United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Football
Closed Thread
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 04:49 PM
Jack Duckworth
 
Default

"is there anybody on FT who is against goal line cameras?"

so that's a "yes", then?

i understand completely what people are saying about the potential (further) sanitisation of football by taking away the controversy, and also that it might start the ball rolling for other technological reforms.

the fact still stands though that the amount of times the "did it cross the line?" debate occurs is miniscule compared to other infringements and offences. however, it is the most important and could (potentially) lead to a team losing a cup final/ vital league game. it is for this reason that i am in favour of goal line cameras/hawkeye. you can still debate offsides, fouls, sendings off etc until you're blue in the face.

and let's face it, new technology or not, city would still be crap
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 04:49 PM
Grimson
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy
For example, basketball probably has anywhere between 160-200 'goals' a game, but they don't use it.
Actually, the NBA DOES use it. Usually it's to determine if a player taking a shot does so before time runs out, but occasionally it's to determine if a ball passed through the rim before being tipped out.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 04:52 PM
poppy
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by koppas
Me for this reason.

Where would you stop the line? If the ref only stops at the next available moment (say a throw in, or a foul) lets say the defending team clear off the line, they break up the field and score.

There would be uproar. Leave it how it is.
I think they're saying if the ref could know instantly in some way and not have to stop the game.

If it is brought in, the day will surely arrive when it's proven to have made the wrong decision, and the ref will come out and say he would have made the opposite decision if the technology wasn't in use.

Then the can of worms will be well and truly opened.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 04:53 PM
koppas
 
Default

The thing is, how do we know what the referee can here? If he gets a beep in his ear, we would need someone else to hear it also to confirm it. If you know what I mean.

All I can think is sensors in balls but this was used at the World Youth Cup championships last year and flopped.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 04:54 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimson
Actually, the NBA DOES use it. Usually it's to determine if a player taking a shot does so before time runs out, but occasionally it's to determine if a ball passed through the rim before being tipped out.
Do they ever use it to decide whether it was a 3 pointer or not?

I'm thinking maybe a ref giving a foul and asking whether it was on the line of the area (pen) or outside, that sort of thing.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 04:55 PM
poppy
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimson
Actually, the NBA DOES use it. Usually it's to determine if a player taking a shot does so before time runs out, but occasionally it's to determine if a ball passed through the rim before being tipped out.
Are you serious?

By the way, when does that March Madness (yes I know it's sometime in March) thing start in the US? Any tips for an outside bet?
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 04:56 PM
Grimson
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy
Are you serious?

By the way, when does that March Madness (yes I know it's sometime in March) thing start in the US? Any tips for an outside bet?
Yeah it's going on now. I don't follow it too closely, but usually there are huge upsets. So far all the top seeds have advanced, so there may not be much in the way of outside bets. Florida to win it all though.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 05:31 PM
tim887
 
Default

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6404755.stm

"The IFAB has laid down four criteria for the goal-line technology systems.

That technology should only apply to goal-line decisions.
That the systems must be 100% accurate.
That the signal to the referee must be instantaneous
That the signal is only communicated to the match officials"

Which seems fair enough.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:10 PM
borsuk
 
Default

how football would be improved by this. i can live with the odd bad decision. i take it as part and parcel of the game - and the game would be poorer without the human nature of referees. all the posts in favour of this seem to feel that the game would be better with perfect decision-making on the goal line. i disagree. it wouldn't be more exciting (it would be less); it would distance the fan from the game; it would take away controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre.

how can anyone be in favour of that? the argument that it would be fairer is a strange one. for example, if things have to be perfectly fair we should have a timer recording time to add on so referees can't make mistakes there. would that make for a fairer game? of course it would. would it be a better game? of course not. waiting for the ref to decide, screaming at the bastard for only adding three minutes... watching to see the whistle go to his lips, waiting for him to blow... these are things that are part of the great spectacle of the game. don't take them away. the game may become fairer. but it won't become better.

i can't believe so many people are in favour of this. there are things which would improve the game (i listed some in the other post), but this is not one of them.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:11 PM
koppas
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by borsuk
how football would be improved by this. i can live with the odd bad decision. i take it as part and parcel of the game - and the game would be poorer without the human nature of referees. all the posts in favour of this seem to feel that the game would be better with perfect decision-making on the goal line. i disagree. it wouldn't be more exciting (it would be less); it would distance the fan from the game; it would take away controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre.

how can anyone be in favour of that? the argument that it would be fairer is a strange one. for example, if things have to be perfectly fair we should have a timer recording time to add on so referees can't make mistakes there. would that make for a fairer game? of course it would. would it be a better game? of course not. waiting for the ref to decide, screaming at the bastard for only adding three minutes... watching to see the whistle go to his lips, waiting for him to blow... these are things that are part of the great spectacle of the game. don't take them away. the game may become fairer. but it won't become better.

i can't believe so many people are in favour of this. there are things which would improve the game (i listed some in the other post), but this is not one of them.
Amen.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:12 PM
celtbion
 
Default

I think an "umpire" would be more useful. Not just in charge of watching for that kind of thing but charged with watching the goings on in the goalmouth during corner kicks and set pieces as well perhaps? I don't think the linesman is of much use in that respect.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:13 PM
Grimson
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by borsuk
it would distance the fan from the game; it would take away controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre.

how can anyone be in favour of that?
Well, because practically speaking, I don't think it would take any of those things out of the game. We're talking about one decision per several dozen matches, and that's a conservative estimate. Prior to West Ham-Blackburn, when was the last really hot goal line controversy?
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:17 PM
S/Side.Red
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by borsuk
how football would be improved by this. i can live with the odd bad decision. i take it as part and parcel of the game - and the game would be poorer without the human nature of referees. all the posts in favour of this seem to feel that the game would be better with perfect decision-making on the goal line. i disagree. it wouldn't be more exciting (it would be less); it would distance the fan from the game; it would take away controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre.

how can anyone be in favour of that? the argument that it would be fairer is a strange one. for example, if things have to be perfectly fair we should have a timer recording time to add on so referees can't make mistakes there. would that make for a fairer game? of course it would. would it be a better game? of course not. waiting for the ref to decide, screaming at the bastard for only adding three minutes... watching to see the whistle go to his lips, waiting for him to blow... these are things that are part of the great spectacle of the game. don't take them away. the game may become fairer. but it won't become better.

i can't believe so many people are in favour of this. there are things which would improve the game (i listed some in the other post), but this is not one of them.
You sound just like someone I know when talking about this subject, and to be honest if it were up to me I probably wouldn't bother with it, but I can see an argument for saying that asking a referee/linesman to judge whether a ball has crossed the goal line/by-line from their positions is a little unfair. The refs are rarely in a position to give the call, and the linesman often have to deal with several bodies and a post in their line of vision.

I wouldn't be against relieving them of having to deal with those calls.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:23 PM
borsuk
 
Default

as to how the game would be better.

and i think, grimson, that it would take something away. referees make decisions and we scream at them, laugh at them, drop down on our knees and do them homage. that's gone with hawkeye or whatever. all that's left is the goal or not. something important is lost.

once again, this will not make the game a better game. and that is the only criterion as far as i'm concerned.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:26 PM
Grimson
 
Default

Wouldn't the game be better by awarding goals when the ball crosses the line, and not awarding them when it doesn't?

There is still plenty of room for referees to £#%&! things up - in fact, as I've pointed out, for every goal line controversy, there are, what, 50 penalty kick controversies?

Spurs drew a game they technically won at Old Trafford a few years ago. West Ham just won a game they technically drew. That's bad for football.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:35 PM
borsuk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimson
Wouldn't the game be better by awarding goals when the ball crosses the line, and not awarding them when it doesn't?
it would. for it to improve the game you'd have to think that having the odd mistake in these situations spoils the game - and i don't think it does. i like the drama and the controversy. i think it's good, not bad.

Quote:
There is still plenty of room for referees to £#%&! things up - in fact, as I've pointed out, for every goal line controversy, there are, what, 50 penalty kick controversies?
but would there be? i'm against the idea even if (unrealistic as it is) there were some sort of divine guarantee that it would only ever be used for goal line decisions. we all know that it would not, though. the game is free of this at the moment. it's a game played by people, not cameras. that would change, and it would go on changing.
Quote:
Spurs drew a game they technically won at Old Trafford a few years ago. West Ham just won a game they technically drew. That's bad for football.
well, here's where we differ. i don't think it's bad for football. it was bad for spurs and wham, sure, but not for football. corrupt refs are bad for football. roman abramovich is bad for football. malcolm glazer is bad for football. all of the things i mentioned in the first post are bad for football. this is a non-issue: a case of trying to find a use for some technology by inventing a problem which doesn't exist, and in the process taking something away from the game.

take tennis, for example. is it better now, with the beep deciding instead of the line judge? remember the drama of mcenroe and connors. nastase had the right idea...
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:43 PM
Grimson
 
Default

I'm afraid we have completely failed to convince each other. I dare say you will have to find a way to deal with it though, because it's coming.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:49 PM
S/Side.Red
 
Default

I find it difficult to argue with you, Borsuk. I don't think it would improve the game much, although I don’t think it would do it much harm as we only get a dozen or so of these calls each season. If it does happen, though, I think it would help the referees in relieving them from having to make what is an almost impossible call.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:49 PM
borsuk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimson
I'm afraid we have completely failed to convince each other. I dare say you will have to find a way to deal with it though, because it's coming.
that's cruel, that is. i'll form a posse of luddite united roaders to sort it out.
 
Unread 19-03-2007, 07:52 PM
Grimson
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by borsuk
that's cruel, that is. i'll form a posse of luddite united roaders to sort it out.
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: Is there anybody on FT who is against goal line cameras?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Manchester United hero Antony celebrates for the cameras after his debut goal fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 05-09-2022 12:00 PM
Ex-Manchester United star Ashley Young incredibly misses open goal while stood on the goal-line fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 02-12-2020 01:00 PM
FIFA gives referees 'final word' on goal-line technology Sloppy Football 29 05-12-2012 05:16 PM
Goal line technology to be used in Ingurlund friendly HolyMackrelDoodleBonkon Football 30 24-05-2012 06:44 PM
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 PM.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.