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

Originally Posted by m14red

and while we're at it, why not get them 22 robots and we can watch them act out the statistically correct result. or even better, they could make some sort of super computer into which we could feed all the player stats, history, conditions into, and we could just gather round it and it could flash the result up on the screen. you could do a season in about an hour I reckon.
in fact, what sort of a name is 'tim887'? are you some sort of messageboard robot sent to hasten the ascension of the robot race over us 'error-prone' humans?

Lol. Let's see what happens if United lose the Champions League Final due to a dodgy line decision. Cricket and Rugby are both better for it, and I can't say you ever really hear anyone complain about it in those sports.

Crossing the line is a factual decison that is in no way open to interpretation, so machines will do the job better than humans. If it works and is affordable then why not get it right? I mean it's not as if there aren't enough refereeing decisions to complain about in the average game.

Some of the replies here are in the 'slippery slope' category of uncritical thinking. Cameras inside the posts, or computer chips in the ball, are not going to destroy the game of football that you love.

The buzzer idea is the way to go. Chip in the ball, sensors inside the goal, done. Ref hears the buzz, he gives the goal.

Get with the program, football. It works for tennis and ice hockey with minimal stoppage of play. And for goal line controversies, it's not like they happen every week. About once a month in top flight, at most.

Originally Posted by denis lawless

if the concern is the time wasted....then i'd ban substitutions in the last 15 minutes of a match.....even though hes supposed to, a ref rarely stops the watch for a substitution and its used as a time wasting/breaking the flow of the game ploy, 99.9% of the time, that late in the game...ban it i say

But those are natural breaks, which is very different.

If the decision were in any way delayed, how would it work?

Taking Saturday's example. Do you stop the game immediately while West Ham are still in with a chance of scoring a goal? That wouldn't be fair on them.

If you wait for the ball to next go out of play: What if Blackburn go up the other end and score? Do we tell them to hold off on their celebrations until we've checked the last incident? Then we have a small delay where we decide which of the two teams have scored?

There's no way any kind of delayed decision can be implemented without severely £#%&!ing things up.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Some of the replies here are in the 'slippery slope' category of uncritical thinking. Cameras inside the posts, or computer chips in the ball, are not going to destroy the game of football that you love.

The buzzer idea is the way to go. Chip in the ball, sensors inside the goal, done. Ref hears the buzz, he gives the goal.

Get with the program, football. It works for tennis and ice hockey with minimal stoppage of play. And for goal line controversies, it's not like they happen every week. About once a month in top flight, at most.

Correct.

I still get the feeling the next post will say 'but it will mean stopping the game for ages'.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Correct.

I still get the feeling the next post will say 'but it will mean stopping the game for ages'.

No it won't - just long enough for a quick word from our sponsors

It takes TWO SECONDS. The technology already exists and has been tested. There's no need to guess how it'll work.

The ball physically can't get to the other end of the pitch in that time (even with our counter attacking skills), so it's impossible that it could be a problem. The worst that could happen is that you'd have to deny a team a corner to award them a goal instead.

Originally Posted by denis lawless

if the concern is the time wasted....then i'd ban substitutions in the last 15 minutes of a match.....even though hes supposed to, a ref rarely stops the watch for a substitution and its used as a time wasting/breaking the flow of the game ploy, 99.9% of the time, that late in the game...ban it i say

Yeah, or just make them rolling subs maybe. It's a bloody wind up

Originally Posted by tim887

The worst that could happen is that you'd have to deny a team a corner to award them a goal instead.

Morten Gamst Pederson would be against it then.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

On the other thing, as far as I know anywhere inside the goal itself is part of the pitch. Tevez was definately active on Saturday, but he surely would have been active even if the ball had gone just over the line as well - he was smack in line with the ball in an offside position.

he was potentially offside, but how could he be affecting play if the ball crossed the line before it got to him? what advantage would be gaining by standing inside the goal? could he be given offside before he touched the ball? it's not like he was distracting the keeper. :0)

Originally Posted by jem

he was potentially offside, but how could he be affecting play if the ball crossed the line before it got to him? what advantage would be gaining by standing inside the goal? could he be given offside before he touched the ball? it's not like he was distracting the keeper. :0)

All true, though of course he WASN'T across the line.

For the record though, if a player goes inside the goal then comes back onto the pitch to play the ball, even if he was inside the goal when the ball was played, he's offside. But you probably know this.

