Fifa is to kick off tests of ten systems for goal-line technology next week, avid footie fans will be relieved to hear. The results of the tech tests will be presented to the International Football Association Board (IFAB) when it meets in March for its annual review of the sport's laws. Systems to sense whether a goal has been …
Why don't they just put cameras on the goals and use a 4th official?
Why does the ball need a microchip?
Surely the last place you want to stick tech is in the thing being hit, very hard repeatedly??
It just doesn't make sense.
I guess going this way they wont have to do anything about off the ball fouls, diving or anything else that a '4th umpire' could rule on and make the game a better spectacle.
I totally agree
I have a theory, stick a chip in a ball , *surprisingly* find out it doesn't work , coz it get's broken, then Fifarts can say "we tried it, and it doesn't work"
Whereas if they had a camera on the goalline then all the overly obvious errors would be completely eliminated (you'd still get a few really close ones). But that's not what the Fifarts want to do. They want technology to fail.
Even I, a hater of the game for girls and wannabe actors, know this one.
It's about flow. In order to have a decision by the 4th official the ref on the pitch would have to interrupt play which if the goal is disallowed would allow the teams time to move to more advantageous positions. Alternatively he could let play continue while the recordings are reviewed potentially leading to the situation where a goal at the other end has been scored but must be disallowed before the review is complete. It would create more problems that it solved.
In cricket and rugby there are breaks in the game anyway at the points a decision is needed. To work in fuckwitball it has to be automatic and near instantaneous.
Coat please. Having found that I know something about The Pointless Game I need a shower. In bleach.
...for the life of me understood, a) why it's considered so hard to implement something like this in football when there are dozens of other sporting applications and b) why some many people are avidly against the idea...
Why people appear to be against
I believe the reason Blatter, and therefore FIFA, has taken so long to look into this is down to the fact that Blatter's key supporters, the ones who vote for him come election time, are from countries that don't have the large deep pockets of the Premier League, Serie A or La Liga.
Passing technology laws will increase running costs for these countries, especially if the technology involves scanners on the posts or specialist cameras. Blatter's aim has been to keep these countries on side and resist adding technology.
See, the tech shouldn't have to be compulsory... but made available for those who want to use it. That would make so much more sense and won't force comparitively poor organisers (such as the ones from the lower leagues or from poorer countries) to implement them.
Long, complicated answer required...
but I'm going home soon so...
It's hard because;
The shape of the ball changes shape when it is kicked so deciding when the ball has crossed the line can be tricky; You can't use cameras because people are often stood in the way. You can't use generic sensors across the goal because people will break those sensors. So, you either have to track the ball, real-time, in 3D space and calculate when it has crossed the line (keeping in mind many cameras at once may loose track of the ball as people, posts, officials get in the way so you need a LOT of very high cameras) OR put a sensor in the ball which, as someone pointed out above, is going to be hammered about the pitch reaching speeds of well over 100mph and experiencing forces of many tens of Gs.
Why are people against it? Football is a sport, not a business. Sports are about people. Many people want to retain the human element. Footballers make mistakes. So do officials. It is part of the sport and helps to create the drama. In any case, technology cannot eliminate all the controversies. Take the Ashes series. Whilst the review system has been brilliant Bell was given not out by the review system because there was no "hot spot" on his bat even though he had CLEARLY edged it.
Right. Pub O'clock.
RE: Why people appear to be against
I'm against goal line technology and I'm just your average go-to-matches-and-arm-chair fan. The human mistake element of football is what makes it so intense and therefore enjoyable.
Everton's Saha goal against Arsenal recently is proof of my theory. As I sat in the ground I went through every range of emotions possible, hatred for the ref, disbelief at the scoreline and then by the end joy and relieff that Arsenal won the game. This is what football is all about, going through every emotion possible, not just some boring "yes that happened then that happened" jargon.
And let's be honest, mistakes make for great rivalries, the hand of god is great example of that. And also, had Ingerland's goal been given against the germans, we'd have still got thumped, so who cares about goal line tech? Let the game remain awesome.
> Football is a sport, not a business.
Really? Sure about that? ;)
Going with a camera setup isnt as bad. Take rugby, they have the same problems, and yet the camera system enhances the game. If the ref didn't see it AND 4th official cant see it via the cameras then them the breaks. Its still vastly superior to the travesty we have now.
but why in the UK, and the rest of "rich" western Europe do we have to watch week in week out wrong judgements that some 5th, 6th and 7th official sat in front of some TV monitors could fix ?
I think individual leagues should be allowed to adopt or refuse technology on a vote from the clubs in that league, since it would have to be paid out whatever receipts they get for their games.
We don't need some stupid old fart like Blatter who's stuck back in the 1950's stopping good decisions via the helpful use of technology, and in the long run , technologies use is inevitable. It just frustrating we still have to listen to a twit like Blatter, who should be pensioned off.
Ban em. Red card anyone who wears them and then ban the player.
And ban gloves, cycling shorts, and long-sleeve shirts. Any bugger who complains of being cold obviously isn't running around enough.
