Use of new technology in football

ronjo

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

What if it's borderline whether the ball crossed the line? Does the ref stop it there and then, preventing a possible goal from the rebound or a counter-attack? And how does play restart if he stops play to review with the television ref and it's ruled as not being a goal? A drop ball in the box? An indirect free kick? It's not as simple as saying "they do it in rugby", because they have an entirely different set of rules. The TV ref is called when the ball was dead anyway, which isn't always the case with calls for a goal in football. And you score a try if you ground the ball on the line or against the posts. In football, the ball has to fully cross the line and simply hitting the posts don't count. So, there's less margin for error for a football referee to call the TV ref in the first place. Sensors in the ball and woodwork are far better suited to the pace of football.

Again, with red cards, if the ref misses it, what happens? Do they wait 'til the ball goes dead, which could be 10/15 minutes later? If it turns out to be a red, do the previous 10/15 minutes get replayed from the point of the red card? What if the innocent team score in the meantime, does their goal get disallowed? What if the player who should've been sent off scores or clears one off the line? You could give a short window for the video ref to review things to help minimise this, but these things could still occur in that window and it might put undue pressure on the referee compared to rugby, where the ball is dead anyway and he can calmly review it.

These things could work more cleanly if they were only used to right wronged parties. Ie, if the ref incorrectly called a goal or incorrectly sent someone off, as the ball goes dead regardless. But, then would refs be more likely to make these calls, without really being convinced, knowing the video ref will back them up? So, again, you could have a ref calling a goal, that's then ruled out, where the attacking team may have buried from the rebound anyway or the defending team may have scored on the counter.

Re the example of challenges in tennis. A singles tennis court is 26 x 9 yards. The player is going to be about 10-15 yards away, so in a good position to spot marginal fouls. A football pitch is 100-130 x 50-100. In terms of area, it's between 20 and 50 times the size. The managers are about about 60 or 70 yards away from where the main action happens. They're very unlikely to be in a position to spot a ball that's a few inches over the line or a marginal offside and it's a lot harder for them to keep track of everything that's going on over such a large surface area. You can't just say because it works for one sport, it should be applied to another, without carefully considering the differences in both.

I don't agree with the idea that the wrong decisions make football great. I'm in favour of technology to assist referees, provided it's given very careful consideration, trialled extensively and has a minimum impact on the flow of the match. I'm completely opposed to blindly applying a rule just because, on the face of it, it works in another sport.

Thats all well and good but the idea in the OP has merit.

A goal is scored and the ref then asks "Is there any reason why I cant give this goal?".
Play has already stopped anyway for said goal.

ETA They already use technology for the ball crossing the line and its immediate with no delay whatsoever.

Richard Hillman

I do not understand why they cannot use GPS systems inside the players jerseys to assess offsides. They already have the GPS and body monitors on them.

The game will be under threat if Platini gets the FIFA gig. He is football's version of ISIS in terms of conservatism.

Richard Hillman

NIMAN wrote: »

I genuinely think there is an elelment that the powers-that-be like the controversy that goes with iffy decisions, its keeps people talking about the games well after they are over, and fans quickly get over bad decisions.

Just think of your chats in work on Monday morning, they are often about bad decisions as much as good moves, goals or tactics. It also keeps the column inches filled, social media going etc.

No such thing as bad publicity?

Blatter and Co were saying that before Goal-Line was brought in. I don't think anybody misses the debate of wether it a was over or not.

If you look at a programme like Goals on Sunday, it is 2 hours of looking at referee decisions as opposed to actual football.

The theory is correct though. Chelsea V Arsenal was a dreadful game but managed to stay in the news all week because of refereeing decisions.

Amirani

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I do not understand why they cannot use GPS systems inside the players jerseys to assess offsides. They already have the GPS and body monitors on them.

The game will be under threat if Platini gets the FIFA gig. He is football's version of ISIS in terms of conservatism.

GPS isn't accurate enough to work properly.

Richard Hillman

Amirani wrote: »

GPS isn't accurate enough to work properly.

True but a localized system similar to GPS could be used.

blinding

Football has become a pretty ridiculous sport with all the simulation and play-acting.

Anything that can rid the game of this stuff would be welcomed.

If a TMO would decide if a player dived,cheated/good or bad tackle then it would cut out a lot of this nonsense.

bucketybuck

If the rugby refs could possibly find the balls to actually make a decision themselves that would be just super.

