Blatter opens door to techonology debate

[roscopiko]

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?   

Stop play straight away?  Play stops, everybody stands still?  Positional play is always important, and now play has stopped England can re-position themselves so they can prevent Germanys counterattack.  Also to restart where does the ball go?  Who gets the ball?
But surely if he blows to see a replay, he already kinda knows it went in?  Also imagine the uproar from players and fans, when Ref blows for replay.  Turns out its not in = More abuse, bitterness towards Ref.  Stupid pundits saying 'he should of gone with gut instinct, Ref doesnt have the bottle to make decisions always resorting to video ref.'

The argument about it only takes seconds still doesnt give answers to any of the above. 
So many holes, its unreal and this was only towards an obvious goal which wasnt.  Imagine when you go into offside decisions, penalty decisions, corners, free kick, throw ins decisions.  How many holes?  How many answers you'll need. Where does it stop?

I hate the argument because Tennis, cricket hawkeye and Rugby L video ref use it, Football should.  Completely different games where action can easily be stopped in obvious places.

Also Grass roots argument is bollocks.  But Football is a worldwide game.  Why should only top leagues and worldwide tourneys have it.  i.e. New Zealand players who have never experienced this stopping every minute cos Fabio thought that last tackle should of been a foul.  Hardly promotes fairness.  Who can play the best, only which team can manipulate the video replays the best?


This is all IMHO.  Flame away. 

 

+1 excellent post that

[WarBwastard]

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?   

Stop play straight away?  Play stops, everybody stands still?  Positional play is always important, and now play has stopped England can re-position themselves so they can prevent Germanys counterattack.  Also to restart where does the ball go?  Who gets the ball?
But surely if he blows to see a replay, he already kinda knows it went in?  Also imagine the uproar from players and fans, when Ref blows for replay.  Turns out its not in = More abuse, bitterness towards Ref.  Stupid pundits saying 'he should of gone with gut instinct, Ref doesnt have the bottle to make decisions always resorting to video ref.'

The argument about it only takes seconds still doesnt give answers to any of the above. 
So many holes, its unreal and this was only towards an obvious goal which wasnt.  Imagine when you go into offside decisions, penalty decisions, corners, free kick, throw ins decisions.  How many holes?  How many answers you'll need. Where does it stop?

I hate the argument because Tennis, cricket hawkeye and Rugby L video ref use it, Football should.  Completely different games where action can easily be stopped in obvious places.

Also Grass roots argument is bollocks.  But Football is a worldwide game.  Why should only top leagues and worldwide tourneys have it.  i.e. New Zealand players who have never experienced this stopping every minute cos Fabio thought that last tackle should of been a foul.  Hardly promotes fairness.  Who can play the best, only which team can manipulate the video replays the best?


This is all IMHO.  Flame away. 

These are things can be figured out relatively easily.  In Ice Hockey they play on until there's a natural stoppage in the game regardless of how long it takes.  They have an advantage in that play restarts with face-offs after every stoppage anyway, so after review it's just a matter of deciding which circle the face-off takes place.

In football, with the Lampard goal you would let the play run into the ball went out of play (even if ze Germans scored) and have a goosey at the video.  In this case it was obviously a goal so they'd re-start in the usual way after a goal.  If it was not a goal you'd re-start from where ever the ball went out of play.

The thing about positioning, well that's just something you'd have to accept, but in trade you should almost entirely do away with all of these major controversies.

There's a teeny tiny contradiction in your argument.  You seem to be arguing against using technology but on the other hand you say it's not fair on the lower leagues as they can't use it - which implies technology is a good thing.

Using technology where you can doesn't make all the other lower league games unfair, they're just in the same situation as before, just some of the higher profile games where there's much more at stake will be better officiated.

The game has changed so much just in the last 10-15 years, the only thing that hasn't really changed is how it's refereed.  You've got 45 year old men trying to keep up with Olympic standard sprinters in some case, it's cwazyness.