Mortorboard icon as thinking about this lead to a flashback of being forced to do forward rolls and repeatedly punch the snowy, frozen ground by a particularly sadistic PE teacher. He got sacked later for shagging a 14 year old schoolgirl (but not prosecuted, bizarrely).
That is all.
I like this idea. I want to see the entire crossbar filled with LEDs that flash green when a goal is scored, or red if the ball gets within, say, 5cm of the line but doesn't cross it.
You could also have each player wearing an LED-adorned hat, with the hat flashing red if the player's off-side or green if they're on-side (presumably the ball will know when it's been kicked).
I think that would be excellent.
You sir, should work for FIFA! :D
Why do they have to do it using technology? isn't the simplest way to appoint two more officials who can stand on wither ends of the pitch and will have a better view of the goal line and different views of the pitch itself so there will be 4 linesmen/persons instead of 2. Wouldn't this be the easiest to implement?
How about a simple solution for a change?
Considering how long it takes to calm the players and restart the game after a questionable decision a maximum delay of 1 second seems a little unneccessary. Two cameras in the top corners of the goal should do it, along with some bloke and a rewind button.
Its not rocket science is it?
Anyway, beer because its almost the weekend.
Given that some thought.
Although an overhead camera seems like the ideal solution, I sense two difficulties. First, being higher up, it can be subject to winds which can cause it to swing and lose its accuracy. Second, and I think potentially more dangerous, balls have been known to fly high of the crossbar. Put a camera up there and, one of these days, a ball's gonna score a hit on it so hard it'll either break the camera or otherwise alter its angle irreperably.
Now, rugby's replay system generally isn't nearly as complicated. The Try Line is mostly out in the open and easy to shoot at from multiple camera angles, plus the ball has to touch the ground to count, so the third dimension's mostly a non-issue. However, a football goal is bordered by the posts and crossbar. Those and the net interfere with any camera. And the ball can score by breaking that plane created by the posts and crossbar...anywhere within. Ground goals aren't the problem; it's the ones in the air that are so hard to judge, especially since most cameras provide a poor picture of depth, making the angled shot useless for a midair check. Whether or not FIFA adopts a tech, I think this makes an interesting challenge for the tech companies involved, and it may find uses outside the pitch.
Just curious, but are any of the techs being tested using stereoscopic cameras? Those might have a better shot at figuring out depth.
re: How about a simple solution
I count 3 cameras to cover every possible angle. And since we're dealing with a well known and profiled target entity here, it's not too hard to do automatic recognition.
ie, did something white and spherical (Or orange, if the "it's snowing" button is on) cross the line? Flag the image in which it does and let that third guy make sure it's the ball and not something else white and roughly spherical.
Does Sepp have a plan?
1, Hold off on the implementation of technology until there are plenty of competing systems.
2, Keep al prospective companies convinced that they are short list contenders.
3, Something to do with briefcases and Cayman Island bank accounts.
If only FIFA officials took bribes, Oh wait....
Nice try, but the real reason FIFA have been against it
They take the old fashioned view that the laws of the game are just that, and should be equally applicable to a sunday morning game in a park as to a World Cup final.
For once it's actually refreshing to hear of a sports governing body that doesn't forget the grass roots.
Yeah, cos my work cricket team is absolutely ruined now that we have to fork out tens of thousands for the hotspot technology and the fourth official. Thats it, the end of the game.
No-one seems to have spotted or pointed out the football is governed by Sepp Blatter, A man who is quite possible the biggest fucking idiot ever to walk the planet. Go find out about him, he's a moron.
If you dig about a bit you'll find that the teams with the most to lose by enforcing a fair, human-error free game are those with the most money.
Its nothing quaint like grass-roots fairness that stops football being fair. Its an authoritarian moron in the pay of the big leagues / clubs.
No real sports fan would disagree that both rugby and cricket have been enriched by the technology, without affecting the poorer teams. Which is why I have a season ticket to hampshire CC and regularly watch London Irish, yet no longer watch the saints.
Football is the Islam of sports until Sepp Blatter goes, about 600 years off the curve.
I don't see many...
...electronic 'substitution boards' or 'added time' boards at Sunday football. Maybe you go a better class of games than me :-)
Seriously though, there are plenty of things that are 'allowed' or even 'mandatory' in professional footie that are not (for cost reasons) implemented at grass routes - so they can't really use this argument (whether or not I agree is another matter).
Forget health and safety. They should be banned 'cos they are...let's be honest.... very gay.
Still Won't Solve Anything
Off hand and completely without any facts besides my own experiences as a player, spectator, coach, and official in this great sport, I'm guessing about the current accuracy rate is somewhere around 99% when you count the number of goal/no goal decisions made by the officiating teams compared to definitive evidence of an error. Is this really the smartest thing to pursue when it's patently obvious that there is no chance of a perfect system, so how much are we going to spend to get that next half a percent and is it really worth it? I think not.
Yeah, I feel for those who were robbed, but so was my team when the official decided a foul was committed in the penalty area and took away our goal in the World Cup (and I was there, right behind the goal line and saw nothing but normal jostling). Sh*t happens. As I've always told my teams "If we play so badly that the official has input in to whether we win or lose, shame on us."