Bad news. It will take a lot of fun and debate away from us.
Agree. I enjoy being down the pub on a Saturday night talking about football incidents during the day or week. Did it cross/didnt it.
How can any improvement to football be bad news?
It is only a change; not all changes are improvements. Whether or not it is an improvement is a value judgement.
For people who have a thing about getting every decision right, it is a positive move. For those of us that appreciate some of football's rough edges and who are more concerned that the game should be the same no matter what level it is played at, it is a definite backwards step.
The result of this change will mean that if a ball crosses the line its a goal and if it doesn't it isn't. Fundamentaly fair if you ask me. Can't see how anybody can have an argument for non goals to be given and visa versa!
The result of this change will mean that if a ball crosses the line its a goal and if it doesn't it isn't. Fundamentaly fair if you ask me. Can't see how anybody can have an argument for non goals to be given and visa versa!
Means top level football is different from what everyone else can play.
Remember Exeter and the debate that caused on here. It's a part of the game where fans of which ever team can all debate whether it was over or wasnt and quite enjoyable seeing how everyone sees it different. And as I said further up the page it wont stop there. They will bring in other technologies eventually for penalty decisions, offsides, bookings/sending offs
Bad news. It will take a lot of fun and debate away from us.
The result of this change will mean that if a ball crosses the line its a goal and if it doesn't it isn't. Fundamentaly fair if you ask me. Can't see how anybody can have an argument for non goals to be given and visa versa!
Absolutely this, there isn't an argument, but some people love to cling on to their beliefs, whatever the facts are...
The result of this change will mean that if a ball crosses the line its a goal and if it doesn't it isn't. Fundamentaly fair if you ask me. Can't see how anybody can have an argument for non goals to be given and visa versa!
Spot on Muttley.
Should take a max of two minutes to decide from the other officials and pass it down. In this day and age, it's about time.
Bad news. It will take a lot of fun and debate away from us.
Agree. I enjoy being down the pub on a Saturday night talking about football incidents during the day or week. Did it cross/didnt it.
How can any improvement to football be bad news?
It is only a change; not all changes are improvements. Whether or not it is an improvement is a value judgement.
For people who have a thing about getting every decision right, it is a positive move. For those of us that appreciate some of football's rough edges and who are more concerned that the game should be the same no matter what level it is played at, it is a definite backwards step.
A waste of money ... how many times a season would it prove necessary ? .... just another expenditure for (especially) smaller clubs .. who calibrates the equipment before every game ?
Don't see how you can have banter over that really. The "was it a penalty?" "Was he offside?" "Was he fouled?" "How did the ref not give him a red card?" questions are where your precious banter come from?
Don't you do banter, LonelyNorthernAddick ........perhaps that's why you're lonely?
There is always a balance to be had but there are those who want to explore ways to make things better and those who just don't want to change. The argument that you can't have it in lower league matches is ridiculous- so what? At Wimbledon they don't have hawkeye on all the courts. In non league Rugby they don't have video refs but in the big games where wrong decisions can cost millions it seems reasonable to try to minimize them as much as possible.
Personally I'd like to go further - have cameras and let every team have one appeal per game. They would only use it if they were sure ref was wrong and it should only be allowed to be used for a goal decision , booking or sending off and if upheld, the team keeps the appeal. Wouldn't break up games at all. What it would also mean is that it would cut down players arguing with the ref.
really don't see the point of a fundamental change for circumstances that rarely happen - compared to say "offside" goals wrongly being given/disallowed in several games every weekend - and no I don't want technology to "help" there either. Leave it to the officials not technology.
really don't see the point of a fundamental change for circumstances that rarely happen - compared to say "offside" goals wrongly being given/disallowed in several games every weekend - and no I don't want technology to "help" there either. Leave it to the officials not technology.
But officials get decisions wrong! If a ball is over the line, then it's over the line and if the official misses it, then why not have a video ref take 5-10 seconds to check on it??? Good point with offside decisions as well, if an assistant wants to check for an offside leading up to a goal, then they should be able to otherwise the rules of the game will be obsolete. I mean most football fans want their team to win fairly within the rules of the game rather than lost to a wrong penalty of an offside goal or the assistant and ref missing a goal that was a couple foot over the line.
Also, 9 different types of technology??? Why not just have a goal line camera for the video referee to check it??? It works in rugby, doesn't take much time either.
The only reason for this type of change is because of money. Footballs some money orientated bad decisions can mean clubs losing money. No decision should cost a club in that way. In all other senses it should be left to debate in the week
In favour of it and about bleeding time too. This is the 21st century and I am amazed it has taken this long to get the technology approved. Most sports now have this technology except football? Why? Because it might slow the game down? We won't know until it has been tried and tested. The extra officials in champions league games have not improved the game. I heard Mark Lawrenson talking about it on Five Live and he summed it up perfectly. Scoring goals are quite difficult and wouldn't take more than a few seconds to confirm if a ball has cossed the line. When you get occasions as blatant as Frank Lampards 'goal' against Germany or the shot that Roy Carrol scraped from nearly the back of the net then these are decided in an instant and the only debate you are taking away is whether the referee is a homer.
Comments
Give it a few years and the ref will be looking at a screen to see if a challenge in the area results in a penalty or not.
Stamp out the cheating that has crept in to the modern game.
So, if they eventually bring goal line technology in for European matches what on Earth will happen to the poor men-with-sticks on the goal line?
I don't remember that they have ever made a difference to a dubious decision since they were introduced, but I may be wrong!
Or not we'll leave that with the Ref and his GL tech.
And as I said further up the page it wont stop there. They will bring in other technologies eventually for penalty decisions, offsides, bookings/sending offs
number of subs
number of officials (if any)
The big question in my mind is: across all professional divisions on any given matchday, how many times will this technology actually come into play?
A waste of money ... how many times a season would it prove necessary ? .... just another expenditure for (especially) smaller clubs .. who calibrates the equipment before every game ?;o)
Personally I'd like to go further - have cameras and let every team have one appeal per game. They would only use it if they were sure ref was wrong and it should only be allowed to be used for a goal decision , booking or sending off and if upheld, the team keeps the appeal. Wouldn't break up games at all. What it would also mean is that it would cut down players arguing with the ref.
Leave it to the officials not technology.