The details of how it's used and where and how many times are just details that can be sorted.  I don't think there's a real credible argument against it.  People always find a way of preventing progress in the game, but once it's installed those same people generally have to wonder how they coped without it.

[kinboshi]

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?   

Stop play straight away?  Play stops, everybody stands still?  Positional play is always important, and now play has stopped England can re-position themselves so they can prevent Germanys counterattack.  Also to restart where does the ball go?  Who gets the ball?
But surely if he blows to see a replay, he already kinda knows it went in?  Also imagine the uproar from players and fans, when Ref blows for replay.  Turns out its not in = More abuse, bitterness towards Ref.  Stupid pundits saying 'he should of gone with gut instinct, Ref doesnt have the bottle to make decisions always resorting to video ref.'

The argument about it only takes seconds still doesnt give answers to any of the above. 
So many holes, its unreal and this was only towards an obvious goal which wasnt.  Imagine when you go into offside decisions, penalty decisions, corners, free kick, throw ins decisions.  How many holes?  How many answers you'll need. Where does it stop?

I hate the argument because Tennis, cricket hawkeye and Rugby L video ref use it, Football should.  Completely different games where action can easily be stopped in obvious places.

Also Grass roots argument is bollocks.  But Football is a worldwide game.  Why should only top leagues and worldwide tourneys have it.  i.e. New Zealand players who have never experienced this stopping every minute cos Fabio thought that last tackle should of been a foul.  Hardly promotes fairness.  Who can play the best, only which team can manipulate the video replays the best?


This is all IMHO.  Flame away. 

Still don't hear any arguments against the introduction of technology, only your personal inability to provide pragmatic solutions.  No one is saying the game should be stopped every few seconds/minutes. 

Your argument about positional play in regards to Lampard's 'goal' is ludicrous of course. The players should have been back in their own halves ready for the restart from the centre spot.  Instead the wrong decision was made.

[Bongo]

What happens to the time that has been played out before a review is made?

Couple of scenarios, team 'scores' in the last minute of a match, game is played out until final whistle and replay checked. Would you award the goal after the end of the match or add another few minutes on?

What if there was a freak passage of play (several minutes+) without a stoppage?

[Trade-King]

The UEFA cup was scoffed by presenters/pundits, but when they were called into action, they got it right 100% of the time.

This would not be costly for grass roots football, but may cause games to be called off for lack of officials.

To change would be a nightmare whichever way you go, I say stay as it is.

[mondatoo]

Its so simple to implement it untrue.

Behind each goal you have a  red light / green light / sign whatever.
Dedicated person / persons view the replay, if a mistake has been made light is turned on. Play stops and is brought back to that point. Max 10-20 secs later.
suitable for did the ball cross the line situations.
no mistake no light carry on.

As for Offside each team should have 3 challenges per match, which can only be used after a goal has been scored. This makes life far easier for a linesman if it is a close call. He can give the attacking team the benefit of doubt as it can be
proved retrospectively offside or not.

Suitable only for top flight football

The 3 challenges thing should definitely happen similar to tennis whereby if your right you don't lose one and this should also be for pens.I really don't see it slowing the game down very much at all.

[kinboshi]

The UEFA cup was scoffed by presenters/pundits, but when they were called into action, they got it right 100% of the time.

This would not be costly for grass roots football, but may cause games to be called off for lack of officials.

To change would be a nightmare whichever way you go, I say stay as it is.

Not sure I follow.  At grass-roots level do they have the 4th official (do they always have the 2nd and 3rd officials?), anti-doping checks, the same required standard in terms of the pitch, etc.?  The game still continues to be played on a Sunday morning down the park, as it will if additional officials are introduced (oh, they already have been in the Europa league) or if technology is used to aid the refs.

