Goal Line Technology - Challenge and Review

[Keano]

Given the infamous Canada equalizer against the US that was disallowed 2 Gold Cups ago, and now the triply illegal winner by France yesterday, I'm wondering just how high-profile does an incident have to be in order to bring about a serious discussion concerning goal line technology, perhaps an American football-style, limited number of challenge-and-review opportunities. I know the debate is reignited every time something like this happens, but when will there actually be a serious discussion at the top levels? Has it ever been taken seriously by FIFA?

[Free kick]

Maybe its just being cynical but I dont think that FIFA would want that because... well, that would mean better officiating which would mean the players decide the outcome moreso than the Officials and by extention the goverening bodies like FIFA, Concacaf, Uefa etc.

I saw highlights of Fra_Ire and...WOW that was bruttal officiating on the decisive goal by France. Not only was there a handball, but it was a "Cant possibly miss" handball by Thiery Henry. And there is NO possible argument for a "Ball to hand". And to make matters worst, France may have been offside on that play.

Of course there are snags to be worked out when you implement technolgy to help the officiating. One of the problems would be uniformity. Can you insure that the same technology is equally available and finanicially feasable in WCQ qualifiers in western Europe as in a place like Haiti? But it must be done to some degree. Or at least talk about this issue.

One thing that they could do is ensure that ref's are well compensated. i dont know how much a FIFA ref makes to officiate matches but it is well know that most have another full time career. When you have well paid officials that make soccer reff'ing a sole career option, it makes them less susectible to outside influences and pressures.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

In the new Europa league they have introduced goalline judges. I have my doubts about this as no official can correctly see if a ball is all the way in without standing on the goal line, and the post will always be in the way, you can never be in line.

These officials could however be required to give the ref support on the "weak side" or left side of each attack, which is where a greater number of reffing errors occur both in penalty calls and other missed infractions, like the Henry handball.

Another technology that is being developed is to place a chip in a ball and turn the goal line into a gate, like in warehouses where goods moving in or out are registered automatically by radio frequency. I am not sure how the "chip" is placed, whether it in fact lines the ball or is positioned in the centre and calculates the distance to the edges of the ball from that single position.

In fact most running races now oblige partipants to wear a yellow timing chip (ChampionChip brand) that registers their time, both at the starting line (useful for mass participation races where runners often cross the starting line well after the starting gun) and at the finish line. But of course even then there is a lack of total accuracy, as the chip is usually worn on one shoe and perhaps you cross the line with the other first, meaning a slight margin of error.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

In the new Europa league they have introduced goalline judges. I have my doubts about this as no official can correctly see if a ball is all the way in without standing on the goal line, and the post will always be in the way, you can never be in line.

These officials could however be required to give the ref support on the "weak side" or left side of each attack, which is where a greater number of reffing errors occur both in penalty calls and other missed infractions, like the Henry handball.

Another technology that is being developed is to place a chip in a ball and turn the goal line into a gate, like in warehouses where goods moving in or out are registered automatically by radio frequency. I am not sure how the "chip" is placed, whether it in fact lines the ball or is positioned in the centre and calculates the distance to the edges of the ball from that single position.

In fact most running races now oblige partipants to wear a yellow timing chip (ChampionChip brand) that registers their time, both at the starting line (useful for mass participation races where runners often cross the starting line well after the starting gun) and at the finish line. But of course even then there is a lack of total accuracy, as the chip is usually worn on one shoe and perhaps you cross the line with the other first, meaning a slight margin of error.

These are all great innovations and its nice to see that there are people who are actually taking these things seriously and want to do something to improve the game.

But, everytime you hear and read about those FIFA Conferences/Summmits/Congregation/session/extraordinary congresses whatever they call it, what is it that usually comes out them? If you reading subsequent press releases from FIFA following those events, you seldom, if ever, see somethig that catches your interest or attention and more often than not, there is nothing ever decisive and significant ( for the game).

[Lorne]

Full agreement here that video replay is long overdue. It is to the disgrace of Sepp Blatter and FIFA that they utterly refuse to use "technology". It is a ridiculous arguement that video is of varying quality at different games. When a stadium of 80,000 people can see a big screen showing Thierry Henry handle the ball and the fourth official sitting on the sideline can see it; when millions of people can see it; why not allow the referee to consult and make the right decision. Utter stupidity. Video will vary in quality, but usually in big games there are lots of cameras and instant replays, and in any professional soccer game there is adequate video to allow the referee to review controversial moments.

