Do we really need Goal Line Technology

I started watching football before there was regular TV coverage. Even after TV coverage began, it was many years before slow motion TV replays were generally available to allow us to tell whether goal line decisions by referees were right or wrong. Consequently, everyone accepted that the officials had made an honest judgement. So, it is TV technology that has created a clamour for more technology to make these decisions more accurate. Having said this, goal line technology will help referees perhaps twice per season. Other errors by the officials are made many times each game. How many times is an offside decision wrong each game. How many times is a penalty decision proved wrong. How often is there jostling in the penalty box at corners and free kicks that would have resulted in a free kick outside the box, but result in nothing because it is inside the box. How many bookings and sending offs are wrong on replay.

My question is, why should we introduce technology for one aspect of the game when other aspects of the game would benefit more from its introduction.

Finally, one final hypothesis. Technology is in operation, Barnsley are defending and a shot comes in. It hits the bar and bounces down. The referee cannot decide whether a goal has been scored so he decides to use technology when the ball goes out of play. Barnsley clear the ball long, the ball breaks to a forward who runs through to score. The ball is now dead so the ref goes to a review on the first incident. Technology, proves that the first shot was a goal so not only have Barnsley conceded, they also have a good goal chalked off.

 

Funny you should mention missed offsides, because that is what happened last night just before the Ukraine no-goal. I cans see your argument about the technology not being needed though, surely we can accept that officials get stuff wrong, the players get plenty wrong too.

 

Goal line technology or not...

...all players should have to wear one of those electrocuteing dog collars; then when they are rolling about fakeing injury they can be given something to really moan about - feckin cheats.

 

That isnt how goalline technology works. The ref doesnt wait till the ball goes out to check a video at all. What happens is thr instant the ball crosses the line a sensor picks up on this and sends a signal to the refs watch which vibrates and displays the word GOAL on its little lcd screen. The referee has the correct answer on his wrist before hes even had time to glance at his watch.

At the moment the ref glanvces at the linesmdan. With technology he would have goal or no goal right in front of his eyes before hes had time to check the linesmans flag.

 

I realise that, but how does that convince supporters in the stadiums that justice has not only been done, it has been seen to be done. I think that the only way to do so is to show the incident on the screens around the ground, otherwise supporters will be no more convinced than they are now.

 

Fair point about how we didn't used to have such high-profile coverage and instant replays, but now we do I think we should try to utilise what we can to protect the integrity of the sport.
Having goal-line technology is easy to introduce without stopping the flow of the game, you have something similar to in tennis where sensors can detect the ball is over the line and alerts the ref, so you don't have to wait til a stoppage in play.
Of course there will always be incorrect calls by the officials but that doesn't mean that we should try to minimise how often that occurs.

 

when the 22 players dont make a mistake during the game then thats when the ref as to be fool proof too

until then keep the game as it is

 

Can anyone remember the last controversial goal line incident we had at oakwell? Cos I'm struggling

 

I am struggling to remember the last time we got near the goal line

Next season will be goals , goals , goals!!!

 

April 12th 2004

QPR at Home. 3-3

Paul Furlong's first goal...to make it 1-1.

He shot from a ridiculously tight angle...Antony Kay wacked it away off the line..and the lino said goal...it was never....

 

I remember Gwyn Thomas firing in a shot that hit that bit of post that used to be inside the net, before they got all fancy, and then flew out. Ref didn't give it at first, but then we complained a lot so he did. I guess that was about 1986. Since then, nothing.


That bit that's jutting out. Whatever happened to that bit?

<img src="http://www.newitts.com/images/products/800x800/fl020.jpg">

 

You mean the stantion.

 

or stanchion!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanchion

 

Supporters surely have a brain and know that if a referee looks at his watch to see whether the word goal or no goal is shown then chances are that he isn't lying to everybody and is actually just paying attention to the word in front of him. But if we don't believe them we can always have a little red light behind the net which flashes the instant that the ball crosses the line. The technology for that not only exists but is used in other sports.

 

I would have thought that tennis fans are also bright enough to work out that the umpire has had a message telling him whether the service was in or our. Nevertheless, they have the courtesy (see what I did there) to let the paying public see how the decision was taken.

 

Are they right in other sprorts?
Hawkeye gets it wrong.
It did in in the mahoo dimatrov game. Yes not right spelling.

Chris Gayle yesterday, was that right?
I would say yes becuase i dont think the hot spot mark would have been as big if it was bat first but you couldnt be sure.

 

We aren't talking about technology that uses a picture to let a human look and see whether they THINK it is in or out, we are talking about technology that tells us.

In tennis a human has to look and decide what they think, in cricket a human has to look and decide what they think, in the technology proposed and used in for example ice hockey a sensor simply picks up on when the object crosses the line and sets off an alert, there is no human interpretation.

 

I dont think hawkeye does that will say where the balls been and where it will end up.

The ball left a mark on the pitch in the tennis game, it was different to hawkeye.
I think hawkeyes 7 cameras.

There will always be doubt unless you have know level of interest in either team.

 

In tennis and cricket the system shows the watcher whether the ball or the batsman is out. In Rugby, (both codes) the action from all available camera angles is replayed in the stadium whilst the fourth official reviews the same evidence. The system could equally well be programmed merely to ring a bell, turn on a light or alert any other of our 5 senses deemed to be appropriate. It is just computer programming. However, those sports have chosen to involve the watcher who has paid to attend the event in overseeing the decision, just as they are able to do with all the rest of the referees decisions taken in real time. I cannot believe that you are advocating this decision be taken by an anonymous machine and be communicated to the paying public by a referee who also has not seen the evidence.