As for the goal-line technology, there's plenty of very simple and available solutions that can be used that will not create 'false positives'.  It could be camera-based (like Hawkeye), or could use some scanner that utilises a chip in the ball (or very thin strands of metal sewn into it somehow).  The ball crosses the line, the ref is notified.  It doesn't cross the line, he isn't.  Why is that not simple?

[EvilPie]

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?   

Stop play straight away?  Play stops, everybody stands still?  Positional play is always important, and now play has stopped England can re-position themselves so they can prevent Germanys counterattack.  Also to restart where does the ball go?  Who gets the ball?
But surely if he blows to see a replay, he already kinda knows it went in?  Also imagine the uproar from players and fans, when Ref blows for replay.  Turns out its not in = More abuse, bitterness towards Ref.  Stupid pundits saying 'he should of gone with gut instinct, Ref doesnt have the bottle to make decisions always resorting to video ref.'

The argument about it only takes seconds still doesnt give answers to any of the above. 
So many holes, its unreal and this was only towards an obvious goal which wasnt.  Imagine when you go into offside decisions, penalty decisions, corners, free kick, throw ins decisions.  How many holes?  How many answers you'll need. Where does it stop?

I hate the argument because Tennis, cricket hawkeye and Rugby L video ref use it, Football should.  Completely different games where action can easily be stopped in obvious places.

Also Grass roots argument is bollocks.  But Football is a worldwide game.  Why should only top leagues and worldwide tourneys have it.  i.e. New Zealand players who have never experienced this stopping every minute cos Fabio thought that last tackle should of been a foul.  Hardly promotes fairness.  Who can play the best, only which team can manipulate the video replays the best?


This is all IMHO.  Flame away. 

Still don't hear any arguments against the introduction of technology, only your personal inability to provide pragmatic solutions.  No one is saying the game should be stopped every few seconds/minutes. 

Your argument about positional play in regards to Lampard's 'goal' is ludicrous of course. The players should have been back in their own halves ready for the restart from the centre spot.  Instead the wrong decision was made.

But what if they stopped play to check and found it wasn't a goal? Englands crappy, often out of position defenders would have a chance to check in a manual and find out where they should be stood ready for a counter attack.

[kinboshi]

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?

Just for example; 

Frank Lampard shot crosses the line.  Refs not sure.

Where does the ref (or 5th ref in stands) stop and check the replay?  While play is carrying on?  When the ball is next out of play?  What happens if German keeper hoofs it and Klose gets onto the end of it now and scores.  They go back and check the replay and Lampards goal stands.  Now does Klose goal not count?   

Stop play straight away?  Play stops, everybody stands still?  Positional play is always important, and now play has stopped England can re-position themselves so they can prevent Germanys counterattack.  Also to restart where does the ball go?  Who gets the ball?
But surely if he blows to see a replay, he already kinda knows it went in?  Also imagine the uproar from players and fans, when Ref blows for replay.  Turns out its not in = More abuse, bitterness towards Ref.  Stupid pundits saying 'he should of gone with gut instinct, Ref doesnt have the bottle to make decisions always resorting to video ref.'

The argument about it only takes seconds still doesnt give answers to any of the above. 
So many holes, its unreal and this was only towards an obvious goal which wasnt.  Imagine when you go into offside decisions, penalty decisions, corners, free kick, throw ins decisions.  How many holes?  How many answers you'll need. Where does it stop?

I hate the argument because Tennis, cricket hawkeye and Rugby L video ref use it, Football should.  Completely different games where action can easily be stopped in obvious places.

Also Grass roots argument is bollocks.  But Football is a worldwide game.  Why should only top leagues and worldwide tourneys have it.  i.e. New Zealand players who have never experienced this stopping every minute cos Fabio thought that last tackle should of been a foul.  Hardly promotes fairness.  Who can play the best, only which team can manipulate the video replays the best?


This is all IMHO.  Flame away. 

Still don't hear any arguments against the introduction of technology, only your personal inability to provide pragmatic solutions.  No one is saying the game should be stopped every few seconds/minutes. 