[Keano]

What about the challenge and review? Give each team 1 opportunity per match to issue an official challenge between the occurrence and the restart of play, upon which the officials review the play on a monitor and issue a verdict? It could work for offsides and handballs, maybe less so for penalties since they are much less objective calls to begin with. But it could seriously clean up simulation in the box.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Keano

What about the challenge and review? Give each team 1 opportunity per match to issue an official challenge between the occurrence and the restart of play, upon which the officials review the play on a monitor and issue a verdict? It could work for offsides and handballs, maybe less so for penalties since they are much less objective calls to begin with. But it could seriously clean up simulation in the box.

I Like that. Allow challenges for goals and decsisons to award a pk. And to those who are worried about the continuity of play, I say that the play could be reviewed and deceided upon faster than the time that is takes to re start play after a goal is scored. And much faster than the time that is spent milling around just before a PK is taken.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

I Like that. Allow challenges for goals and decsisons to award a pk. And to those who are worried about the continuity of play, I say that the play could be reviewed and deceided upon faster than the time that is takes to re start play after a goal is scored. And much faster than the time that is spent milling around just a PK is taken.

Like in Rugby League. From Wiki:

"Video referee

The screen is used to signal the video referee's decisions.

The video referee may be called upon by the referee to examine the play in possible tries. In the Super League competition they can examine play from the preceding play-the-ball. A video referee may also be asked to check whether an attempted 40-20 kick has been successful and sometimes called upon by the referee if there is a stoppage to check events before making a decision."

[The Ref]

Blatter said in his press conference in Mexico that FIFA is opposed to the introduction of "technology" into the game of soccer which traditionally has had the same rules since times immemorial. That FIFA is committed to the betterment of officials instead.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Blatter said in his press conference in Mexico that FIFA is opposed to the introduction of "technology" into the game of soccer which traditionally has had the same rules since times immemorial. That FIFA is committed to the betterment of officials instead.

Not surprising..... And what are they doing or what have they done to improve the offiating?

[Richard]

I agree with Blatter. "In the opinion of the referee" is an integral part of the game and its charm and has been so since the beginning. A pox on all this technology.

[finchster]

I think FIFA is making a huge mistake in rejecting video review technology many major sports have implemented it to some degree. To give some BS to the betterment of referees is foolish, no one is right 100% of the time even the best refs will make horrible and wrong calls. While yes that is a part of sports I don’t see how anyone can believe important games can be judged in this way.

Since Canada is usually on the receiving end of bad calls I don’t understand how anyone can be against video review. With many accusations of corruption and match fixing all over football at the very least FIFA can bring some integrity back to the game by making sure to get important calls correct.

[Keano]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I agree with Blatter. "In the opinion of the referee" is an integral part of the game and its charm and has been so since the beginning. A pox on all this technology.

It sure is charming to the regional powerhouses like the US and France who always seem to be on the happy end of these decisions.

[Keano]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/8368100.stm

[dyslexic nam]

There is nothing charming about a team/country getting skrewed out of a goal, win, or world cup berth due to human error. I don't watch the game to enjoy the 'quaint' aspect of human error - I tune in to see the very best athletes decide the outcome of a game that I love. Anytime an official's mistake has an impact on the outcome of that game, I think the integrity of the game suffers.

As for the time-delay claims about video replay, I would suggest that any delays caused by relpay would be far shorter than the time it takes for some Honduran (or whatever central american 'powerhouse' Canada happens to be playing) to realize that he hasn't been shot, his ankle is in fact still attached to his leg, and the ref isn't buying it (on those rare occasions when the CONCACAF refs don't buy it).

It is far more important to come to the right decision that to come to a fast decision, and the France Ireland game demonstrates that perfectly.

[Richard]

A pox on technology, stick with "in the opinion of the referee". Letting in any kind of technology will be the start of the rot that has destroyed other pro level sports. No matter what the player salaries and the betting odds it is still only 22 guys kicking a ball around on a patch of lawn, a bloody game for pity's sake. It is not the end of the world when one team loses, the sun will still rise the next day and life will go on.

