Football’s ruling body FIFA has agreed to use goal-line technology (GLT) at next year’s World Cup in Brazil after successful trials in Japan in December. The decision marks a turnaround in thinking for FIFA after big match errors of judgement by referees in major tournament games which have benefitted and penalised England*. A …
England were very lucky to win in 1966. Brazil would almost certainly have won if they hadn't been beaten to a pulp. And the final was a dodgy game with dodgy goals to say the least.
Along with Brazil in 1994 it has to be won of the least graceful finals in the history of the (Post-WW2) World Cup.
And I say this as an Englishman, who used to be a diehard football fanatic, but have since lost all interest in the game.
Anonymous to prevent national backlash and reprisals.
Brazil would almost certainly have won if they hadn't been beaten to a pulp
Yeah and North Korea would almost certainly have won it if they hadn't been beaten to a pulp. And my Granny would almost certainly have been my Grandad if she was well endowed.....
Considering they won in 58 and 62, and again in 70, what I said isn't at all as far-fetched as you think. England's victory is essentially a blip on Brazil's greatest era.
In '66 Brazil, especially Pele, were hacked to bits by Portugal. England got lucky... but then again some luck is required to win any trophy so no need to begrudge poor old England their solitary win.
Subsequent World and European cupy have shown England's true level - not so great as the red-top hacks make out in the weeks before the tournament, not so bad as the red-top hacks make out after the inevitable quarter-final exit.
In '66 Brazil, especially Pele, were hacked to bits by Portugal. England got lucky... but then again some luck is required to win any trophy
An element of luck is needed in many things that are far more important than sports fixtures. In recent years I've read a huge amount about battles in WW2 and other wars in recent history. You might think that, for example, major naval battles between the Royal Navy and Kreigsmarine simply came down to shooting the s**t out of each other but a little bit of detailed reading shows that most often the outcomes were decided by almost ridiculously small details as often as not the result of some luck.
In the days before the third umpire in cricket I remember a three way ODI tournament between Australia, England and Zimbabwe in which Zimbabwean Andy Flower was run out on not very much (and by some margin). The umpire ruled it in and the match continued despite how obvious it was on the replays. Flower got a ton, England lost by single figures and went out of the tournament. The Australian media (the tournament was in Oz) derided England as ridiculous and said they'd been beaten by every country from A to Z. It must have been a bitter pill for the side!
I am all for the Fraunhofer system
If the English are about to score, the magnetic field will be nudged up to form an impenetrable magnetic shield. Made in Germany, what could possibly go wrong?
The German system will obviously be more efficient, but the English system will be more sportsman like.
But will the English system work when there are the wrong types of leaves on the pitch???
The British System
will work if they can figure out how to make it leak oil.
Would these technologies detect the ball if ....
... chubby ball boys with no centre of gravity are lying on top of it?
Thin end of the wedge
You should see what TV broadcasters have done to cricket in Australia - radar, crotch microphones, seagull statistics... - more technology than you can poke a willow stick at.
Re: Thin end of the wedge
Yep and its made Cricket so much more interesting! Who doesnt love to hear the aussies sledging the new batsmen?
Hawkeye has been very successful in tennis and cricket ... but a feature of those games is that the cameras used are basically guaranteed to have a clear view of the ball to enable them to track its path. While Hawkeye will almost certainly prevent goals being either missed or incorrectly awarded in situations where TV replays can show that to be the case (e.g. several recent cases where balls have clearly been over - and in some cases even bounced over - the line with no goal awarded) .... however in the tricky goalmouth scramble cases with half a dozen players all lunging for the ball with the goalkeeper trying to dive on top of it then I fear it wont work as at the crucial moments it may not be able to see the ball - at best it may estimate position based on previous and subsequent movement but that is just another can of worms waiting to be opened by indignant managers in post match interviews.
I that case they don't need more complex and expensive technology, then need extra linesman standing next to the goal to see what happens in those situations.
That example will ALWAYS be difficult to judge no matter what tech is used - whose to say that the studs in the keepers boots don't have a clever piece of magnetic field manipulation jiggery pokery? What this will stop is those ridiculous decisions when the ball was clearly over the line and the goal wasn't awarded.
"extra linesman standing next to the goal to see what happens"
They already have extra linesmen in Champions' League and Serie A among others, they are completely useless. I have yet to see one of them make a correct decision in the marginal situations they are there to judge. Celtic-Juve, ball was clearly only just over first time round for Juve's 1st goal, but if they hadn't bundled it over second time it wouldn't have been given. Arsenal's corner yesterday leading to their goal, clearly came off Podolski should be a goal-kick, it's right in front of the extra lino, how can he not see it?