Your argument about positional play in regards to Lampard's 'goal' is ludicrous of course. The players should have been back in their own halves ready for the restart from the centre spot.  Instead the wrong decision was made.

But what if they stopped play to check and found it wasn't a goal? Englands crappy, often out of position defenders would have a chance to check in a manual and find out where they should be stood ready for a counter attack.

Read my other post.  With the technology there's no need to stop the game if the ball hasn't crossed the line.  The same way you don't answer your phone if it doesn't ring.

[EvilPie]

Still don't hear any arguments against the introduction of technology, only your personal inability to provide pragmatic solutions.  No one is saying the game should be stopped every few seconds/minutes. 

Your argument about positional play in regards to Lampard's 'goal' is ludicrous of course. The players should have been back in their own halves ready for the restart from the centre spot.  Instead the wrong decision was made.

But what if they stopped play to check and found it wasn't a goal? Englands crappy, often out of position defenders would have a chance to check in a manual and find out where they should be stood ready for a counter attack.

Read my other post.  With the technology there's no need to stop the game if the ball hasn't crossed the line.  The same way you don't answer your phone if it doesn't ring.

So what happens when the German counter leads to a goal?

[kinboshi]

Still don't hear any arguments against the introduction of technology, only your personal inability to provide pragmatic solutions.  No one is saying the game should be stopped every few seconds/minutes. 

Your argument about positional play in regards to Lampard's 'goal' is ludicrous of course. The players should have been back in their own halves ready for the restart from the centre spot.  Instead the wrong decision was made.

But what if they stopped play to check and found it wasn't a goal? Englands crappy, often out of position defenders would have a chance to check in a manual and find out where they should be stood ready for a counter attack.

Read my other post.  With the technology there's no need to stop the game if the ball hasn't crossed the line.  The same way you don't answer your phone if it doesn't ring.

So what happens when the German counter leads to a goal?

?

The ball crosses the line, the technology informs the ref.  He blows his whistle and awards the goal.  The ball doesn't cross the line, play continues.

England still lose, of course.

[Longy]

Lol at the debate about the Germans going down the other end and scoring.

Obv Lampards goal counts and the German counter attack doesn't. As after Lampards goal the Germans would have to kick off from the centre circle not the keepers hands.

I am in favour of only clear cut line decision being used for modern technology and nothing that is subjective like penalties. All we need is a chip in the ball and a light behind the goal, obviously with some kind of common sense being used by the officials if the technology goes wrong.

[EvilPie]

Lol at the debate about the Germans going down the other end and scoring.

Obv Lampards goal counts and the German counter attack doesn't. As after Lampards goal the Germans would have to kick off from the centre circle not the keepers hands.
 

So what if the German counter leads to a foul of some description which was a sending off offence?

Would that sending off then be quashed because they shouldn't have been there in the first place?

[Cf]

Lol at the debate about the Germans going down the other end and scoring.

Obv Lampards goal counts and the German counter attack doesn't. As after Lampards goal the Germans would have to kick off from the centre circle not the keepers hands.
 

So what if the German counter leads to a foul of some description which was a sending off offence?

Would that sending off then be quashed because they shouldn't have been there in the first place?

But if the technology is done right then the goal decision should be instant. There'd be no German counter unless it wasn't a goal.

[Longy]

Lol at the debate about the Germans going down the other end and scoring.

Obv Lampards goal counts and the German counter attack doesn't. As after Lampards goal the Germans would have to kick off from the centre circle not the keepers hands.
 

So what if the German counter leads to a foul of some description which was a sending off offence?

Would that sending off then be quashed because they shouldn't have been there in the first place?

If the sending off is related to the actual game then the sending off doesn't count, in effect everything that happens after the ball crosses the line is deemed to never have happened. Of course if Ashley cole decks Klose with a left hook then he would be sent off as that is an off the ball incident.