontrol for their own competitions but other competitions can still use anything on the approved list.

Aaahhh understood, thought FIFA had picked one in that was it.

AgileMyth

First step towards ruining football.

death1234567

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

The "goal line technology debate" will be sorely missed.

No it won't. It'll be used maybe once or twice a season and everyone will realise that it was pretty much an non issue to begin with as diving, cheating, poor refereeing, the offside rule mess, clubs buying success, are all still rampant in the game.

GavRedKing

AgileMyth wrote: »

First step towards ruining football.

Ah come off the stage, I wouldnt go that far.

To win games you've to score goals, if something or someone has robbed you of this privilige then any system coming into fix it shuld be welcomed with open arms and is about 10-15 years over due in Soccer anyway.

Iang87

AgileMyth wrote: »

First step towards ruining football.

Wow, Please explain that.

mike65

Presumably the FA will use a few of the pre-season makey-uppey tournaments like the Emirates Cup as a dry run.

LuckyLloyd

AgileMyth wrote: »

First step towards ruining football.

Nah, it's the first step to bring you and your ilk out of the dark ages. Video technology will be great. We know this because we've seen it work spectacularly well for other sports.

The_Kew_Tour

My best mate is on contract with hawk eye.

He be going to most of grounds helping out with this and he not even big footie fan.

Jealous.com

dfx-

death1234567 wrote: »

No it won't. It'll be used maybe once or twice a season and everyone will realise that it was pretty much an non issue to begin with as diving, cheating, poor refereeing, the offside rule mess, clubs buying success, are all still rampant in the game.

It'll serve as a useful reminder for those demanding it that it wasn't really that necessary in the first place.

Mr Cumulonimbus

dfx- wrote: »

It'll serve as a useful reminder for those demanding it that it wasn't really that necessary in the first place.

Dfx-, law 10 (goal scored bit) should always be got right by officialdom. Anything that helps that is good in my opinion. The "but it doesn't happen that often" line isn't a good enough excuse to be against it I think.



Utd v Spurs, Jan 2005. Still embarassing now..........

ArmaniJeanss

dfx- wrote: »

It'll serve as a useful reminder for those demanding it that it wasn't really that necessary in the first place.

Goal-line technology is utterly harmless though, no downside at all.

I say that as one of the 'dark ages ilk' who would be against some of the more extreme video ref ideas put forward like appeal systems and the like.

dfx-

It's harmless and will help in obvious cases like the Watford v Reading 'goal' a few years ago, but (hopefully) it won't revolutionise football to an unrecognisable extent.

Julez

dfx- wrote: »

it won't revolutionise football to an unrecognisable extent.

Exactly, its something that happens from time to time and can unfairly give a team a victory/loss. Don't see how people think it will "ruin" the game. Also if refs and linesmen don't have to worry as much about seing this they can spend more time looking at other incidents in the box, its win-win.

dfx-

Has there been any information put out on how accurate they can get the ball's position to the line in instances like Gomes' blunder at Stamford Bridge a few years ago or Cech's save in the FA Cup final? Video replays still had people arguing whether the ball was over the line.

LuckyLloyd

dfx- wrote: »

It's harmless and will help in obvious cases like the Watford v Reading 'goal' a few years ago, but (hopefully) it won't revolutionise football to an unrecognisable extent.

It's going to have no negative affects, but will nail a couple of high profile moments officials would have got wrong ordinarily, and the argument for further technology will grow louder.

We'll win. Two decades tops.

El Inho

I'm a big supporter of the 2 calls on a judgement per game. You have 2 calls. And if you use it well you keep it at two calls. you get it wrong once, youre left with one and twice you have none.

Also can only see the likes of hawkeye improving the game. I think that tension of going up stairs to get a correct decision adds to the experience. its much better than having half a crowded feel robbed and half feeling lucky.

dfx-

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's going to have no negative affects, but will nail a couple of high profile moments officials would have got wrong ordinarily, and the argument for further technology will grow louder.

We'll win. Two decades tops.

With a bit of luck, retrospective refereeing will quell the noise in the corner and delay it that bit further.

LuckyLloyd

dfx- wrote: »

With a bit of luck, retrospective refereeing will quell the noise in the corner and delay it that bit further.

It's all improvement though. The status quo would always be side stepped. As was inevitable once Rugby implemented superior standards so effectively.