FIFA to rule out use of technology | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

FIFA to rule out use of technology

Lundan Cabbie

⚪️ Pasoti Visitor ⚪️
Sep 3, 2008
4,474
1,418
Plymouth
Having just seen the Birmingham "goal" I'm not as convinced that the WHOLE of the ball was over the WHOLE of the line. Maybe if I saw it in high definition I might change my mind but watching on the ITV website, to my eyes it is not totally convincing.
 
Mar 7, 2009
1,694
0
Lundan Cabbie":2hzpz4gx said:
Having just seen the Birmingham "goal" I'm not as convinced that the WHOLE of the ball was over the WHOLE of the line. Maybe if I saw it in high definition I might change my mind but watching on the ITV website, to my eyes it is not totally convincing.

It was in.

ITV showed it was on their coverage of Reading and Chelsea today.
 

Lundan Cabbie

⚪️ Pasoti Visitor ⚪️
Sep 3, 2008
4,474
1,418
Plymouth
pilgrim_pete":ydxtsqnm said:
Lundan Cabbie":ydxtsqnm said:
Having just seen the Birmingham "goal" I'm not as convinced that the WHOLE of the ball was over the WHOLE of the line. Maybe if I saw it in high definition I might change my mind but watching on the ITV website, to my eyes it is not totally convincing.

It was in.

ITV showed it was on their coverage of Reading and Chelsea today.
.

I saw that too and it was only over by millimetres. Hardly "clearly over the line" as bandied by some.
 
Mar 7, 2009
1,694
0
Lundan Cabbie":3lejyxnu said:
pilgrim_pete":3lejyxnu said:
Lundan Cabbie":3lejyxnu said:
Having just seen the Birmingham "goal" I'm not as convinced that the WHOLE of the ball was over the WHOLE of the line. Maybe if I saw it in high definition I might change my mind but watching on the ITV website, to my eyes it is not totally convincing.

It was in.

ITV showed it was on their coverage of Reading and Chelsea today.
.

I saw that too and it was only over by millimetres. Hardly "clearly over the line" as bandied by some.

I agree, but GL Technology would have flagged that up.
It's in. And Ridgewell is in my bleddy dreamteam, would have been a nice 5 points :twisted:
 

Lundan Cabbie

⚪️ Pasoti Visitor ⚪️
Sep 3, 2008
4,474
1,418
Plymouth
pilgrim_pete":ng32qaob said:
Lundan Cabbie":ng32qaob said:
pilgrim_pete":ng32qaob said:
Lundan Cabbie":ng32qaob said:
Having just seen the Birmingham "goal" I'm not as convinced that the WHOLE of the ball was over the WHOLE of the line. Maybe if I saw it in high definition I might change my mind but watching on the ITV website, to my eyes it is not totally convincing.

It was in.

ITV showed it was on their coverage of Reading and Chelsea today.
.

I saw that too and it was only over by millimetres. Hardly "clearly over the line" as bandied by some.

I agree, but GL Technology would have flagged that up.
It's in. And Ridgewell is in my bleddy dreamteam, would have been a nice 5 points :twisted:

Yeah but even if we have GL technology there could still be controvousy. Ref gets a beep saying its over the line, gives a goal and then TV proves it wasn't. When they trialed the "chip in the ball" in Argentina it was thrown out when it signaled a goal despite the the ball going over the crossbar.
 
Aug 17, 2006
104
16
I would go so far as to say it's irresponsible of FIFA to rule out goal line cameras.
If it works in other sports then it can be made to work in football. Without it, our game will become a laughing stock.
The rewards now on offer are simply too great for results to be decided by three guys struggling to keep up with athletes half their age.
People argue against it saying it would delay the game. Well of course it would if TV replays were employed for every decision but how often do these "did it cross the line" incidents occur? Even if you throw in those "phantom" goals (Palace at Ashton Gate, Reading at Vicarage Road) it doesn't even add up to half a dozen a season. Restrict it to such decisions and it's still a big step forward.
FIFA seem more concerned with bringing money into the game than with restoring its integrity.
 