Originally Posted by jem

he was potentially offside, but how could he be affecting play if the ball crossed the line before it got to him? what advantage would be gaining by standing inside the goal? could he be given offside before he touched the ball? it's not like he was distracting the keeper. :0)

Exactly; these are the questions that need answering! What if the Blackburn defence all knew he was offside and so allowed the shot to be fired goalwards to spring the trap? (They never, but they might have is all I'm saying). If he was offside inside the goal it would make no difference whether the ball crossed the line or not. He should be deemed to have actively sought to create a distraction - and/or actually created one - just by his mere presence in that position. Possibly.

Originally Posted by Grimson

All true, though of course he WASN'T across the line.

well, yes... (although he might have been over the line).... this is just hypothetically speaking if the ball had crossed the line - for that to have happened, he would have had to have been well over the line himself.


unfortunately, throb, the defence knowing a player is offside doesn't make him offside. it is one of the unfair aspects of the offside interpretation that if a defender steps up to catch player a offside and the ball goes to player b, player a is not deemed to have interfered with play. although he clearly has.

Basically people are calling for the current system that isn't 100% guaranteed to get the decision right to be replaced by another system that isn't 100% guaranteed to get the decision right either.

The only difference being that when the new system (if it's ever introduced) happens to go wrong, they'll be 10 times the controversy that we're getting now. It will also mean top flight professional football will have different rules to the stuff we play on the parks on a Sunday. Never a good idea.

Leave it well alone until there's a fool-proof method that can be incorporated right across the board.

Hawkeye is not 100% accurate nor cheap.

Originally Posted by poppy

Hawkeye is not 100% accurate nor cheap.

That's true, but then it's got a harder job, doesn't it? Footballs don't travel 145 mph.

You're right that it would never be 100% accurate, but one has to think travesties like West Ham-Blackburn would largely be eliminated.

Originally Posted by poppy

Leave it well alone until there's a fool-proof method that can be incorporated right across the board.

jumpers with hawkeye, you mean?

Originally Posted by borsuk

and so are £#%&!-ups, controversy and all the rest of it.

it's a good example of someone who's never watched a game of football in his life deciding that he'll solve the big 'problem' by changing the rules. it's a load of %@#$&!s which would change the nature of the game. you'd have pauses in the play while they review the decision...no thanks.

ask any genuine fan what problems we should throw money at and uncertainty over whether a ball is over the line won't even make the top fifty. standing areas. extortionate ticket prices. diving/simulation. the dog's dinner that is the offside rule. policing euro aways. racism at some grounds. lunchtime kick-offs. fletcher's contrinuing presence in the united squad. £#%&! goal-line cameras. sort out the real problems.

besides, who's going to sing 'the goal-line hawkeye camera's a £#%&!er'?

And whilst goal line cameras* are the only concession to technology I'd be prepared to have.. the pompous agitators that see our game as an opportunity to meddle would never be happy with just implementing goal line technology.. "Oh no.. what next can we improve ? "

THIN END OF THE WEDGE..



* [SIZE="1"]Generally speaking decisions even themselves out, however I do look back on the FA Cup Semi Final from 97, and think Chesterfield were a victim of a bad decision and will probably never have an opportunity like that ever again.

Somewhat related news: The PGA Tour is putting cameras in the bottom of the holes, just to make sure the ball really does go completely in the cup.

www.pgatour.com/news/cameras_in_cup.html

Originally Posted by jem

well, yes... (although he might have been over the line).... this is just hypothetically speaking if the ball had crossed the line - for that to have happened, he would have had to have been well over the line himself.


unfortunately, throb, the defence knowing a player is offside doesn't make him offside. it is one of the unfair aspects of the offside interpretation that if a defender steps up to catch player a offside and the ball goes to player b, player a is not deemed to have interfered with play. although he clearly has.

But if the defence knows Tevez in this case is offside, the ball hits him as he's standing on, or, let's say, just behind the goal line, and the officials have failed to take action against him, who is going to tell hawkeye?

Originally Posted by jem

jumpers with hawkeye, you mean?

I thought of it first. ©

The people who want it bringing in mention its success in other sports as an example of why it would work in football, but they never mention the sports that don't use the technology with no issues.

For example, basketball probably has anywhere between 160-200 'goals' a game, but they don't use it. I'd say an average football game has probably 3 goals a game in it, so the opportunity for dubious goals is far far less. If they don't need it then why do we?

Listen to any radio phone-in on a Saturday after the games. I'd say 60% of calls are about referees. They raise our emotions. We love talking about them. They turns fans purple. Remember, a purple fan is a fan for life.

Take this away and you take away from the game.

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.