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

Originally Posted by shadowplay

I am totally against the idea of bringing goal-line technology into the game.For me personally, it would take some amount of enjoyment out of the game.

Football can be very unpredictable at times, and goals, or non-goals for that matter, are all part of the general excitement that is connected to the sport we all love.Take that away, and you kill a little bit of the game.Fair enough, Football has moved on over the years, teams have become richer, more money involved, more to lose etc, but we, the supporters, shouldn't have an element of the game we love taken away from us.

I don't want to hear about any improvements in Rugby due to it, because football is a totally different sport.Take the unsure factor out of football and you lose a big part of the game.

Bang on.

Also, one of the most beautiful things about the game is that fundementally there is no difference from the game that the worlds greatest players play to that chumps like us play on a saturday afternoon/sunday morning on the parks.


Jumpers for goal posts and all that.

Well a lot of people - myself included - would argue that sport should where possible be settled by the competitors on the field of play, not by the mistakes of others. Sport is not improved by randomness, and if it is why not go the whole hog and introduce a roulette element?

Racing and athletics haven't been ruined by photo finishes; the third umpire hasn't ruined cricket; and you rarely (if ever) hear anyone complain about tries being refered to a video referee, despite a lot of people being against it in the first place. People accepted these thing becasue they're better.

So if it's worked in other sports, why not try it in football?

To say that it's better for games to be settled by the mistakes of officials is frankly beyond the £#%&!ing ludicrous. As bad as suggesting penalty shootouts for draws, where at least the players can do something about it.

There's nothing romantic about games being settled by officials £#%&!ing up. Chesterfield get denied probably their only chance of winning the FA Cup to give people something to talk about in the pub. If you need something like that to stimulate conversation, why not just drink at home on your own?

Originally Posted by tim887

Well a lot of people - myself included - would argue that sport should where possible be settled by the competitors on the field of play, not by the mistakes of others. Sport is not improved by randomness, and if it is why not go the whole hog and introduce a roulette element?

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...

Racing and athletics haven't been ruined by photo finishes; the third umpire hasn't ruined cricket; and you rarely (if ever) hear anyone complain about tries being refered to a video referee, despite a lot of people being against it in the first place. People accepted these thing becasue they're better.

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.

So if it's worked in other sports, why not try it in football?

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.

To say that it's better for games to be settled by the mistakes of officials is frankly beyond the £#%&!ing ludicrous. As bad as suggesting penalty shootouts for draws, where at least the players can do something about it.

%@#$&!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.

There's nothing romantic about games being settled by officials £#%&!ing up. Chesterfield get denied probably their only chance of winning the FA Cup to give people something to talk about in the pub. If you need something like that to stimulate conversation, why not just drink at home on your own?

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.

football isnt about controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre...its about banging the ball in the back of the net.....thats it...clinical goals for and goals against.....when it comes down to basics.....thats it !

yes, the beauty of the seeing man and ball working as one and gliding majestically past opponents is a sight to behold.....but if that man scores and then the referee decides whether to give it or not, it becomes a big fat hairy arsed farce.

if you want controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre then maybe you should be watching ice skating where one judge will give 5.5 and another will give a 6 and if thats not controversial, strune with human judgement and error, full of drama and theatre then i dont know what sport is......

football does have many things that need tweaking, goal line decisions being one of them.

Originally Posted by denis lawless

football isnt about controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre...its about banging the ball in the back of the net.....thats it...clinical goals for and goals against.....when it comes down to basics.....thats it !

i hate to say it but you sound like a chelsea fan

yes, the beauty of the seeing man and ball working as one and gliding majestically past opponents is a sight to behold.....but if that man scores and then the referee decides whether to give it or not, it becomes a big fat hairy arsed farce.

it's fine as it is. really, how often is there a £#%&! up? is it worth introducing technology which will inevitably be used more and more often in more and more different situations, when - really - there is no real problem? like i said, it's a made up issue.

if you want controversy, opinion, judgement, human nature, error, drama and theatre then maybe you should be watching ice skating where one judge will give 5.5 and another will give a 6 and if thats not controversial, strune with human judgement and error, full of drama and theatre then i dont know what sport is......

i don't. i don't want people who clearly have all the wrong priorities changing the game for me, because they'll make a right mess of it. if the people pushing this idea were genuine fans of the game they'd find a hundred more pressing things to deal with first. that they don't tells me all i need to know about how close they are to the game.

Originally Posted by borsuk

i hate to say it but you sound like a chelsea fan

i do agree with the fact that there are many other issues that need addressing and i fear the new wind blowing through the game might not be a particularly good one

if it ain't broke...

I think the problem to be honest, Borsuk, is that you whilst not being stupid, are not as great a thinker as you have yourself down for. You like arguing as a concept, but aren’t great on ideas. Hence your attempts at patronising people falling on stony ground

The randomness I referred to. Well if the technology exists to eradicate goaline errors, we could choose to do just that (assuming it passed cost/benefit tests). To not do so means you are guaranteeing say three wrong results a season that could have been correct had we chosen that route. This is in addition to the normal refereeing/linesmen £#%&!ups. So three teams get an extra 3 points for nothing, and 3 lose some on a completely arbitrary basis. If you don't like the word 'random', then call it a lottery. The Goaline Lottery

Originally Posted by borsuk

this is a poor rhetorical trick

In fact it's you who's using the 'poor rhetorical trick', as I'm talking about the thing being debated, whilst you have brought in the comparison to plastic pitches.