NIMAN

Maybe the rugby powers have decided that its just silly to expect one person to make calls on things he often can't see properly, so that the game is decided by skill/effort etc and not incorrect decisions by a human who makes mistakes.

Football needs to take a leaf out of rugby's book, imho.

Beasty

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I do not understand why they cannot use GPS systems inside the players jerseys to assess offsides. They already have the GPS and body monitors on them.

Which part of the jersey? Front? Back? Maybe the shoulder? How do you then deal with where the feet are?

Use of technology beyond the current goal line decisions will simply break up the game - I've seen situations in sports like Rugby (Union and League) and Cricket where a decision can take 2-3 minutes. Even then it may not be clearcut and sometimes evidence appears subsequently showing the video ref decision to be wrong.

The game is already extending to nearly 2 hours (when I started going half time was only 10 minutes and Saturday matches finished by 4.45 - introduce technology and they will be going well past 5pm). Eventually people will be demanding virtually every decision is scrutinised - you may as well put the Ref in a box surrounded by TV screens. Or you can leave it as it has flourished for the past 150 years with judgments calls and some human error.

irelandrover

Why can't the TMO just watch the match on TV, if he sees something in a replay such as an off the ball strike them he alerts the ref and the game is stopped. Same as now if the linesman sees an off the ball strike. No stopping of teh game unnecessarily, quick decisions.

GavRedKing

I'd like to see more technology to help refs but its very hard to introduce without slowing down the game.

Somebody proposed a challenge flag like in American Football but the coaches usually throw the challenge flag between plays and when theyve seen a replay themselves and assume something is incorrect.

That suits American Football as there usually 30 to 60 secs between plays and its stop/start all game, you dont get that time in soccer.

Beasty

blinding wrote: »

If a TMO would decide if a player dived,cheated/good or bad tackle then it would cut out a lot of this nonsense.

Way too much judgement required. Even with the aid of technology you cannot determine intent. Someone gets a slight nudge they lose their balance and fall. Someone else gets a similar nudge does not lose their balance and dives. You could then end up with even more debate over controversial decisions.

Even handball requires intent. There is absolutely nothing in the rules about ball to hand or hand to ball. That's simply something the refs use to help interpret intention. It remains though a judgement call.

To me it has to be a yes/no answer and I think (goal) line technology is about the only element of rule enforcement that does not require some judgment on occasions (although even then there will be some remarkably close decisions where the software will apply essentially the judgement of the developers - Hawkeye can only take things to a finite level)

NIMAN

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'd like to see more technology to help refs but its very hard to introduce without slowing down the game.

Somebody proposed a challenge flag like in American Football but the coaches usually throw the challenge flag between plays and when theyve seen a replay themselves and assume something is incorrect.

That suits American Football as there usually 30 to 60 secs between plays and its stop/start all game, you dont get that time in soccer.

I must be watching different games then, cos often there are quite lengthy delays in football games I see.

From a free getting awarded to being taken can often take 60sec and more, once all the moaning and arguing with the ref is done. How often is there a free, and the TV company can look at 5 or 6 replays before coming back to the live action, when the free still hasn't been taken.

Taking a corner can take 30-60sec sometimes, as a team waits for a CB to come up the pitch.

When a goal is scored, how long do you think it takes for the next kick-off to happen? You should time it the next few games you watch. You;d be surprised how much delay there is.

Even simple things like throw-ins, a guy walks over picks up the ball, back into position, looks around for a few secs to see who to throw it to, then drops it at his feet and walks off, leaving for someone else to take.

Football is a lot less frantic than some people think. Of course you aren't going to stop games that are in motion to review a TV replay, but it could easily be done when there is a stoppage, as there usually is when something contentious happens. Or why couldn't a TMO review the replay whilst the game is going on, then tell the ref that X punched Y off the ball, and ref could deal with it at the next stoppage?

I think it could easily be implemented, if the will was there (it isn't at present).

GavRedKing

Of course theres stoppage but for instance in the Spurs game at the weekend, the goal was scored maybe 5 seconds after the original offside should have been given.

What happens if Spurs play on, are in control of the ball and score 30secs after the original offside, does Pellegrini have the option to say well 30secs ago he was offside so the goal shouldnt stand?

I agree it could be implemented but it needs serious consideration because the ball can be in play for about 65/70mins of the 90mins and there can be quiet long gaps between an incident.

