Use of new technology in football

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?

niallo27

Beasty wrote: »

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?

Your overthinking it. Mistakes happen in rugby games and it's not called back. The ref can ask for help if he needs it. It would take the pressure off linesmen and allow them to give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. TMO is only used in rugby 99% of the time for tries and serious incidents why not the same in football.

Beasty

niallo27 wrote: »

Your overthinking it. Mistakes happen in rugby games and it's not called back. The ref can ask for help if he needs it. It would take the pressure off linesmen and allow them to give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. TMO is only used in rugby 99% of the time for tries and serious incidents why not the same in football.

I was responding to a specific suggestion that I consider unworkable.

So who decides what's a serious incident? Does a linesman not signal a very close offside knowing he has a TMO backup? What happens if the ball goes down the other end and a goal results?

Yes I'm overthinking it, precisely because as soon as you introduce anything like this that's exactly what everyone will do, particularly when they think something has gone against them. In my view applying any kind of discretion actually makes decisions even more controversial and highlights the likelihood that such a system make things far worse (or is impractical)

niallo27

Beasty wrote: »

I was responding to a specific suggestion that I consider unworkable.

So who decides what's a serious incident? Does a linesman not signal a very close offside knowing he has a TMO backup? What happens if the ball goes down the other end and a goal results?

Yes I'm overthinking it, precisely because as soon as you introduce anything like this that's exactly what everyone will do, particularly when they think something has gone against them. In my view applying any kind of discretion actually makes decisions even more controversial and highlights the likelihood that such a system make things far worse (or is impractical)

Well we can't go on the way it is with mistakes every week. It's too fast a game now.

Dozen Wicked Words

niallo27 wrote: »

Well we can't go on the way it is with mistakes every week. It's too fast a game now.

What you mean is we cant go on in the league your particular team plays in. Unless the premier league are going to pay for everyone to get this technology?

Beasty

niallo27 wrote: »

Well we can't go on the way it is with mistakes every week. It's too fast a game now.

While I acknowledge that in cup football a single mistake can be critical to the result, when it comes to leagues these things even out over a season. Obviously some clubs may get a bit more luck one season, but may lose out a bit another season. That's always been part of the game and I think the quality of refereeing is far better nowadays than it was in the past. As I've already mentioned the game has flourished without such intervention and in my own view will continue to do so. Equally I think that if you start trying to judge what is "controversial" enough to warrant the intervention of technology the temptation will be to extend that to other decisions (which has certainly happened in other sports), and results, in my view, in fundamental changes to the game (certainly at the level at which such technology is used)

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

For offsides it should be implemented tomorrow. Offside isn't really down to interpretation (outside of 'interfering with play') and the decision can be known fairly quickly. You don't really need microchips in every players boots and the ball either. You just need a guy reviewing an instant replay, watching Sky you know within 30 seconds if a player was on or off, you could probably know in 10 seconds. So any clear/obvious offsides the linesman can flag up, for any 50/50 call play can continue and the ref can blow up for a free out if the TMO calls that it's offside.

Fouls in general play are very much down to interpretation so a TMO is fairly unnecessary here.

With red cards and penalties though there is always about a three minute stoppage between the whistle going and resumption of the next part of the game. This would be where a TMO would be most beneficial to the game.

People are putting way too much emphasis on how soccer is a free flowing game. The ball is usually only in play for about 60% of the 90 minutes I think so there are loads of 'natural' breaks in the game anyway.

Way too many wrong decisions have been made in football down through the years. Henry's hand of frog? The technology is there ie there's cameras and microphones. A TMO is long overdue in football imo, once it was implemented right it would make the game far more honest and pure.

Goal line technology and the shaving foam were brought in and everyone went why did it take so long. If technology was used in the right way for big refereeing decisions I think everybody would feel good about it.

(think that's the longest post I've ever written on boards, must be the lack of a hangover for on a Saturday:pac:)

farna_boy

Beasty wrote: »

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?

No, not at all.

I'm saying that the only time a tmo should be used is if there is a question about whether or not a goal should be awarded ie offside (goal line technology already exists and is used), or if it is unclear whether a player should be sent off after a bad tackle.

Both these situations are "natural breaks" anyway so they won't disrupt the game or break the natural flow of the game any more so than the current situation.

AdamD

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.

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

The 'extra 50%' isn't TMO. Stop massaging figures to suit your argument. The clock is stopped in rugby almost every time the ball goes out of play, not just for TMO decisions. Several tries in that game required TMO calls, would you rather an incorrect decision send a team out of the world cup for the sake of an extra minute wait between the try and conversion?

Genuinely think a lot of football fans are against it purely because of their dislike of the sports that use it.

Offsides for one would be incredibly easy to implement and would barely delay the game at all. Red card decisions and penalties less so.

mada999

blinding wrote: »

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.

I'd say it would be very difficult even with Video replay to determine the amount of contact there was on a player fouled (if) inside the box..

Beasty

AdamD wrote: »

Genuinely think a lot of football fans are against it purely because of their dislike of the sports that use it.

I'm a massive cricket fan, and spent a lot of my life in the heartlands of both cricket and Rugby League (and have watched both sports at the highest level). I think you will find a couple of other recent posters here who are perhaps sceptical over its introduction spend more time that most around here in the forums dedicated to those 2 sports. Maybe the time we spend studying these sports allows us to spot a few more areas of concern when considering it as an option for football;)

farna_boy

Beasty wrote: »

I'm a massive cricket fan, and spent a lot of my life in the heartlands of both cricket and Rugby League (and have watched both sports at the highest level). I think you will find a couple of other recent posters here who are perhaps sceptical over its introduction spend more time that most around here in the forums dedicated to those 2 sports. Maybe the time we spend studying these sports allows us to spot a few more areas of concern when considering it as an option for football;)

The problem is that most people are only familiar with it from rugby and for some reason rugby is absolutely hated in here, so the concept of introducing something that rugby originally used is abhorrent, even if it might improve our sport.

Also when people think of a TMO and rugby they seem to think that we will be implementing the exact same model. That is not the case. It's an entirely different sport and we would have to develop a completely new model from scratch for soccer.

Fr Tod Umptious

I don't think posters here are against technology because it is used in rugby and cricket and they don't like those sports.

I think it's because posters here seem to be very negative towards changes in soccer full stop.
I think they fear an Americanisation of the game.

They never stop giving out about Sky TV, the "prawn sandwich" brigade, alleged soulless new stadiums, teams changing their name or colours etc.

Plenty were giving out about the plan to introduce water breaks at the last WC when the temperature got above a certain level.

It's a morass of negativity most of the time here when it comes to ways of improving the game.

bucketybuck

AdamD wrote: »

Genuinely think a lot of football fans are against it purely because of their dislike of the sports that use it.

farna_boy wrote: »

so the concept of introducing something that rugby originally used is abhorrent

What utter drivel.