Blatter - Technology a necessity

[Sauniere]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/12016/7829244/Blatter-Technology-a-necessity

This made me laugh out loud when i read it. Shock horror, England benefit from a duff decision so now it's a necessity!! 2 years ago Lampards shot ricocheted from the crossbar down onto the ground a foot behind the goal line and wasn't given. Blatter did not feel at that stage that technology was necessary.

In the incident last night I think that the official on the goal line made the correct decision - even though it was wrong. When you look at the stopped frame of the incident the ball is over the line and it's a goal, however, the edge of the image of the ball bleeds into the white image of the post in the frame - there's no "daylight" as it were. Add to that the fact that the ball didn't hit the ground so there's no additional reference point for the official to use. Also, the length of time that the ball was actually over the line could probably be only measured in milliseconds (blink and you miss it) then i feel that the only course of action for the official on the line is to find in support of the defending team which he did.

It may well be that Blatter's reasoning is that the Lampard goal should and could have been spotted by an official therefore technology was not required to spot it whereas the one from last night couldn't be (and wasn't) spotted easily by the human eye.

Either way I welcome the use of technology to sort out these kinds of decisions, i just find the timing and catalyst for Blatters turnaround somewhat amusing. We spurs fans have been on the wrong end of these decisions too many times!!

 

[chrissivad]

someone raised a great point on this on another site.

In cricket when you appeal and it goes to a review, they go back and check everything from that play.
Will they do the same for Football?

Last night would they go back to see if there was a foul or the clear offside before looking to see if the ball was over the line, or just to see if the ball was over the line?

 

[Riandor]

someone raised a great point on this on another site.

In cricket when you appeal and it goes to a review, they go back and check everything from that play.
Will they do the same for Football?

Last night would they go back to see if there was a foul or the clear offside before looking to see if the ball was over the line, or just to see if the ball was over the line?

Cricket is an all day(s) sport anyway (other than 20/20) and the additional time is fine. Plus how far do you go back? Football is too fluid, you could have a 50 pass build up with multiple niggling fouls or potential hand balls along the way.

No, GLT has to be "Was the ball over the line" End of. That's all Rugby use it for, that's all Football needs. The rest should be down to the officials.

R.

 

[Sauniere]

That's a good point Chris. With the Hawkeye system trialled at the England v Belgium game recently then only the goal line decisions would come under scrutiny. I think their reason for going down that route is most likely so that the other decisions don't get reviewed.

The TV replay systems that are used in cricket and rugby offer a much wider scope for reviewing decisions although only at the behest of the chief official e.g. referee, umpire etc. They are fast and as accurate as the person holding the slow mo button or pause button. Some games it'll never get used other games it might add a few minutes onto the total game time.

There's also the option for a 4th official to be monitoring the entire game on a TV screen and giving his opinions to the ref via comms. The ref could then take his advice as he would from a linesman or request a full review of the incident (e.g multiple view points)

 

[Armstrong_11]

i fully agree about the 4th ref being the TV ref seriously, he can flash additional time on the plasma, and substitutions, and the linesman just comes over to make sure one comes and one goes. simple...

and all 4 can be in constant communication.

oh well... the only thing we are getting is hawk-eye in the goal area.

 

[hoodlum]

Football is so stupid at times. The technology exists and is pretty fucking easy to use. Billion pound business and these retards leave huge, easily detectable decisions subjected to human error.

Either review all potential goal line decisions via an official up in a booth with replay available, or give each manager 1 replay challenge per match for goal line decisions only.

Retaining fluidity is a concern, but is that more important than getting a goal/no goal call correct? I don't think so.

 

[tiger666]

God I hate Blatter. Him and Platini. What a pair of clowns.

 

[Azazello]

Blatter's pissed off because England weren't penalised by a goal being scored from an unspotted offside.

Cant help but think that the goal line technology is missing the point. It doesn't happen that often, does it?

A ref's performance could well be improved by the kind of arrangement Armstrong_11 outlines. There are opportunities I would think for the more intelligent use of technology than goal-line technology alone.