Another one, and its only basing it on this weekend was Hazard getting fouled by a Newcastle player at one end, they went up and got a corner and scored from it, it was nearly a ful minute between the incidents but the Sky replays didnt show the clip on Hazard until about 5 or 10minutes after the Newcastle goal so you couldnt challenge it then, there would be outrage.

I reckon they do need some sort of TMO though but the process surronding challenges or decision making has to be water tight to avoid issues.

NIMAN

Was it not trialled in Norway or somewhere a year or two back?
Thought I read about it happening in some top flight somewhere?

farna_boy

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

What if it's borderline whether the ball crossed the line? Does the ref stop it there and then, preventing a possible goal from the rebound or a counter-attack? And how does play restart if he stops play to review with the television ref and it's ruled as not being a goal? A drop ball in the box? An indirect free kick? It's not as simple as saying "they do it in rugby", because they have an entirely different set of rules. The TV ref is called when the ball was dead anyway, which isn't always the case with calls for a goal in football. And you score a try if you ground the ball on the line or against the posts. In football, the ball has to fully cross the line and simply hitting the posts don't count. So, there's less margin for error for a football referee to call the TV ref in the first place. Sensors in the ball and woodwork are far better suited to the pace of football.

Again, with red cards, if the ref misses it, what happens? Do they wait 'til the ball goes dead, which could be 10/15 minutes later? If it turns out to be a red, do the previous 10/15 minutes get replayed from the point of the red card? What if the innocent team score in the meantime, does their goal get disallowed? What if the player who should've been sent off scores or clears one off the line? You could give a short window for the video ref to review things to help minimise this, but these things could still occur in that window and it might put undue pressure on the referee compared to rugby, where the ball is dead anyway and he can calmly review it.

These things could work more cleanly if they were only used to right wronged parties. Ie, if the ref incorrectly called a goal or incorrectly sent someone off, as the ball goes dead regardless. But, then would refs be more likely to make these calls, without really being convinced, knowing the video ref will back them up? So, again, you could have a ref calling a goal, that's then ruled out, where the attacking team may have buried from the rebound anyway or the defending team may have scored on the counter.

Re the example of challenges in tennis. A singles tennis court is 26 x 9 yards. The player is going to be about 10-15 yards away, so in a good position to spot marginal fouls. A football pitch is 100-130 x 50-100. In terms of area, it's between 20 and 50 times the size. The managers are about about 60 or 70 yards away from where the main action happens. They're very unlikely to be in a position to spot a ball that's a few inches over the line or a marginal offside and it's a lot harder for them to keep track of everything that's going on over such a large surface area. You can't just say because it works for one sport, it should be applied to another, without carefully considering the differences in both.

I don't agree with the idea that the wrong decisions make football great. I'm in favour of technology to assist referees, provided it's given very careful consideration, trialled extensively and has a minimum impact on the flow of the match. I'm completely opposed to blindly applying a rule just because, on the face of it, it works in another sport.

Goal line technology is there to determine if the ball crosses the line or not. When I was talking about a dodgy goal I meant that if a clear cut goal has been scored. It usually takes at least 2-3 minutes before the ball is kicked off again, so during that duration the ref can check with the TMO if any questions are raised whether there was an offside or any other reason not to allow the goal.

Similarly in the case of a red card, if what seems like a bad challenge has gone in and the ref has any doubt whether it should be yellow/red (or even if it was a dive) the ref can check quickly with the TMO. As it stands it usually takes even longer to send a player off than it does to get the ball back after a goal, so I really don't see the problem.

As for the other scenario, most red card offences are for incidents on the ball that the ref sees. He then makes a judgement call whether to allow any advantage or he stops the game immediately. Once the advantage is over, the ball goes dead or if he stops the game immediately the TMO can be asked to make a call.

In the case of an off the ball incident, if it's serious enough play gets stopped immediately or the next time the ball goes dead depending on the seriousness of it. While waiting for the ball to go dead the TMO can make the decision.

In reality though, off the ball incidents are ridiculously rare so it is barely worth talking about. If this technology was brought in they would probably disappear altogether because players would immediately realise they wouldn't get away with it any more (which is the only reason it happens at all at the moment).

bucketybuck

farna_boy wrote: »

Similarly in the case of a red card, if what seems like a bad challenge has gone in and the ref has any doubt whether it should be yellow/red (or even if it was a dive) the ref can check quickly with the TMO. As it stands it usually takes even longer to send a player off than it does to get the ball back after a goal, so I really don't see the problem.

