Smart Ball!

Pepe LeFrits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4206450.stm

About darned time!

Necronomicon

Good idea. There's been so much debate about ring-side cameras etc, I think something like this is a good compromise. Doesn't interrupt a game for refs to go looking at televisions, but guarantees the right decision on goal-line situations. Hope it's a success!

Guy:Incognito

The system in tennis still gets it wrong sometimes though, this is bound to go the same way.

The_B_Man

I'm not sure about this. Wrong refereeing decisions give you something to talk about and add a bit of extra drama. Some wrong decisions can be some of the best/funniest moments of the season ie Roy Carroll : Utd v Spurs. Like Sepp Blatter sez "If we start to make it too scientific this game will lose its fascination."

kmart6

Bout time really. But they will have to make sure that it is completly accurate and wont start going off when it gets close to the line or something like that its bound to happen that at some stage a goal will be givin and it wont have benn a goal at all!!!

PHB

The system in tennis still gets it wrong sometimes though, this is bound to go the same way.

Its a diff system though, cause its based on the position of the bounce, not the ball.
The ball can be in the air going over the goalline, so its easy for football.

Necronomicon

The_B_Man wrote:

I'm not sure about this. Wrong refereeing decisions give you something to talk about and add a bit of extra drama. Some wrong decisions can be some of the best/funniest moments of the season ie Roy Carroll : Utd v Spurs. Like Sepp Blatter sez "If we start to make it too scientific this game will lose its fascination."

That's what I meant about a compromise, I agree (a rare occassion) with Blatter on that comment, but the smart ball wouldn't be able to make decisions on penalty claims etc, just black and white things like if the ball crossed over the line.

jubbly

I think it was bound to happen but I hope its only used for goals. not for corners or throw ins. It would make the game too scientific for my liking

randomfella

i heard its supposed to work for the side line aswel.

Spider_Baby!

Wont the chip be in the very centre of the ball? The reason im saying this is, well...i might be wrong, but doesnt the rule state that the entire ball has to cross the line? if the chip is in the centre of the ball, there will be times that the ball hasnt entirely crossed the line which will lead to goals that shouldnt be. Hope that makes sense!!

TheMonster

Not being smart but I would imagine the chip would know the radius of the ball.

The Muppet

A season too late for Chelsea but it's about time available technology was used to help those short sighted officials.

redspider

I'm in favour of this technology, wasnt it available last year from Addidas? It will clear up the many occasions on when it occurs which are pivotal in terms of football. The technology needs to be tested over time, not sure how its accuracy is affected if say there are legs in the way and say a player at the corner flag in the way. I presume they have all situations tested.

In terms of the Liverpool goal against Chelsea in the CL, this technology would have prevented that goal from being given by the linesman and would have allowed the ref to give a penalty for Liverpool and send-off Cech. Liverpool probably would have had more of an advantage with it.

For the Carroll "goal", it would have cleared that up and found out the dishonesty of both Carroll and the linesman, who for some reason saw it and didint call it, perhaps having Man U affection. In the old days, when footballers were gentlemen rather than mercenaries as most of them are these days(money corrupts), they would have put their hand up, said it was a goal, even kicked the ball into the net themselves if necessary, something that a Canio would have done.

redspider

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

I'm in favour of this technology, wasnt it available last year from Addidas? It will clear up the many occasions on when it occurs which are pivotal in terms of football. The technology needs to be tested over time, not sure how its accuracy is affected if say there are legs in the way and say a player at the corner flag in the way. I presume they have all situations tested.

In terms of the Liverpool goal against Chelsea in the CL, this technology would have prevented that goal from being given by the linesman and would have allowed the ref to give a penalty for Liverpool and send-off Cech. Liverpool probably would have had more of an advantage with it.

For the Carroll "goal", it would have cleared that up and found out the dishonesty of both Carroll and the linesman, who for some reason saw it and didint call it, perhaps having Man U affection. In the old days, when footballers were gentlemen rather than mercenaries as most of them are these days(money corrupts), they would have put their hand up, said it was a goal, even kicked the ball into the net themselves if necessary, something that a Canio would have done.

redspider

So the the linesman in the UTD/Spurs incident was being dishonest and the one in the Chelsea/Livepool on was doing Chelsea a favour. That's a very interesting but slightly biased synopsis of the situation.

Sorry for the Off Topic B.T.W.

PHB

redspider, you havn't seen the obvious picture.

The goal being allowed was obviously because the linesman was in the service of Chelsea!!!!
He knew if Cech got sent off, then they'd be a man down and a goal down, thats why he gave it.
When footballers were gentlemen rather than mercanaries as mots of them are theses days, they would have put their hand up, said it was a goal, even kicked the ball into the net themselves if necessary, something that a Canio would have done.

He then would have said,
Hey i'm a racist, the only reason I like fans is cause I'm an egomanic, and taken his huge paycheck and made a joke about fans to his family when he got home. He'd then kiss the badge on his way out, just to trick people ever more.