[dyslexic nam]

Tell that to the Irish fans who don't get to watch their team compete in the world cup. Or to Canadian soccer fans who have witnessed disallowed game-deciding goals for phantom offides, etc. I guess we can all console ourselves by tuning in to watch France play next summer and being thankful that technology hasn't ruined the game by doing something as insidious as helping to ensure that the correct decisions are made.

I guess I don't see video replay as a 'rot' that has destroyed all sports. There are ways of introducing disincentives to discourage frivolous use of replay appeals (e.g. take away one substitution if you are wrong).

I find it interesting that you try to downplay the overall significance of the game, yet you feel compelled to staunchly oppose anything that would threaten such a trivial passtime.

[Richard]

As Preki says today on Toronto FC TV when asked about feeling the pressure, and I paraphrase: it is a sport, a game, there are much more important things in life to get stressed about.

It is precisely because it is a pastime and not a matter of life and death that we can do without all the technology crap. The last thing we need is to ape the NFL or NHL.

There are a whole lot of countries that won't get to watch their national team at the 2010 World Cup for a whole host of reasons not the least of which is their simple inability to score enough goals and to win enough of the right games. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the spectacle of those countries who have been lucky enough to make it through. It's a game, get it?

[Keano]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

As Preki says today on Toronto FC TV when asked about feeling the pressure, and I paraphrase: it is a sport, a game, there are much more important things in life to get stressed about.

It is precisely because it is a pastime and not a matter of life and death that we can do without all the technology crap. The last thing we need is to ape the NFL or NHL.

It's just a game doesn't have enough substance to explain to my kid why he shouldn't cheat as long as he's not caught.

[Richard]

Because cheating at any time, in any endeavour whether he/she is caught or not, is morally wrong. That's what you need to teach your child.

[The Ref]

Does anyone know what the referee in the game had to say? Did he see the handball and regarded it as unintentional? Did he not see it and in that case did he consulted with his assistant as the law says? What did the assistant had to say? Was he too late in arriving to see the offsides? Did he see the handball? Was he consulted by the referee? Were the officials too tired after 100 minutes of play and hence their alertness and sharpness were diminished?

The Irish have a point in wanting to know how FIFA select these officials for crucial games. Were the ARs qualified FIFA AR's or just qualified Referees acting as ARs. When was the last time they passed a fitness test.

Somehow these "hands of God" need to stop. God is not a 23rd player.

[Keano]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Because cheating at any time, in any endeavour, is morally wrong. That's what you need to teach your child.

Could you be more of a douche bag please?

[Richard]

No wonder you have difficulty teaching your children about morality.

[Keano]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

No wonder you have difficulty teaching your children about morality.

Clearly standing up to snottiness is a moral outrage they should never emulate.

Anyway I personally believe that professional sports have a role to play in terms of a role model especially to kids. I don't think just shrugging a clearly intentional cheat off as "part of the game" gives a great message, that's my point. I'd rather the sport took it upon themselves to do something about it.

[dyslexic nam]

Douche accusations aside, I still don't buy your "its just a game" theory. Is it a game? Obviously. But it is a game that is watched by millions and millions of people. In fact, it is the most devoutly followed game in the world. So to those fans who choose to pour their heart into following their national team (as many Irish do, as do those tortured souls who frequent this website), don't they deserve better than being cheated out of the possibility of a rightful spot in the world's most prestigious single sport tournament. Sorry, but your flowery version of 'get over it' just doesn't cut it IMO. having watched Canada get cheated out of important victories in the past, my capacity to laugh it off and get over it has diminished significantly.

I still wonder how you can be so strongly opposed to video replay given your charge that it is just a passtime, and nothing more. If it is so trivial in your eyes, i don't see why you have such strong feelings about the sanctity of the rules. I mean if it is just a silly game...

Look, I'm not claiming that any soccer match is a matter of life and death. All I have ever said is that potential for human error (by anyone other than the players and coaches) to influence the outcome of the game should be minimized by any and all available means. If that reduces the 'charm' of the gamne in your eyes, I think that is an acceptable price to pay. Puritanism aside, most people want to see players and legitmate plays decide the outcome of games, not cheating and officiating errors.