Quinny

Cream First
Jul 15, 2006
5,839
1,235
53
Kenton, Devon
I'm against technology like determining whether the ball crossed the line or not in football: once you have that, where does it stop? Players with monitors in their shoes so officials can accurately determine who is onside or offside?

One of the great things about football, for me, is the debate it causes: whether a ball crossed the line; whether soandso was offside. It has made pub discussions on a Saturday evening for decades. Look at "that goal" from the '66 WC: that in itself has attracted more comment than England actually winning it. It has gone down in the lore of football.

One of the joys/bugbears in footie is that, for the mostpart, the game is controlled by the interpretation of the officials. Sure, a team may well lose a game because a goal was given when it shouldn't (or not when it should), but then that team will benefit in some other way when some dodgy decision goes their way. It all equals out in the end.

Those who berate an official and say that their decision cost them a place in a division and will lose money because of an error have lost the point of the game.
 
Apr 19, 2006
1,784
0
near Aberdeen
Quinny":1l4lrds2 said:
I'm against technology like determining whether the ball crossed the line or not in football: once you have that, where does it stop? Players with monitors in their shoes so officials can accurately determine who is onside or offside?

One of the great things about football, for me, is the debate it causes: whether a ball crossed the line; whether soandso was offside. It has made pub discussions on a Saturday evening for decades. Look at "that goal" from the '66 WC: that in itself has attracted more comment than England actually winning it. It has gone down in the lore of football.

One of the joys/bugbears in footie is that, for the mostpart, the game is controlled by the interpretation of the officials. Sure, a team may well lose a game because a goal was given when it shouldn't (or not when it should), but then that team will benefit in some other way when some dodgy decision goes their way. It all equals out in the end.

Those who berate an official and say that their decision cost them a place in a division and will lose money because of an error have lost the point of the game.

The very last word of Quinny's post encapsultates the entire argument.
 
Mar 3, 2004
1,457
0
Cornwall
Quinny":3ots8yyu said:
I'm against technology like determining whether the ball crossed the line or not in football: once you have that, where does it stop? Players with monitors in their shoes so officials can accurately determine who is onside or offside?

One of the great things about football, for me, is the debate it causes: whether a ball crossed the line; whether soandso was offside. It has made pub discussions on a Saturday evening for decades. Look at "that goal" from the '66 WC: that in itself has attracted more comment than England actually winning it. It has gone down in the lore of football.

One of the joys/bugbears in footie is that, for the mostpart, the game is controlled by the interpretation of the officials. Sure, a team may well lose a game because a goal was given when it shouldn't (or not when it should), but then that team will benefit in some other way when some dodgy decision goes their way. It all equals out in the end.

Those who berate an official and say that their decision cost them a place in a division and will lose money because of an error have lost the point of the game.

I don't really buy that argument - they haven't used it for offside in rugby and they haven't used it for no balls in cricket (although they should). It entirely up to the rule makers what they use it for just because it came in for something that is entirely and instantly measurable why the need to use it for anything else?
 
Apr 15, 2008
4,168
148
London
It's a nice idea in theory, but I subscribe to the theory that if the rule can't be replicated through the divisions the world over, then it shouldn't be adopted. The beauty of football is it's simplicity.
 
Aug 17, 2006
104
16
crownhillpilgrim":211chj8g said:
It's a nice idea in theory, but I subscribe to the theory that if the rule can't be replicated through the divisions the world over, then it shouldn't be adopted. The beauty of football is it's simplicity.

But you wouldn't have floodlights on that basis. Or all seater stadia. Or umpteen other things.
Mind you.......it's no bad thing. Now there's simplicity for you.
 
Mar 3, 2004
1,457
0
Cornwall
crownhillpilgrim":17dqcap2 said:
It's a nice idea in theory, but I subscribe to the theory that if the rule can't be replicated through the divisions the world over, then it shouldn't be adopted. The beauty of football is it's simplicity.

They don't use hawk-eye at the majority of levels of tennis and cricket and they don't wait for a video confirmation of tries at my local rugby club.

Football, as Warnock put it, is 'living in the ice age'.