 

[poc]

same as CFC's CL win Blatter comes out the next day saying how cruel it is and how awful it is for football that someone loses that way. When England were fucked off out of tournaments the slag says fuck all! Same now with the ball over the line. What a wanker he is.

 

[hoodlum]

Cant help but think that the goal line technology is missing the point. It doesn't happen that often, does it?

Isn't even once too much considering the technology that's already readily available and in place?

 

[Sauniere]

There are so many positive uses for TV replays.

Here's a use for a problem that is doing my nut in at this particular tournament....

4th official: Ref, you see the bloke that's writhing about on the floor clutching his face?
Ref: Yeah, I see him, what of it?
4th: official: he got hit on the chest
Ref: Thank you

Ref: Get up - yellow card.....

 

[DuDe]

God I hate Blatter. Him and Platini. What a pair of clowns.

Indeed.

 

[DJS]

Love it how as soon as England benefit from a controversial incident (even though it was offside lol) Blatter is suddenly for goal-line technology.

If it had been the other way round he would have continued not to give a fuck.

...

Fucktard.

 

[nightgoat]

someone raised a great point on this on another site.

In cricket when you appeal and it goes to a review, they go back and check everything from that play.
Will they do the same for Football?

Last night would they go back to see if there was a foul or the clear offside before looking to see if the ball was over the line, or just to see if the ball was over the line?

I would imagine if football brought in goalline technology they'd only use it to determine whether or not the ball crossed the line, so if it had been used in this case the goal would have been given (which would have been the wrong decision, as there had been an offside in the build up).

It depends on what remit the referee and video referee are given in using whatever technology to analyse the play. With cricket it's slightly easier because the incident will be isolated to the wicket and so applying various technologies to determine whether the ball touched bat/glove or pad, whether it would have hit the stumps, where the ball pitched can all be done fairly simply, rather than looking at something which might have happened in the other half of the pitch. The only equivalent of say, an offside or handball or foul in the build up would be a no ball, but again there'd only be a second between the two incidents and whether or not a no ball is bowled is less open to interpretation than a foul.

In rugby the referee will ask one of two different questions when referring to the TMO, either 'can I award the try, yes or no?' or 'is there any reason why I cannot allow the try' - with the latter the TMO would look for any infringements like a knock on, or if the player loses control of the ball in grounding it which I don't think football would use, at least initially. To begin with they'd keep it just to 'did it cross the line?' so you can't have incidents like Martin Atkinson inventing goals.

 

[Misfit]

someone raised a great point on this on another site.

In cricket when you appeal and it goes to a review, they go back and check everything from that play.
Will they do the same for Football?

Last night would they go back to see if there was a foul or the clear offside before looking to see if the ball was over the line, or just to see if the ball was over the line?

They should or there'll just be a massive shitfight. This would only apply to goal-line reviews and their build-up play of course but yes. The build up to be checked for offside should included.

 

[Azazello]

Isn't even once too much considering the technology that's already readily available and in place?

Sure, in principle.

All I'm saying is that goal-line technology for its own sake has the potential to create as many injustices as it solves, as we would have seen had the Ukraine "goal" been given.

 

[hoodlum]

Sure, in principle.

All I'm saying is that goal-line technology for its own sake has the potential to create as many injustices as it solves, as we would have seen had the Ukraine "goal" been given.

I don't see that as a possibility. See Misfit's post above yours.

Review the onside/offside, hand ball, ball crossing the line. That's pretty much it in relation to a goal call. 30 seconds, tops.

They owe it to the fans who pay huge sums of money to get the goal call right. After all, the hi-def camera's and equipment are already in place.

 

[Sauniere]

You're always going to get injustices, even with technology. I think most teams and fans would be happy with a reliable method of reducing them.

 

[soup]

I've got a lot of sympathy for the Ukraine, not so much for what happened to England in South Africa. I mean, come on, The Ukraine, their various dodgy politicians and footballing officials paid several million over to UEFA not so long ago in bungs to get these Euros, so of course Sepp has got some explaining to do.

England, however, didn't back up their appeals with cold hard cash and Trevor Brooking isn't half as intimidating as the Ukranian mafia, so you make your own luck in this game these days. Literally.