I wish they would stop mentioning the Ukraine incident. Yes, the ball went over the line, but they were offside. It was "rightly" ruled out for the "wrong" reason.
I think Hawkeye will get used personally. But long-term a sensor-type system may be the better bet. May even lead to offside tech too?
re : It was "rightly" ruled out for the "wrong" reason.
I was about to mention this, but you got there first. Have an upvote.
Re: re : It was "rightly" ruled out for the "wrong" reason.
The one thing about GLT that bothers me is that the proposed systems only consider if the ball crossed the line, which is great and all, but these incidents happen so rarely and so infrequently, as to almost not be worth bothering about.
I hear the argument that 'because football is a low-scoring game, even a single goal is extremely important thus...' blah blah blah and that's right and true and correct.
This argument goes both ways, of course.
So what about the dodgy goals scored that shouldn't have been given because of offside? Or a foul in the build-up? Or, to cite an example from the Bayern Munich thrashing of Arsenal last night, when the goal comes directly from a corner that is clearly incorrectly awarded in the first place? Or a free-kick that should/shouldn't have been awarded? Or a penalty?
These are all much more common occurrences, and none of these systems do a damned thing about any of them. We all (those of us that watch football on telly and live) know from experience that most of the time the telly-bods have stuck a replay up showing fairly clearly what has happened inside of about 15 seconds of it occurring - often the only reason these things aren't shown immediately is so that any follow-on action isn't missed. Where is the help in sorting these out?
This redundant, ridiculous requirement from FIFA that decisions shouldn't interrupt the flow of the game, and should be made in an arbitrary timescale of X hundredths of a second or whatever are plainly nonsense, as anyone who has watched football knows that for the majority of calls that are seen as controversial, or requiring a booking / penalty / sending off generally take much longer than that to administer anyway due to the number of players arguing and complaining with the ref that the decision should / shouldn't stand... plenty of time to review on the magic telly-box.
Even at the most basic level - where's the official timer that stops the clock when the ball goes out of play and starts when it reenters? At the minute stoppage time is broadly a fictional number anyway. The simplest of measures (as has been used extensively and repeatedly in rugby) removes any 'Fergie-time' arguments. And the 'Hackney Marshes' rule doesn't apply, as clocks capable and suitable for this approach cost about £30 - well within the reaches of everyone playing at a level above that of having a kickabout in the park with your mates.
FIFA and UEFA are both jokes.
Re: re : It was "rightly" ruled out for the "wrong" reason.
one of FIFA's main arguments against TV replays is that elite competitions will have it and minor competitions won't I guess with GLT, that arguments' out of the window, the only valid argument remaining against TV replays is that it interrupts the flow of the game. Which means that it should be perfectly OK if each team gets 1 or 2 challenges per game, which can only be issued during a break in play. There can be TV ref in the stands as in rugby who is reviewing decisions as they happen (so, most likely will be able to have already reached a conclusion by the time the appeal is made). If after 30 seconds watching a replay the TV ref can't decide either way, the original decision stands.
It won't be perfect but it will be an improvement
Re: re : It was "rightly" ruled out for the "wrong" reason. @BenR 13:22
didn't agree with all you said but had to upvote for your last sentence
...last time I checked, Football was just a f*ing sport.
It's come to this, has it???
Just injecting a random post to annoy the person who replied without using reply - may his post be bumped off the bottom of the page.
Sport is trying to get a bra off with one hand,
... and your point is?
Just because it is "sport" means we don't have to care about the accuracy judgements of the officials? That we don't want to spoil a match by allowing stupid mistakes to stand when there are ways of assisting the officials to make the correct decision?
Surely anything that relies on electro magnetic radio style signals is surely susceptible to interference or jamming by a mischievous crowd..
That said optical could be blinded by lasers..
I wonder which is more likely.
Less of a "shoot-out"...
More of a "bung-off" surely, given the way these things are normally decided in international football.
They're over-engineering this, why not use the instant replay approach of rugby.
"Use of video referee was introduced to rugby union in 2001. The laws of the game allow for "an official who uses technological devices" to be consulted by the referee in decisions relating to scoring a try or a kick at goal. The decision to call on the video referee (now called "Television Match Official (TMO)") is made by the referee, then the call is made by the replay referee, who takes his place in the stand of the host team or more usually in the Television Outside Broadcast van. He either tells the pitch referee by radio link-up or by the use of a big screen during televised matches. Unlike in the NFL, a coach cannot challenge a call made by the pitch referee."
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Human spaceships dodge ALIEN BODY skimming Mars
- Downrange Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know