The problem is instances like the Luke Shaw tackle a few weeks ago. He broke his leg, but even then there are people who believe the tackle was hard but fair. Therein lies the problem, so many of these cases come down to subjective views as opposed to rugby where most of the judgements are about provable instances, such as was the ball grounded or did the ball go forward.

You are bringing in video evidence to deal with cases that the TMO can't really be definitive about anyway, cases where the intent still matters. Take the Shaw case again, if the TMO says it should have been a red card you will still have a lot of people crying that it was a bad decision, that its a shame the leg got broken but the defender didn't really do much wrong. If he doesn't send him off you will have people crying that he should have been. You will have taken power and responsibility away from the referee and in the end the game won't be any better.

niallo27

bucketybuck wrote: »

The problem is instances like the Luke Shaw tackle a few weeks ago. He broke his leg, but even then there are people who believe the tackle was hard but fair. Therein lies the problem, so many of these cases come down to subjective views as opposed to rugby where most of the judgements are about provable instances, such as was the ball grounded or did the ball go forward.

You are bringing in video evidence to deal with cases that the TMO can't really be definitive about anyway, cases where the intent still matters. Take the Shaw case again, if the TMO says it should have been a red card you will still have a lot of people crying that it was a bad decision, that its a shame the leg got broken but the defender didn't really do much wrong. If he doesn't send him off you will have people crying that he should have been. You will have taken power and responsibility away from the referee and in the end the game won't be any better.

Yes mistakes could be made but who will make a better call. A ref with just one view of it or a ref with 10 views at it from different angles. TMO's in rugby make mistakes but most desicians are correct and it would be the same in football.

farna_boy

bucketybuck wrote: »

The problem is instances like the Luke Shaw tackle a few weeks ago. He broke his leg, but even then there are people who believe the tackle was hard but fair. Therein lies the problem, so many of these cases come down to subjective views as opposed to rugby where most of the judgements are about provable instances, such as was the ball grounded or did the ball go forward.

You are bringing in video evidence to deal with cases that the TMO can't really be definitive about anyway, cases where the intent still matters. Take the Shaw case again, if the TMO says it should have been a red card you will still have a lot of people crying that it was a bad decision, that its a shame the leg got broken but the defender didn't really do much wrong. If he doesn't send him off you will have people crying that he should have been. You will have taken power and responsibility away from the referee and in the end the game won't be any better.

Yeah something like the Luke Shaw incident would be difficult to make a clear decision about if the referee just asked for an opinion. But if instead he asked is there any reason to give or not to give a red card, he is asserting that the decision has essentially already been made but he is open to correction in case it was a dive or an exaggeration. Even if there is uncertainty then, even after review, the original refereeing decision would stand.

Something like that happened the other day in the world cup where a player went down after what initially looked like a high tackle but on review he had just gone down easy. So instead of a player being wrongly sent off, a penalty was given for the foul and play resumed.

gosplan

You have to get over the huge problems of giving the attacking team the benefit of the doubt.

Get that right and everything else is grand.

You can call someone back for an off the ball incident

You can check if it's a yellow, red or dive.

If a team feel it was a penalty you can check.

If a team feel it wasn't a penalty you can check.

But you can't call someone offside and fix it. And you can't let play continue every time there's an offside.

That's the problem IMO.

Edit: surely there's a system that could be used for offside. Player has tracker, so does ball. Should be achievable.

Then video replays in refs ear for everything else.

Richard Hillman

Beasty wrote: »

Which part of the jersey? Front? Back? Maybe the shoulder? How do you then deal with where the feet are?

Does it matter? As long as its the same on every player. The below the back collar would probably be preferable and less restrictive.

Sand

GavRedKing wrote: »

Of course theres stoppage but for instance in the Spurs game at the weekend, the goal was scored maybe 5 seconds after the original offside should have been given.

If the system can detect and report the offside in a couple of seconds, then the goal is stopped before its even scored. Hawkeye were already testing a system to determine offside back in 2013, and were unhappy with it because it took 2 seconds to make the decision. That's still faster than most human beings. It might not be ready to deploy tomorrow but the basis of a solution is there.