How many fans are up in arms about it: well pretty well everyone when it happens to them. Chesterfield, Spurs, Blackburn, Bolton being just some examples off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by borsuk

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.

Sorry I don't understand that. It's just an excuse to use technology? No it isn't. It is an excuse to eradicate mistakes. It will cost £250k per ground, which is a lot of money to spend just to introduce technology ‘for a laugh’. I really don’t get what you’re talking about.

Originally Posted by borsuk

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.

I do address the issues, however you seem to lack the capacity to understand them, and simply respond by doing precisely what you're accusing me of. This is a modus operandi of yours.

So let's recap. Every time a mistake happens, the affected manager, media etc. say: "it's time we looked at technology." So they are. Looking at it. To see if it's viable and will improve the game. That strikes me as being eminently sensible. They're not committing to do it, just seeing if it would be an improvement. That's how the world advanced from the Dark Ages.

[quote=jem;200493]make players wear collars and belts with offside transmitters too.[quote]

Actually, that is a brilliant idea.

[quote=24hr Leavesey;202154][quote=jem;200493]make players wear collars and belts with offside transmitters too.

Actually, that is a brilliant idea.

Absolutely, mate. Paul Scholes, FC Porto.

[quote=tim887;202184][quote=24hr Leavesey;202154]

Originally Posted by jem

make players wear collars and belts with offside transmitters too.

Absolutely, mate. Paul Scholes, FC Porto.

If only.

Would it be fair to say Mourinho wouldn't be at Chelsea now if that goal stood ?

[quote=24hr Leavesey;202207][quote=tim887;202184]

Originally Posted by 24hr Leavesey

If only.

Would it be fair to say Mourinho wouldn't be at Chelsea now if that goal stood ?

Very possibly. Obviously he'd already done well winning the league a couple of times, and the UEFA Cup the year before, but he wasn't exactly the name on everyone's lips before then. They could easily have had Capello or someone for the last couple of years. Or probably just one year having seen Real this season lol.

I doubt anyone would be having this conversation if it wasn't for the incessant whining of the self serving media and every football pundit with a vested interest pushing the issue after every minor controversy

It's coming no doubt about it, aided and abetted by every "outraged" @#%&! with a sky subscription

Originally Posted by rubbernecker

I doubt anyone would be having this conversation if it wasn't for the incessant whining of the self serving media and every football pundit with a vested interest pushing the issue after every minor controversy

It's coming no doubt about it, aided and abetted by every "outraged" @#%&! with a sky subscription

Bingo! Absolutely spot on. Who gives a £#%&! what armchair fans think about what happened at the game really? At the game you don't see replays and it's all the better for it.

Originally Posted by borsuk

the scholes 'offside' against porto had me throwing stuff at the tv, but my anger at the unfairness of the decision doesn't mean that i automatically support goal-line cameras.

Originally Posted by borsuk

you're drawing an unjustified parallel between anger at individual errors in particular matches and a desire to change the game to prevent them. the scholes 'offside' against porto had me throwing stuff at the tv, but my anger at the unfairness of the decision doesn't mean that i automatically support goal-line cameras.

Exactly right borsuk. That decision was highly questionable. But even had there been technology to prevent or correct it, then I have a feeling another decision would have been slipped into procedings somewhere along the line to give porto a fair chance at progressing

Another problem with thte implementation of this kind of technology is to what level do you go down to with it ?? First Division, second division ??

What if United draw Altrincham away in the FA cup and win by a "dubious" goal, is that fair, as the financial implications would be huge....

One other thing to think about is that say the ball is deemed to have crossed the line, but there is a delay of five seconds before the ref gives it. For that five seconds the ball is technically "dead", but the players would still have to play 100%. It would be a charter for players to commit horrific fouls knowing there could be no comeback as if the goal stands the ball is dead, hence no foul....

Best leave it as it is IMHO

Idealistically, the F.A should cough up for all league teams who can't realistically afford it.

Seeing as they £#%&!ed not far off a billion quid on Wembley, it's not too much to ask.

The proposal is for top flight only at the moment. This is not the problem it seems, as everything doesn't have to be the same at every level. As far as I'm aware, they don't have a Fourth Official in non-league, for example. Or retrospective banning for violent offences. It's a myth that the game is the same at the top level as we play in the park.

In cricket, for example, they only have televsion umpires for televised games. So two games in the same division are being dealt with differently. No one has a problem with this any more: it's the norm. One game is dealt with better than it would have been - the one that would have potentially have caused controversy - the other is no worse than it would have been without it.

However at 250k a pop, top flight only seems fairly logical to start with.

Originally Posted by tim887

TheIt's a myth that the game is the same at the top level as we play in the park..

I disagree. Fundementally it is the same game.