Printable View
In the light of Roy Carrolls incredible blunder and an obvious goal disallowed, I was wondering wat ya all thought of the idea being floated around fottie circles of a TV ref (as in Rugby etc) to adjudje such situations?
I for one disagree with the idea, such decisssions are part and parcel of the game in my view
Yes they are part and parcel of the game.
That doesn't mean much.
I thought everyone was agreed on this, in theory at least.
For the ball crossing the line anyway, technology would be simple and an obvious progression.
What can be said against it like?
Noones ever going to say 'Remember the good old days when the ref decided whether the ball crossed the line'
A foul is discretionary.
There is no need for discretion or analysis on whether a ball crosses a line.
End of. :)
No no no no no no no. If the game has to stop every time the ref isn't 100% sure, it'll lose a hell of a lot. There's talk of sensors on the goalposts to send an instant signal to the ref if the ball goes over the line - that sort of stuff is fine, but video decisions would be a joke. Rugby games often have ten minutes' injury time now where the TV gets used, and wrong decisions are still made. They aren't perfect, which means they're pointless.
For the record thats what i was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Some kind of auto sensor would be fine. Would mean top level football different from the rest but thats gonna happen anyway.
But the game wouldn't stop all the time if they only used it for any debatable decisions on whether the ball crossed the line. If you think about it, there are not many occasions really when that happens so it wouldn't come into play much.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I used to be all against technology being involved and still am in every other aspect but I think they should at least experiment with this. With the amount of cash involved these days in football :mad: ,poor decisions like that one could cost a club a lot of money.
The game would only stop for half a minute while a video ref studied it, ffs injuries take up about 5 minutes of every game and this would only be once every so often.
That's my point - only the sensors which could give an instant decision should be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkfeckarse
The sensors send a signal to the ref, who then knows instantly if the ball has crossed the line. So no need for the half minute. Anything else though would take far more than half a minute (just look at rugby) and shouldn't come in.Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkfeckarse
This crowd have developed sensorswhich go into the ball and trasmit data to sensorsplaced around th pitch,allowingthe referee to make an instant decision on whether or not the ball crossed th line.
Stu, rugby having so much injury time is less to do with TV replays and more to do with them having to stopped clock/independent time keeper. Football still is a guestimate - I'd rather the time keeping aspect came in more than the video technology in football.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Not saying I agree with the arguement, but don't FIFA only like to have rules that can be applied to all levels of the game? i.e. same rules and decision making for a park game as the world cup final....
Soon???? :confused: :DQuote:
Soon the ball will be smarter than the players
Don't see why it would take longer myself and rugby is a completely different ball game....jaysus half the time there's 10 bodies over the ball and then they've also got to see if the players feel were outside the touchline. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I'm all for the instantaneous line sensor thingy, not a bloke in the stand, rewinding a video.
A lot of the sports that use video technology have natural breaks in the game anyway. In rugby for instance, they're usually checking to see if it's a try, or a 22 or a scrum, but either way the game has stopped anyway. Ditto cricket and American Football.
Will profess my dislike, and therefore ignorance, of rugby first up, but having seen a couple of rugby league games on BBC, there've been many games where you have four or five decisions in a match, which involve everyone waiting around for two minutes at a go. The stopped clock is fair enough, but the videos do add the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
You'd be surprised how long it could take to get a definitive answer on close decisions. If you have a dodgy offside, you have to ask for a video decision, go through various replays to get a perfect angle and relay your call to the ref. All this time, you're standing around while the game's stopped. Let's be honest - linesmen get things right the vast majority of the time (just fans and commentators get them wrong far more often, so the linesmen get the bad reputation), so the benefits of video would be small.
Anyhoo, in summary - instant decisions good, videos bad.
Don't really watch much rugby league tbh, but certainly in proper rugby most of the additional time would be for injuries rather than video refs.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Additionally, the only element up for debate would be goal line decisions - you don't get them even in every other match really, and probably a far lower percentage of games tbh. What was the last debatable call on whether it was over the goal line that anyone remembers?
That's my original point though - if videos start getting used for offsides/penalties/bookings etc. during the game, it'd be a nonsense. If the ball crosses the line and the ref can be given an instant electric shock to raise his arm and give the goal, that's grand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Yeah mayb sensors on the goal line, but once we start using video for offside etc where does it stop?
I saw something on TV the other day that they might be trying something out for the Worthington Cup Final - a ball with a chip that will indicate it goes over the line.
The technology is already there - look at the line calls in tennis and goals in ice-hockey (the red light comes on and the buzzer sounds when a goal is scored)
That brings me back! Milk Cup, Rainbow Cup, Rumbelows Cup... :p What's it called now? Coca-Cola, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
EDIT - Shows what I know...Coca-Cola from '93 to '98, Worthless from '98 to '03, Carling now... :o
agree with that and i think there is huge room for improvement in standards (younger ,fitter officials etc) but i think the human element adds to the games excitement.Quote:
Originally Posted by davros
the "goal" the other night is an extreme example to back up the techky argument but i'm not really into the buzzer when the ball crosses the line.
computers/tecnology are not infallible either.
p.s. be honest we all secretly love giving out about the men in black :D
In Ice Hockey
There is a referee and on the ice( equivalent to the field of play) assisted by five off ice officials . One goal judge seated above the goal to determine if the puck crossed the line or not in hairline decisions and one person to man each sin bin. That is five officials to police 12 players. It would surely not be any harm to have either a sensor in the ball and reader in the goalposts, or else two goal judges seated in position with a TV monitor with the benefit of several angles to assess in close call cases.
I think you would need a goal judge as a back up anyway in case a sensor failed.
I don't think this should be introduced at all. Only the big clubs and the big games will benefit, so as usual the rich get richer. Either have a level playing field or else forget it.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by the 12 th man
.
.
.
particularly that will smith fella.........he's hugely overrated :rolleyes:
How would a club get richer from introducing this technology?Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna