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

Originally Posted by Barca '91

I disagree. Fundementally it is the same game.

As our old primary school coach used to say before playing the best teams, "they are the same as ourselves, just two legs, two arms and a mickey".

No technology should be used, it's part and parcel of the game. If we lost the cup final to a ball that didn't go over the line I'd be angry but accept it. It's football, you win some you lose some*














*Sorry for the cliche.

Originally Posted by Barca '91

I disagree. Fundementally it is the same game.

Exactly. But we're not talking about changing the rule, simply implementing it differently at the higher level. Like retrospectively banning someone for violent conduct based on video evidence. Doesn't happen on the proverbial Hackney Marshes, but I don't hear too many complaints about that one now it's in place.

Originally Posted by tim887

Exactly. But we're not talking about changing the rule, simply implementing it differently at the higher level. Like retrospectively banning someone for violent conduct based on video evidence. Doesn't happen on the proverbial Hackney Marshes, but I don't hear too many complaints about that one now it's in place.

Completely different tim

Professional football for me is a spectator sport - not a TV sport in which spectators are used as a pretty backdrop.

Any technology which means the TV viewers get to see a decision before the spectators is fundamentally wrong.

Goal-line technology may be instantaneous - but do we really need it? How many bad decisions do you get a season?

At the end of the season when you look back, teams receive around as many "favourable" decisions as bad decisions.

It all evens itself out.

Leave football alone, FIFA are already trying to £#%&! it up beyond recognition by outlawing tackling and any physical play.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Spurs drew a game they technically won at Old Trafford a few years ago.

no, because we should have had a penalty. :0)

Originally Posted by borsuk

did i miss something? did someone suggest randomness was the goal? has anyone suggested that increasing randomness is a good idea? the issue is (a) is there a problem in need of a solution and (b) if so, is this going to improve things? the answer to both these questions is, imo, no. as i said earlier, the technology would clearly make decisions fairer, but would not, imo, improve the game. still, if you don't like the argument then you can always change it, eh?

this is a poor rhetorical trick, tbh. if i were to play the same game i could suggest that playing games indoors on plastic pitches would reduce randomness (wind, uneven bounce, puddles), while video panels able to overrule the referee and call play back would remove mistakes from the officiating. but that would be daft, because it would be reducing your point to absurdity just so i could argue against it...

and apples are good without peeling them, so let's eat bananas with the skins on. what happened with cricket is neither here nor there. the questions are those above. i'm sure you have different answers to me - perhaps i'm in a very small minority - but the experience of these (very different) sports is irrelevant.

because other sports may have felt there was a problem which needed addressing. how many football fans are up in arms about this? it's a made up issue.

%@#$&!s. it's not a question of games being settled by mistakes or not. it's a question of whether the game will be better if you stick cameras on the posts. the answer is no. this is not an answer to a problem which ruins games; it's an attempt to find a use for a certain kind of technology.

the argument is not that it is better for mistakes to happen. the argument is whether there is a problem which needs solving, or whether the current system works well. i think it does. i don't think the sport will be any better with cameras making the decisions.

you really have problems addressing the issue, don't you? if you don't like the argument... make up your own and then argue against that.

again, the question is not randomness, conversation or £#%&!-ups (much as you seem to want it to be). the question is whether there is a problem to deal with and whether this will improve the game. for the reasons i stated earlier, i don't believe there is or that it will. how many fans on the terraces (let's pretend, eh) are concerned about this issue? what does that suggest about how the system works now?

there are many issues to deal with to improve football. there are areas where it might be worth experimenting to solve genuine problems which vex fans. this is not one of them.

I seriously thought about neg repping the badger!

Originally Posted by Enjoying Insanity

At the end of the season when you look back, teams receive around as many "favourable" decisions as bad decisions.

It all evens itself out.

that's what they say. they're wrong, of course.

Roy Carroll's not keen