The technology cant replace human refereeing but it can greatly assist it like earpieces and mics did before.

dfx-

bucketybuck wrote: »

If the rugby refs could possibly find the balls to actually make a decision themselves that would be just super.

Absolutely 100%, you see it in both rugby and cricket. Refs becoming lazy in decision making, why not when you can let it happen and get the video ref to sort it. Rugby World Cup games I've seen are chronic for it. "Any reason not to give a try" is nonsense.

Same in cricket, they don't bother to check for no-balls until there's a wicket and get the third umpire to check as the batsman walks off. And everyone celebrates and trundles back into position when the guy is called back.

Beasty

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Does it matter? As long as its the same on every player. The below the back collar would probably be preferable and less restrictive.

If you want to change the underlying rules then fine. It clearly would not work without a change though. Obviously the defenders would also be required to have the same chip applied, although they will typically be facing in the other direction.

EDIT: Maybe under the skin would work, then clubs can keep track of them to limit any off the pitch misdemeanors:pac:

dfx-

Beasty wrote: »

The game is already extending to nearly 2 hours (when I started going half time was only 10 minutes and Saturday matches finished by 4.45 - introduce technology and they will be going well past 5pm). Eventually people will be demanding virtually every decision is scrutinised - you may as well put the Ref in a box surrounded by TV screens. Or you can leave it as it has flourished for the past 150 years with judgments calls and some human error.

The Namibia Georgia RWC game was 110 minutes long, the first half was 64 minutes long. An extra 50%.

Watching the Scotland Samoa game, the only real stoppages in a high scoring game is the TMO barging in and being consulted for at least three of the tries. Referees are just going to video just in case which is a undesirable consequence of having it.

Edit: and now he's involved again for another try that was given

niallo27

dfx- wrote: »

The Namibia Georgia RWC game was 110 minutes long, the first half was 64 minutes long. An extra 50%.

Watching the Scotland Samoa game, the only real stoppages in a high scoring game is the TMO barging in and being consulted for at least three of the tries. Referees are just going to video just in case which is a undesirable consequence of having it.

Lot more cheating and off the ball incidents to watch in rugby.

dfx-

There is and clearly the existence of video technology doesn't stop the offences, but there's still plenty of it in football too. Shirt pulling/blocking at setpieces, claimed 'handballs', penalties and the like that are let go or not seen by referees on the pitch but a TMO would have a field day intervening.

Beasty

dfx- wrote: »

There is and clearly the existence of video technology doesn't stop the offences, but there's still plenty of it in football too. Shirt pulling/blocking at setpieces, claimed 'handballs', penalties and the like that are let go or not seen by referees on the pitch but a TMO would have a field day intervening.

And when does he intervene? Does he wait until there's a stoppage (which could be 2-3 minutes later) or does he blow a virtual whistle? If the former do you go back and replay those 3 minutes? If the latter what if he stops the flow at a critical moment then takes another 2-3 minutes to decide there was nothing wrong in the first place. Football has a natural flow - teams build up momentum which is often lost by an extended break.

Sports such as rugby, cricket, American football etc that use the technology have natural breaks in which play can be reviewed. I think it would in all likelihood change football fundamentally, although it would probably play into the hands of the TV companies - we could be seeing 3 or 4 ad breaks each half .....

farna_boy

Beasty wrote: »

And when does he intervene? Does he wait until there's a stoppage (which could be 2-3 minutes later) or does he blow a virtual whistle? If the former do you go back and replay those 3 minutes? If the latter what if he stops the flow at a critical moment then takes another 2-3 minutes to decide there was nothing wrong in the first place. Football has a natural flow - teams build up momentum which is often lost by an extended break.

Sports such as rugby, cricket, American football etc that use the technology have natural breaks in which play can be reviewed. I think it would in all likelihood change football fundamentally, although it would probably play into the hands of the TV companies - we could be seeing 3 or 4 ad breaks each half .....

Would the time like when a goal is scored or when a player is being sent off not be considered a natural break? Why not have a review at this stage?

Beasty

farna_boy wrote: »

Would the time like when a goal is scored or when a player is being sent off not be considered a natural break? Why not have a review at this stage?

Matches probably average 2-3 such "breaks" (and some matches have none). So are you suggesting going back over the previous 20 minutes of "incidents" - what happens if a decision is then overturned? Say a penalty is then awarded and scored, thereby changing the course of the match. Do you turn the clock back and replay those 20 minutes or so?